Chapter 3

Affected Environment 

and Environmental 

Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 53

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

Introduction

This chapter describes the existing natural and physical environment of the Wrangell Island project area

that may be affected by the alternatives under consideration (Affected Environment). These descriptions 

are followed by a discussion and analysis of the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of

the alternatives under consideration (Environmental Consequences). The analysis in this FEIS focuses on

the key issues that highlight significant effects or environmental consequences that may occur from the 

alternatives under consideration. These issues include effects to timber economics and timber availability,

wildlife habitat, scenic integrity and access management. Effects are quantified where possible, and

qualitative discussions are also included. The analyses of potential impacts of the alternatives include 

implementation of applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines, Forest Service best management 

practices, and recommended mitigation.

Discussions of resources and potential effects use existing information included in the Forest Plan, other

project environmental analyses, project-specific resource reports, agency and scientific studies, and 

related information. Where applicable, such information is briefly summarized and incorporated by

reference to minimize duplication. The project record includes all project-specific analysis information,

including resource reports, literature cited, documentation of field investigations, and information

resulting from public involvement efforts.

The Project Area

The Wrangell Island ecosystem is a temperate rainforest interspersed with muskegs and influenced by a 

maritime climatic zone. The topography of Wrangell Island is generally steep and mountainous, with high 

mountain ridges bisected by broad valleys and creeks. Mountains reaching nearly 3,000 feet in elevation 

make up much of the island. Numerous small steep streams flow from mountain slopes, lakes, and 

muskegs throughout the island. Although many mountain streams coalesce in the valley bottoms, few are 

large enough to develop any substantial floodplains. Roughly half of the island is productive forest land, 

with the rest being wetlands, forested wetlands, and bogs that developed on poorly drained till underlying 

a layer of organic soils.

The City of Wrangell (population approximately 2,400) is located at the island’s north end and is the 

largest community on Wrangell Island (ADOL 2016). Thoms Place, located on the southwest coast of 

Wrangell Island, is a small community with a summertime high population of about 22. Wrangell’s 

economy was previously based on mining, timber harvesting, manufacturing, fishing, and seafood 

processing. However, tourism is now playing a larger role in Wrangell’s economy, and the City and 

Borough of Wrangell are actively seeking diversification and economic growth.

Administrative and Ecological Land Divisions

The land area of the Tongass National Forest has been divided in several different ways to describe the

resources. Divisions vary by resource since the relationship of each resource to geographic conditions and 

zones varies. Land divisions important for the effects analysis are briefly described.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 54

Land Use Designations

The Forest Plan uses land use designations (LUDs) to guide management of National Forest System

(NFS) lands within the Tongass National Forest. The Wrangell Island project area includes five LUDs:

Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Old-Growth Habitat, Municipal Watersheds and Scenic 

Viewsheds (see figure 2). Table 3 summarizes the management emphasis, and provides the amount and 

percentage of acres for each LUD on Wrangell Island. Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan contains a more 

detailed description of each LUD. 

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

Land Use 

Designation Description Acres

Percentage of 

NFS land on 

Wrangell Island

Timber 

Production

Emphasis is sustained, long-term timber production. 

Timber harvest activities are located and designed to 

meet timber objectives. See Forest Plan pages 3-116 

through 3-121.

52,579 46%

Modified 

Landscape

Emphasis is sustained, long-term timber production while 

minimizing the visibility of development in the Foreground 

distance zone. Recognizes scenic values of forested 

lands as viewed from identified visual priority travel 

routes and use areas (Forest Plan, appendix F) and 

provides for modifying timber harvest practices 

accordingly by reducing the effects to scenery. See 

Forest Plan pages 3-109 through 3-115.

9,992 9%

Scenic 

Viewshed

Emphasis is sustained, long-term timber production while 

minimizing the visibility of developments. Recognizes 

scenic values of forested lands as viewed from identified 

visual priority travel routes and use areas (Forest Plan, 

appendix F) and provides for modifying timber harvest 

practices accordingly. Emphasizes the scenic values to a 

greater degree than the Modified Landscape land use 

designation. See Forest Plan pages 3-101 through 3-108.

19,197 17%

Old-growth 

Habitat

Emphasis is to maintain areas of old-growth forests and 

their associated natural ecological processes to provide 

habitat for old-growth associated resources. Timber 

harvest for timber management objectives is not 

compatible with this designation. See Forest Plan pages 

3-57 through 3-62.

30,929 27%

Municipal 

Watershed

Emphasis is to maintain these watersheds as municipal 

water supply reserves in a manner that meets provisions 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State of Alaska 

Drinking Water Regulations and Water Quality 

Standards, in accordance with Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) 2542 and 36 CFR §251.9. Timber production is 

not compatible with this designation, but administrative 

use of timber is allowed if the land use designation 

objectives are being met. See Forest Plan pages 3-51 

through 3-56.

413 <1%

Total National Forest system lands 113,110

Total lands of other ownership 21,196

134,306
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 55

Project Area

The project area is Wrangell Island itself and is about 134,306 acres in size. Approximately 16 percent of 

the project area (21,196 acres) includes lands of other ownership. These lands are managed by the State of

Alaska, Alaska Mental Health Trust, Sealaska Corporation (tribal), the City and Borough of Wrangell, and 

private landowners.

Value Comparison Units

Value comparison units (VCUs) are distinct geographic areas, each encompassing a drainage basin

containing one or more large stream systems. Boundaries usually follow major watershed divides. The

Wrangell Island project area encompasses VCUs 4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 4800, and portions of 

VCUs 5040 and 5050 (figure 2).

Game Management Units

Game management units (GMUs) are geographical areas defined by the Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) to manage wildlife populations. Hunting and trapping regulations govern each unit. The 

Wrangell Island project area is located in GMU 3, which encompasses Wrangell, Etolin, Zarembo, Kuiu, 

Kupreanof, Mitkof, Coronation, Deer, Kashevarof, and Woronkofski Islands.

Wildlife Analysis Areas

Wildlife analysis areas (WAAs) are subdivisions of GMUs and the land division used by the ADF&G for

wildlife analysis. The boundary for the Wrangell Island project area and WAA 1903 are identical.

Watersheds

A watershed refers to the area that contributes water to a drainage or stream and to the portion of a forest

in which all surface water drains to a common point. Watersheds can range from tens of acres that drain a 

single, small intermittent stream, to many thousands of acres for a stream that drains hundreds of

connected intermittent and perennial streams. The watersheds used for this analysis were delineated by

the US Geological Survey according to a national hierarchy of hydrologic unit codes (HUC). In coastal

areas, the ocean is considered the common point, so some of these units drain unconnected streams into

the ocean.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The 2001 Roadless Rule identified inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands and how 

they are to be managed. Timber harvest and road construction are not allowed within Roadless Areas. 

There are six inventoried roadless areas on Wrangell Island which comprise approximately 64 percent of 

the NFS land (71,926 acres) (table 4 and figure 13). These roadless areas are in a relatively natural state; 

however, there has been past timber harvest and road construction within the West Wrangell IRA. 

The Wrangell Island Project does not propose timber harvest or road development activities in any 2001 

inventoried roadless areas. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 56

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

IRA Name Area (acres)

Central Wrangell 13,394

East Wrangell 7,609

North Wrangell 8,089

South Wrangell 14,203

Southeast Wrangell 18,360

West Wrangell 10,271

Total 71,926

Biogeographic Province

This designation refers to 22 ecological subdivisions of Southeast Alaska identified by generally distinct

ecological, physiogeographic, and biogeographic features. Plant and animal species composition, 

climate, and geology within each province are generally more similar within than among adjacent

provinces. The Wrangell Island project area is located within the Etolin Island and Vicinity 

biogeographical province. Effects of management at this scale are analyzed for the Forest Plan.

Land Use

Wrangell Island contains several different land ownerships and land use restrictions which define where it 

is appropriate to harvest timber. The Wrangell Island project area includes 21,196 acres of other land 

ownerships (15 percent) and 113,110 acres of NFS lands (85 percent of Wrangell Island) (figure 14). 

NFS lands are divided into land use designations (LUDs) to guide land management on the Tongass 

National Forest (chapter 3 of the Forest Plan). There are five LUDs within the project area. Figure 2 

shows the project area and the LUDs.

Three of the five LUDs on Wrangell Island, Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic 

Viewshed, are suitable for old-growth timber harvest and are referred to as development LUDs. These 

development LUDs comprise 81,773 acres, or 72 percent, of the NFS land. Of this 72 percent, just over 

half is included in Wrangell Island’s proposed action and could be affected by project implementation. 

Two of the LUDs on the island, Old-growth Habitat and Municipal Watershed, are within the natural

setting LUD group and are not suitable for old-growth timber harvest. These LUDs comprise 

approximately 31,337 acres (28 percent) of the NFS lands. 

The 71,926 acres of IRAs on Wrangell Island are not available for timber harvest. VCU 4790 (25,377 

acres) is also not available for old-growth timber harvest. 

Figure 14 provides a visual representation of the lands suitable for old-growth harvest. Figure 15 presents 

this information in a bar graph, showing the difference between the overall area of Wrangell Island, the 

forested area, and how much is proposed for harvest, by alternative.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 57

Figure 13. Inventoried roadless areas on Wrangell Island

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 59

Figure 14. National Forest System lands available for harvest

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 61

Figure 15. Area of forested land on Wrangell Island

Analyzing Effects 

Environmental consequences are the resulting effects of implementing an alternative on the human 

environment. The EIS describes and provides the analysis of environmental effects of the proposed action 

and each alternative analyzed. In this document, this is covered in Chapter 3. Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences, which is devoted largely to a scientific analysis of the direct and indirect 

environmental effects of the proposed action and of each of the alternatives. The terms effects and 

impacts are used synonymously.

How the Effects of the Alternatives Were Evaluated

Within each issue and resource area, applicable direct and indirect effects were evaluated. Cumulative

effects, unavoidable adverse effects, and resource commitments lost or unable to be reversed were also

evaluated for all alternatives considered in this FEIS. These effects are defined as follows:

Direct effects – Those effects caused by the action and occur at the same time and in the same general

location as the action.

Indirect effects – Effects that occur at a different time or in a different location than the action to which 

the effects are related.

Cumulative effects – Effects on the environment that result from the incremental impact of the action 

when added to the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 62

Interrelated projects are defined for the Wrangell Island Project FEIS as activities that could potentially

interact with the alternatives being considered in a manner that could result in cumulative impacts. 

Interrelated projects have been grouped as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. See Table 5.

Unavoidable adverse effects – Effects that could occur as a result of implementing any of the action 

alternatives. Some of these effects would be short-term, while others would be long-term.

Irreversible commitments – Commitments that cannot be reversed, except in the extreme long-term.

This term applies primarily to the effects of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural

resources, or to factors, such as soil productivity, renewable only over long periods of time.

Irretrievable commitments – Commitments lost for a period of time. An example is trees that will not 

grow back on a road that is built and continuously maintained. The commitment is irretrievable rather 

than irreversible because if the road maintenance stops, then trees will eventually reoccupy the former 

road bed.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions in the Project Area

The following table provides a summary of the management activities within, or adjacent to, the project 

area that could cumulatively contribute to the environmental effects of the Wrangell Island Project.

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

Project Description Agency /

Jurisdiction

Resources 

Potentially Affected

Past

Past Timber Harvest on Wrangell Island

Past timber harvest has occurred on approximately 6,800 acres of 

National Forest land within the analysis area, beginning in the early 

1900s. These areas have regenerated into vigorous, predominately 

even-aged timber stands. 

Tongass 

National 

Forest

Aquatics

Scenery

Silviculture

Soils

Subsistence

Wetlands

Wildlife

Existing NFS Roads on Wrangell Island

There are approximately 100 miles of existing National Forest System 

roads within the analysis area. Of these, approximately 90 miles are 

open to the public for motorized travel. There are an estimated 34 miles 

of road in other land ownerships within the analysis area. This includes 

roads managed by the Alaska Department of Transportation, City and 

Borough of Wrangell, Alaska Mental Health Trust, and the Alaska 

Department of Natural Resources (Division of Forestry). The Alaska 

Mental Health Trust and the Division of Forestry both manage their 

roads as Closed (as defined by the Alaska Forest Resources and 

Practices Act).

Tongass 

National 

Forest

Access Management

Aquatics

Invasive Plants

Recreation

Subsistence

Wetlands

Wildlife

Tyee Electrical Transmission Line

The existing Tyee electrical transmission line provides power to Wrangell 

and Petersburg and traverses the analysis area for approximately 26

miles. The vegetation within the approximately 150-foot-wide corridor 

underneath the transmission line is regularly maintained where 

necessary, including where it is in close proximity to the ground and 

trees are present. This includes motorized access to the transmission 

line. The transmission line and corridor are visually evident in the 

landscape.

Tongass 

National 

Forest

Invasive Species

Scenery

Subsistence

Wetlands

Wildlife
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 63

Project Description Agency /

Jurisdiction

Resources 

Potentially Affected

Alaska Mental Health Trust Timber Sales 

Most of the AHMT land which was feasible to harvest was harvested in 

the 1990s along the Zimovia Highway. The most recent harvest (104 

acres) occurred in 2014. The Wrangell Ranger District knows of no 

additional specific timber sales at this time.

Alaska 

Mental 

Health Trust

Subsistence

Wildlife

Present

Roadside Microsales

The Wrangell Ranger District Roadside Decision Notice makes available 

up to 500 thousand board feet (MBF) of fuelwood and sawtimber per 

year in microsales as commercial salvage harvest of dead, dying, or 

blown down fuelwood and sawtimber from natural disturbance, and the 

minor harvest of green fuelwood and green sawtimber, depending on 

demand from the public and local operators. The first microsale from the 

Roadside project was sold in 2012 and in each subsequent year, an 

average of 4 microsales have been sold. Each year a net average of 20 

MBF from an average of 2 acres have been harvested. The Wrangell 

Island Project analysis area includes harvest units that overlap the 

Roadside project, meaning that the Wrangell Island Project could 

potentially harvest areas also covered by the Roadside project.

Tongass 

National 

Forest

Aquatics

Plants

Silviculture

Timber 

Economics/Availability

Wetlands

Reasonably Foreseeable

Ongoing Pre-commercial Thinning

Approximately 4,000 acres have been thinned since the 1970s with an 

additional 1,250 acres anticipated over the next 10 years.

Tongass 

National 

Forest

Aquatics

Plants, Sensitive and 

Rare

Silviculture

Wildlife

Alaska Mental Health Trust Timber Sales

AMHT manages its land with an objective to produce revenue for the 

Trust. Within the study area, AHMT has harvested, leased, or sold much 

of its land. The remaining land is slated to produce revenue at some 

point in the future either by timber harvest or by land sale for 

development, either by timber harvest or by land sale for development. 

There is an annual land sale program for AMHT lands on Wrangell 

Island. The amount of land for sale is not determined until the offering is 

publicized. Typically, subdivision lots and small sized parcels are offered 

to the highest qualified bidder through a competitive land sale. 

Alaska 

Mental 

Health Trust

Wildlife

Invasive Plants

Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange

On May 5, 2017, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Public 

Law 115-31) was enacted and authorized an exchange of lands between 

the Alaska Mental Health Trust and the USDA Forest Service. Since the 

exchange has not yet occurred, but must be completed within 2 years 

from the date of enactment of this Act, in an equal evaluation process, it 

was treated as a reasonably foreseeable action.

The non-Federal lands, acquired by the USDA Forest Service, will 

become part of the Tongass National Forest, and will be administered in 

accordance with the laws applicable to the National Forest System. As 

part of the Tongass National Forest, these lands will be managed 

consistent with the 2016 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, as amended, and managed pursuant to the specific 

provisions in of the exchange act including being managed to preserve 

the undeveloped natural character, wildlife, watershed and scenic values 

of these lands and provide for recreational opportunities.

Tongass 

National 

Forest / 

State of 

Alaska

Subsistence

Wildlife
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 64

Project Description Agency /

Jurisdiction

Resources 

Potentially Affected

Southeast Alaska State Forest Plan

On February 29, 2016, the Commissioner of the Department of Natural 

Resources adopted the Southeast State Forest Management Plan. The 

plan will guide long-term active management of these forest lands and 

identifies the policies that will be followed. The establishment of the 

State forest is for timber management while also allowing other 

beneficial uses of public land and resources.

State of 

Alaska, 

Division of 

Forestry

Aquatics

Wetlands

Wildlife

Earl West Cove Area Timber Sale

The timber sale is named in the Alaska Division of Forestry’s Five-Year 

Schedule of Timber Sales (CY2015-2019). The timber sale area is 

located on the eastern coast of Wrangell Island. The sale would include 

an estimated total harvest volume of 12.5 MMBF from approximately 700 

acres. An estimated 5 miles of road could be constructed for access in 

the harvest areas. The sale will be wholly on Southeast State Forest 

lands. It is currently scheduled for harvest in the 2019 calendar year. 

State of 

Alaska, 

Division of 

Forestry

Access Management

Aquatics

Invasive Plants

Scenery

Silviculture

Timber 

Economics/Availability

Wetlands

Wildlife

Pat Creek Restoration Project

Conceptual plans have been presented for a project which proposes 

restoration of stream channel by addition of large woody debris to 

enhance stream habitat and stabilize banks. The project site includes 

approximately 840 feet of the East Fork and 750 feet of the West Fork 

upstream of their confluence; and, 500 feet of Pat Creek downstream of 

the confluence. Project is located on State of Alaska land.

US Fish and 

Wildlife 

Service

and the 

Southeast 

Alaska 

Watershed 

Coalition

Aquatics

State Entitlement Land Selection from the Tongass National Forest 

The State of Alaska is in the process of completing its entitlement 

selections from the Tongass National Forest, under Section 6(a) of the 

Alaska Statehood Act of 1959. The State has identified the 16,683-acre 

Thoms Creek parcel, near Thoms Lake/Thoms Place on Wrangell Island 

for selection (Sec. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 T65S R85E and Sec. 29, 30, 32 

T65S R86E). The State has assigned Priority “C” ranking or a very low 

priority for conveyance ranking for this parcel but it continues to be 

State-selected lands for the foreseeable future.

Tongass 

National 

Forest / 

State of 

Alaska

none

Institute Property Development

The City and Borough of Wrangell is in the initial stages of planning 

development of the currently undeveloped 140-acre Institute Property 

near the 5-mile marker on Zimovia Highway for housing, health care and 

educational facilities. This property abuts the National Forest.

City and 

Borough of 

Wrangell

none

Mill Site Development

The City and Borough of Wrangell have expressed interest in pursuing 

ownership and development of the privately owned former sawmill site, 

for industrial purposes, possibly including a timber processing facility.

City and 

Borough of 

Wrangell

none

Available Information

Much of the Tongass National Forest resource data resides in an electronic database formatted for a

geographic information system (GIS). The IDT resource specialists used GIS software (ESRI ArcMap) to

assist in the analyses of these data. GIS data is available in tabular (numerical) and map formats. For this

FEIS, all the maps, and most of the numerical analyses, are based on GIS resource data supported by

field inventories.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 65

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations provide direction on how to proceed with the

preparation of an EIS when information is incomplete or unavailable. None of the incomplete or

unavailable information identified was critical to the impact analysis.

It should be noted that there is incomplete knowledge about many of the relationships and conditions of

wildlife, fish, forests, climate change, jobs, and communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of

a large forest area is a complex and developing science. The biology of fish and wildlife species prompts 

questions about population dynamics and habitat relationships; and the interaction of resource supply, the 

economy, and communities is the subject matter of an inexact science. However, the basic data and

central relationships are sufficiently well-established in the respective sciences for the deciding official to 

make a reasoned choice between the alternatives, and to adequately assess and disclose the possible

adverse environmental consequences. This analysis used the best information available.

Other Resources

Resources Not Present

The Forest geologist and the District soil scientist reviewed the proposed action and determined that karst

and cave resources are not present in the Wrangell Island project area. Therefore, analysis of this resource 

is not carried forward in this FEIS.

Resources Likely to be Unaffected

Some resources in the project area are likely to remain unaffected by the Wrangell Island Project and are 

discussed to the extent that measurable effects, or differences between the alternatives, are present. These 

resource sections follow the key issues. 

• Air Quality and Climate Change

• Aquatics

• Cultural Resources

• Environmental Justice

• Plants: Sensitive and Rare

• Invasive Plants

• Recreation

• Silviculture

• Soils

• Subsistence

• Wetlands

Issue 1: Timber Economics and Availability

Summary

The Wrangell Island Project is intended to provide a stable economic timber supply. In order to meet this 

objective, the project is designed to include sufficient units and volume to allow the Forest Service to 

adjust future timber sale offerings from the project area to meet fluctuating market conditions. The 

provision of a long-term stable and economic timber supply is intended to support local operators and 

encourage investment in the wood products industry as it transitions to include more young-growth

harvesting and restoration activities.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 66

The Wrangell Island Project Timber Economics Resource Report provides an assessment of the current 

timber sale economics within the project area and the financial efficiency of implementing the proposed 

action and action alternatives. The analysis concentrates on the potential economic effects associated with 

old-growth timber harvest and road construction/reconditioning. The analyses utilize existing information 

from field surveys, spatial GIS data, financial analysis models, monitoring results, scientific literature, 

and other sources.

Affected Environment

Analysis Area

Proposed units in each alternative on Wrangell Island is the analysis area for determining timber volume 

and for running the financial efficiency analysis. Although timber from other land ownerships may

influence the value of the timber or units from other projects may be included in an offering, these factors 

are not incorporated into this analysis.

Also, this analysis is limited to a snapshot in time based on available information and does not speculate 

on timber market fluctuations. At the time of the appraisal, the value of the timber or costs may increase 

or decrease. 

The cumulative effects analysis considers the entire Tongass National Forest, to include the Tongass 

timber program. Contracts are usually not restricted to bidders from a distinct geographic area and can 

include bidders outside of Southeast Alaska. In addition to the timber managed by the Forest Service, the 

State of Alaska (Division of Forestry (DOF), Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHT), and the University of 

Alaska), and Alaska Native Corporations also support the Southeast Alaska timber industry.

Existing Condition

About 74,000 people live in towns, communities, and villages located on islands and coastal lands of 

Southeast Alaska (ADOL 2013). The Southeast Alaska region accounts for about 12 percent of the State's 

population and 6 percent of the land base. Federal lands comprise about 95 percent of Southeast Alaska, 

80 percent within the Tongass National Forest. Most Southeast Alaska communities are island based, with 

very few road connections. These communities are mostly within or adjacent to the Tongass National 

Forest, and depend primarily on the Forest to provide natural resources associated with fishing, timber, 

mining, and tourism for employment. The Forest is also accessed for recreation and subsistence use.

Appropriate management of the Forest’s natural resources is, therefore, critically important for local 

communities and the overall regional economy. The loss of even a small number of jobs can force 

families to leave, destabilizing entire communities (Alexander et al. 2010).

On NFS lands within the analysis area, timber harvest has occurred in VCUs 4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 

4790, and 4800. Past timber management activities on Wrangell Island began in the early- to mid-1950s 

using clearcut cable-yarding methods. Larger-scale clearcut logging began in the late 1970s and continued 

through about 1995, resulting in approximately 7,490 acres of clearcut harvest on NFS lands on Wrangell 

Island. Approximately 74 percent of the harvesting on NFS lands on Wrangell Island occurred in the 

1980s and 1990s (for more information regarding past harvest in the analysis area, see the Silviculture

Resource Report). Currently, only minor harvest activities are occurring on private or NFS lands on 

Wrangell Island. Two small sales known as the Backline Cable Timber Sale and Backline Helicopter are 

currently under contract. The first one is even-aged management harvest of approximately 267 acres 

while the latter is 237 acres of uneven-aged management.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 67

Methods Used to Analyze Effects

Effects Analysis Indicators

The following indicators were used to measure potential effects of project activities on timber supply and 

timber sale economics:

• Total net volume of sawlog and utility (MMBF)

• Total net volume of sawlog (MMBF) 

• Net sawlog volume by species (MMBF)

• Acres of harvest by logging system

• Acres of harvest by prescription 

• Cost of logging, haul and roads per total sawlog timber volume available ($/net MBF1

)

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

• Number of annualized jobs supported by export policy compared to number of annualized jobs 

supported by domestic processing

Environmental Consequences

Forest Service Costs

The financial efficiency analysis used in this EIS is one tool decision-makers use when making 

comparisons between alternatives. Table 6 summarizes the estimated administrative expenditures 

associated with the project.

The Forest Service is not mandated to make money by offering timber for sale. The timber program is not 

unusual in costing more to operate than the government receives in revenues from the program. Many 

programs on the Forest generate little to no revenue, including subsistence, heritage, inventory, 

monitoring, land management planning, geology, fish and wildlife management, trail improvements, and 

fire protection.

The Forest Service is directed to sell commercial timber sales at not less than appraised rates. The Alaska 

Region implements this direction through established appraisal methodologies. Forest Service 

administrative costs play no part in the calculation of appraised value.

Average Forest Service costs, derived from the Alaska Region’s budget allocation, are used in the 

financial costs analysis and available in the project record. These include costs for environmental analysis 

and documentation (NEPA), sale preparation, sale administration and engineering support.

Sale preparation costs include unit layout, cruising, appraisal, and contract development. Sale 

administration consists of administering the timber sale contract from the time the sale is awarded until 

the sale is completed. Normally, costs are associated with office documentation, timber sale accounting, 

and site visits to the sale area, which is generally adjacent to a new or existing road system. Engineering 

support consists of planning and timber sale contract administration activities associated with new facility 

and road construction, use of existing facilities and road maintenance.

Average Forest Service costs are $20.78/MBF for projected sale preparation cost, $12.18/MBF for 

projected sale administration cost, and $22.67/MBF for projected engineering support cost (Vermillion 

2012). An average cost of $47.97/MBF for environmental analysis and documentation (NEPA) is used by 

FASTR at the project proposal stage (Gate 1) to provide the Responsible Official with a relative estimate 

of projected costs associated with performing NEPA (Gate 2) for a proposed project. At the Gate 1 level, 

these estimates are helpful to the Responsible Official in determining feasibility of the project, and if the 

 1 MBF = one thousand board feet
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 68

project merits funding. The Gate 1 stage, however, is not considered NEPA, but rather the foundation of 

project development. Because the Wrangell Island project is in the Gate 2 NEPA phase, costs estimates at 

the Gate 1 phase are considered “sunk” or have already been spent; therefore, these costs are not 

represented in the FASTR outputs at the Gate 2 level or in table 6. $3.2 million is an estimate of the 

Forest Service cost to perform NEPA under the current Alternative 2 unit configuration. More information 

on the Forest Service gate system, or steps that must be completed to prepare a timber sale for offer, can 

be found in appendix A of this FEIS.

The cost per MBF best indicates the Forest Service’s cost of moving the area towards its desired condition

and are useful estimates to compare relative differences among alternatives. Sale preparation costs 

increase significantly when implementing partial-harvest (single-tree or group-selection) units, as 

compared to clearcut harvest units. Accessibility to the units is another major cost factor. All of these 

factors could cause the cost estimates in table 6 to be higher or lower than regional averages. 

Table 6. Estimated Forest Service Costs

Forest Service Costs Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Sale preparation $0 $2,440,936 $1,735,955 $799,363 $720,804

Sale administration $0 $1,057,383 $751,994 $468,539 $422,492

Engineering support $0 $619,775 $440,774 $872,067 $786,363

Total project costs $0 $4,118,094 $2,928,723 $2,139,969 $1,929,659

Source: N Stearns FASTR (October 2015)

Projected Employment and Income

All action alternatives would have direct and indirect impacts to the economies of Southeast Alaska 

communities. Direct impacts are employment and income directly generated by the project. Table 7 below 

shows the employment multipliers for jobs supported with timber harvested and processed through the 

export policy and for 100 percent domestic processing (with the exception of yellow-cedar which is 

determined to be a surplus species by the Secretary of Agriculture (FSM 2455.1) and analyzed as 100

percent exported).

Table 7. Employment multipliers

Project generated jobs and 

income in Alaska1

Current Export Policy3

(2012 multiplier/MMBF net 

sawlog)

100% domestic processing4 of 

Western hemlock, Sitka spruce 

and western redcedar

(2012 multiplier/MMBF net 

sawlog)

Local jobs in logging per MMBF net 

sawlog 2.26 2.26

Local jobs in sawmilling per MMBF 

net sawlog 2.68 2.68

SE Alaska jobs in Transportation 

and other services2 related to 

domestic manufacturing per MMBF 

net sawlog

0.62 0.62
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 69

Project generated jobs and 

income in Alaska1

Current Export Policy3

(2012 multiplier/MMBF net 

sawlog)

100% domestic processing4 of 

Western hemlock, Sitka spruce 

and western redcedar

(2012 multiplier/MMBF net 

sawlog)

SE Alaska jobs in Transportation 

and other services2 related to 

export per MMBF net sawlog

1.53 1.53

Source: FASTR Version October 10, 2015

1 – Employment coefficients for period 2007-2010. Source: Susan J. Alexander Alaska Region Economist (August 9, 2012).

2 – Transportation and other services include towing, independent trucking, stevedoring, scaling, quality control, and marketing.

3 – Current export policy allows 100% Yellow-cedar export plus “Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce export” (equal to 50% total sale net 

sawlog volume); assumes Western redcedar will be domestically processed

4 – Assumes Western hemlock-Sitka spruce-Western redcedar = 100% Alaska domestic processing; Yellow-cedar = 100% export.

Direct employment and income from logging, sawmilling, transportation and other services are estimated 

by converting harvested timber volume (MMBF net sawlog) to local annualized jobs and income 

(Alexander 2012). Table 8 below shows projected Alaskan employment and income generated from 

logging, sawmilling, and transportation and other services utilizing the current R10 Export Policy. Table 9

provides the same analysis assuming 100 percent domestic processing is utilized. Indirect economic 

impacts include indirect and induced employment and income. These are a result from employment and 

wages generated from spending in support of timber operations and from spending by employees on 

services present in local economies. Although the use of indirect employment coefficients is applicable at 

large scales, such as regional or statewide assessments, they are not useful at small local scales, and are 

misleading. Therefore no calculations of indirect effects have been conducted for this project. 

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

Direct employment and income Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Local jobs in logging per/ MMBF net 

sawlog 0 115 82 87 78

Local jobs in sawmilling/MMBF net 

sawlog 0 44 31 33 30

Local jobs in transportation & other 

services2/MMBF net sawlog 0 10 7 8 7

SE Alaska jobs in transportation& 

other services related to 

export2/MMBF net sawlog

0 53 38 40 36

Total jobs supported 0 222 158 168 151

Direct income 0 $11,316,438 $8,048,070 $8,555,031 $7,714,267

Source: N Stearns FASTR (October 2015)

1 – Current export policy allows 100% yellow-cedar export plus hemlock/spruce export equal to 50% total sale net sawlog volume.

2 – Transportation and other services include towing, independent trucking, stevedoring, scaling, quality control and marketing.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 70

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

Direct employment and income Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Local jobs in logging per/ MMBF net 

sawlog 0 115 82 87 78

Local jobs in sawmilling/MMBF net 

sawlog 0 112 80 85 76

Local jobs in transportation & other 

services2/MMBF net sawlog 0 26 18 20 18

SE Alaska jobs in transportation& other 

services related to export2/MMBF net 

sawlog

0 14 10 11 10

Total jobs supported 0 267 190 202 182

Direct income 0 $11,153,964 $7,932,533 $8,432,257 $7,603,611

Source: N Stearns FASTR Version October 10, 2015

1 – Assumes 100% Alaska domestic processing of hemlock/spruce/western redcedar; 100% export of yellow-cedar.

2 – Transportation and other services include towing, independent trucking, stevedoring, scaling, quality control, and marketing.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Action

The no action alternative is required by Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Section 1502.14(d) to 

provide a baseline for comparing alternatives. It also responds to concerns and comments that there 

should be no harvest timber or road construction, though this would not meet the purpose and need. 

Under the no action alternative, no timber would be harvested; no roads would be constructed or 

reconstructed. Access management (Issue 4) would implement the existing management condition 

provided in the 2007 Access Travel Management Decision Notice (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Under 

Alternative 1, 23.5 miles of existing NFS road currently open to motorized use would be closed, 2.5 miles 

of existing NFS road would be decommissioned, and approximately 74 miles of existing NFS road would 

be available for public use for motorized vehicles of all types.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action would supply the most timber volume (about 51 MMBF net sawlog) and direct 

annualized jobs (222 to 267) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the 

second-highest indicated advertised rate (negative $59.23 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative 

$220.64 per MBF net sawlog for domestic) relative to the other action alternatives. 

This alternative has the second-highest proportion (68 percent) of unit acres utilizing the most expensive 

yarding system, helicopter ($406 per MBF net sawlog) for partial harvest. In proportion to total volume, 

this alternative exhibits the lowest road cost per net MBF and constructs the most miles of new roads for 

all alternatives.

This alternative is similar to Alternatives 3 and 4 in terms of the acres of shovel and cable yarding 

proposed. This alternative increases opportunity for partial harvest using helicopter over all the others; 

however, some cases may be better-suited for shovel or cable yarding.

Alternative 3 

This alternative would supply the third-greatest volume of timber (about 36 MMBF net sawlog) and 

direct annualized jobs (158 to 190) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the 

highest indicated advertised rate (negative $55 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative $216.41 per 

MBF net sawlog for domestic) relative to the other action alternatives. 

This alternative has one of the middle proportions (48 percent) of unit acres utilizing the most expensive 

yarding system, helicopter ($413 per MBF net sawlog) for partial harvesting. In proportion to total 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 71

volume, this alternative exhibits the second highest road cost per net MBF and constructs the secondfewest miles of new roads for all action alternatives.

This alternative is similar to Alternatives 2 and 4 in terms of the amount of shovel and cable yarding 

proposed. This alternative reduces costs thereby increasing economics.

Alternative 4 

This alternative would supply the second greatest volume of timber (about 39 MMBF net sawlog) and 

direct annualized jobs (168 to 202) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the 

third-highest indicated advertised rate (negative $61.54 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative 

$222.95 per MBF net sawlog for domestic) relative to the other action alternatives. 

This alternative has one of the middle proportions (48 percent) of unit acres utilizing the most expensive 

yarding system, helicopter ($427 per MBF net sawlog) for partial harvesting. In proportion to total 

volume, this alternative exhibits the highest road cost per net MBF and constructs the second-most miles 

of new roads for all action alternatives.

This alternative is similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 in terms of the amount of shovel and cable yarding 

proposed. This alternative strives to increase supply using helicopter yarding within units that are only 

suitable for helicopter.

Alternative 5

This alternative would supply the least volume of timber (about 35 MMBF net sawlog) and direct 

annualized jobs (151 to 182) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the most 

negative indicated advertised rate (negative $92.74 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative $254.15 

per MBF net sawlog for domestic) relative to the other action alternatives. 

This alternative has the highest proportion (73 percent) of unit acres utilizing the most-expensive yarding 

system, helicopter ($429 per MBF net sawlog) for partial harvesting. In proportion to total volume, this 

alternative exhibits the second-highest road cost per net MBF and constructs the fewest miles of new 

roads for all action alternatives.

This alternative has the most helicopter harvest of all alternatives. In addition, it reduces the amount of 

shovel and cable harvest from the other three action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

Indirect and cumulative effects are based on the ability of this project to contribute to the orderly flow of 

timber to large and small timber purchasers, mill operators, and value-added wood product industries in 

Southeast Alaska that are dependent upon the Forest’s timber resources. Timber harvest under the action 

alternatives would contribute to meeting projected market demand for timber in Southeast Alaska and 

support logging and sawmill or export jobs. 

Economic effects are analyzed in the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS, 2003 Forest Plan SEIS, 2008 Forest Plan 

Amendment FEIS and most recently in the analysis for the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS. 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would contribute to the timber–related economy of Southeast Alaska. Alternative 

1 would not contribute to the timber–related economy and timber from other areas on the Tongass would 

have to be used to provide a supply. 

Past timber harvest has occurred in VCUs 4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, and 4800, and on State lands in 

the Pat Creek drainage and just south of Earl West Cove. Past timber management activities on Wrangell 

Island began in the early to mid-1950s using clearcut cable-yarding methods. Larger-scale clearcut 

logging began in the late 1970s and continued through about 1995, resulting in approximately 7,490 acres 

of clearcut harvest on NFS land on Wrangell Island. Past harvest on Wrangell Island on acres that are now 

lands other than NFS totals 3,286. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 72

There is no reasonably foreseeable timber harvest on Wrangell Island’s NFS land. The young-growth 

stands on Wrangell Island do not meet commercial requisites; therefore, harvest of these stands is not 

considered reasonably foreseeable. Reasonably foreseeable timber harvest on lands other than NFS

includes the State’s Earl West Cove area timber sale of 12.5 MMBF scheduled for 2019. This additional 

timber could help attract a purchaser for the Wrangell Island Project, since a larger amount of wood could 

be offered between the two sales.

This project contains a supply of old-growth “bridge” timber that could support local jobs and facilitate 

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

Forest and throughout Southeast Alaska. To support this, the Forest Service is currently working to 

implement other large timber projects in Southeast Alaska. Other ongoing bridge timber projects include 

the Big Thorne Project on Prince of Wales Island with an estimated 133.9 MMBF of old-growth timber -

most of which is under contract and has been harvested in part - and 15 MMBF of young-growth timber.

Another bridge timber project includes the Saddle Lakes Timber Sale near Ketchikan. This project is 

currently being reanalyzed to account for the AMHT land exchange. In addition, the Kosciusko 

Vegetation Management and Watershed Improvement project authorized the harvest of approximately 

29.9 MMBF of young-growth timber to begin the transition to predominately young-growth management.

Summary of Effects

A comparison of the effects of project activities on timber supply and timber sale economics is provided 

in table 10.

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

and timber sale economics 

Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of Uneven Aged 

Harvest 0 3,359 1,311 1,572 2,635

Acres of Even Aged 

Harvest 0 1,408 1,337 1,420 805

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

Logging Systems

Cable 0 998 969 1,010 576

Shovel 0 528 411 543 343

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

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

Timber Volume by 

Species

Sitka Spruce Volume 

(MBF) 0 11,195 7,961 8,463 7,631

Hemlock Volume (MBF) 0 26,460 18,818 20,003 18,037

Western Red Cedar

Volume (MBF) 0 4,071 2,895 3,077 2,775

Yellow-cedar Volume 

(MBF) 0 9,159 6,514 6,924 6,244

Total Net Sawlog Volume 

(MBF) 0 50,885 36,188 38,468 34,687

Utility Volume (MBF) 0 6,411 4,560 4,847 4,371

Total Net Volume (MBF) 0 57,296 40,748 43,315 39,058
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 73

Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Road Construction

NFS Road Construction 

(miles) 0.0 16.8 15.4 15.9 12.7

Temporary Road 

Construction (miles) 0.0 9.9 8.9 10.3 6.6

Total Miles 0.0 26.7 24.3 26.2 19.3

Costs

Logging Cost ($/ net MBF) 

Stump to Truck $0 $325.55 $298.66 $303.96 $352.30

Stump to Mill cost1 ($/net 

MBF) 0 $534.68 $530.44 $536.99 $568.18

NFS Road 

Construction/Reconditionin

g Cost ($/net MBF) 

0 $61.63 $72.23 $70.89 $69.93

Indicated Advertised Rate 

Current Export Policy2

$/MBF

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

Indicated Advertised Rate 

100% Domestic 

Processing3,4

$/MBF

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

Jobs Supported

Total Jobs Estimated 

under Current Region 10 

Policy (includes export and 

domestic processing)

0 222 158 168 151

100% Domestic 

Processing 0 267 190 202 182

Source: N. Stearns FAST-R Version October 2015, Tongass GIS 2015

1 – Stump to mill costs includes cost of specified road construction/reconditioning.

2 – Current export policy allows 100% yellow-cedar export plus hemlock/spruce export equal to 50% total sale net sawlog volume.

3 – Assumes 100% Alaska domestic processing of hemlock/spruce/western red cedar; 100% export of yellow-cedar.

4 – Indicated Advertised Rate: Pond Log Value minus stump to truck costs and other associated costs (camp, lodging, P&R margin, 

etc.).

( ) indicates a negative value. Only positive appraised contracts could be offered.

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat

Introduction

Following the concerns described in Issue 2, this section will focus on the effects of old-growth timber 

harvest and road construction on wildlife habitat. For the purposes of this analysis, impacts to wildlife can 

fall into categories of direct, indirect and cumulative effects. Cumulative effects take into consideration 

the interaction of the proposed project and past treatments, as well as those in the reasonably foreseeable 

future (Table 5). These functions are introduced in the “Affected Environment” section and analyzed by 

species in the “Environmental Consequences” section. 

A full wildlife analysis was conducted, and more information can be found in the Wildlife Resource 

Report. The Wildlife Resource Report provides an assessment of the current condition of the analysis 

areas and the potential effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives on wildlife resources. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 74

The resource report focuses on Tongass National Forest management indicator species (MIS), Wrangell 

Island endemic species, and migratory birds that could utilize habitat in the proposed project area. 

Additional background and supporting information comes from the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS, and the 1998 

Wrangell Island Analysis Report (USDA Forest Service 1998). The wildlife resource report meets the 

requirements of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) which requires that the Forest Service 

provide the ecological conditions necessary to: contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened 

and endangered species, conserve proposed and candidate species, and maintain a viable population of 

each species of conservation concern within the plan area. These documents are incorporated here by 

reference.

The 2016 Forest Plan ROD was approved on December 9, 2016 and became effective on January 8, 2017. 

The wildlife analysis has been reviewed for consistency with the 2016 Forest Plan, and Forest-wide Plan 

components in chapter 5 for wildlife including Guideline G-WILD-02 (bald eagle habitat).

In addition, the project analyzed the 13 management indicator species (MIS) used for the Forest Plan

effects analysis under the heading of “Former Management Indicator Species” (USDA Forest Service 

2016c, p. 3-230). This analysis used the best available science for these species, including the addition of 

new (since 2008) scientific references. The interdisciplinary team has reviewed the new references used 

in the 2016 Forest Plan FEIS for applicability to project activities, and updated the effects analysis as 

needed. 

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

species of interest analyzed

Species name Scientific name

Threatened and Endangered

Humpback Whale (Mexico DPS) Megaptera novaeangliae

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Queen Charlotte Goshawk Accipiter gentilis laingi

Management Indicator Species

Alexander Archipelago Wolf Canis lupis ligoni

American Marten Martes Americana

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Black Bear Ursus americanus

Brown Bear Ursus arctos horribilis

Brown Creeper Certhia Americana

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber

Red Squirrel Tamiasciurus hudsonicus

River Otter Lutra Canadensis

Sitka Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis

Vancouver Canada Goose Branta Canadensis fulva

Species of Interest

Great Blue Heron Ardea Herodias

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus mamoratus

Wrangell Southern Red-backed Vole Mvodes gapperi wrangeli

Migratory birds See the wildlife resource report for a complete list of 

species
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 75

Threatened and Endangered

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)) protects 

threatened and endangered species or their designated critical habitat. This document is prepared in 

accordance with those legal requirements and follows standards established in Forest Service Manual 

(FSM) direction (2672.42) and the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR §402.12). There is one ESAlisted species known to occur within the project vicinity: the humpback whale. All others were dropped 

from further analysis. There is no designated critical habitat for any threatened or endangered wildlife 

species on Wrangell Island.

Humpback whale – Mexico distinct population segment (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Status: Threatened

Effect Determination: May affect, Not likely to adversely affect

Rationale: The Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines, Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and 

Endangered Species Act all have measures in place to reduce disturbance and the risk of collision with 

ocean vessels. All project activities would be conducted in accordance with Alaska Water Quality 

Standards for marine access facilities, which would limit the effects to water quality and exposure to 

potential oil/fuel spills.

Forest Service Region 10 Sensitive Species

Sensitive species are species identified by the Regional Forester that may have viability concerns on 

National Forest System lands within the region. Viability concerns are evidenced by a significant current 

or predicted downward trend in population numbers, density, or habitat capability that will reduce a 

species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670.5). The Alaska Region updated its list of sensitive species in 

2009. The Forest Service Manual states that viable populations and habitats of these species will be 

maintained and distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands (FSM 

2670.22). As part of the NEPA process, Forest Service activities are reviewed, through a BE, to determine 

their potential effect on sensitive species, and how impacts to these species should be minimized or 

avoided (FSM 2670.32). There was only one sensitive species analyzed for the Wrangell Island Project: 

the Queen Charlotte goshawk. All others were dropped from further analysis due to lack of habitat or 

occurrence in the project area.

Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive

Effect Determination: May adversely impact individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability in 

the planning area, nor cause a trend toward Federal listing.

Rationale: There would be noise and disturbance from project activities. Removal of productive old 

growth (POG) would decrease available nesting and foraging habitat.

Other Special Status Species

Several species listed as threatened or endangered that occur in Alaska, including the Eskimo curlew, 

Aleutian tern, short-tailed albatross, spectacled eider, Steller’s eider, northern sea otter, and polar bear, are 

not addressed in this document because the project area is outside of their known range. The Kittlitz’s 

murrelet, a candidate for Federal listing, is also not addressed because suitable habitat is not present on 

Wrangell Island. 

Several federally listed whales (blue, beluga, bowhead, Northern Pacific right, sei and sperm) and species 

of sea turtle (green, leatherback, loggerhead and olive ridley) have been incidentally observed in the 

waters of Southeast Alaska but are suspected to be uncommon. The bearded, ringed, and spotted seals are 

candidates for Federal listing, and are directly associated with sea-ice habitats not commonly observed in 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 76

Southeast Alaska. Critical habitat has not been designated in waters surrounding the proposed project area 

for any of above-mentioned species.

Because the Wrangell Island Project is not expected to affect these special status species and their 

habitats, they are not discussed further in this FEIS. More information is presented, however, in the 

project’s Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation.

Management Indicator Species

Management indicator species (MIS) are used as indicators whose responses to land management 

activities can be used to predict the likely responses of other species with similar habitat requirements. In 

accordance with the 1982 planning regulations, 13 wildlife species were identified as MIS in the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS. Forest Service Manual 2621.3 requires that the effects of a proposed action to MIS be 

assessed and that the Forest Plan requirements, goals, and objectives for these species are met at the 

project level.

Management indicator species and other species of interest inhabiting old-growth forest were selected for 

detailed project analysis based on the potential for the Wrangell Island Project to impact their habitats 

(table 13). 

Migratory Birds

The Forest Service is also required to support the conservation of migratory birds by integrating bird 

conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to 

the extent practicable, adverse impacts to migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions. The 

Forest Plan does not address the management of migratory birds specifically but includes standards and 

guidelines for seabirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds, as well as applicable direction under general habitat 

planning and coordination. 

In a provisional checklist, at least 73 migratory bird species were noted as occurring on Wrangell Island 

or in the surrounding marine waters (USDA Forest Service 2001b). These species were recorded during 

the summer as probable breeders, or as migrants or overwintering birds. Two additional species, the redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and the northern hawk owl (Surnia ulula), were observed during field 

surveys on Wrangell Island in summer 2010. The list of 73 bird species known to occur on Wrangell 

Island is likely incomplete given that roughly 150 species are thought to occur annually on Revillagigedo 

Island, in the Ketchikan area (Heinl and Piston 2009). Seventy of the 150 regularly occurring species in 

the Ketchikan area have been confirmed as breeders.

Endemic Mammals

Based on specimen collection records and distribution information presented in MacDonald and Cook 

(2007a), 26 mammalian species are known to occur on Wrangell Island. Because of the geographic 

isolation of the islands in the Alexander Archipelago and their possible role as refugia for terrestrial 

mammals during previous glaciations, mammalian endemism in the Alexander Archipelago continues to 

attract research attention (ISLES 2009; MacDonald and Cook 2007a). For terrestrial mammals, one broad 

pattern has emerged: the proportion of endemics decreases from the outer islands in the archipelago 

eastward toward the inner islands nearer the mainland; this pattern is more pronounced in the southern 

part of the archipelago (MacDonald and Cook 2007a). Consistent with this pattern, Wrangell Island 

currently is known to support only one endemic mammal, a subspecies of southern red-backed vole 

(Myodes gapperi wrangeli). This subspecies is known only from Wrangell, Sergief, and Etolin Islands 

(MacDonald and Cook 2007a; Smith 2005).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 77

Affected Environment

Analysis Area

The wildlife habitat analyses for the Wrangell Island Project were mainly completed at the wildlife 

analysis area (WAA) scale, but where appropriate the game management unit (GMU), value comparison 

unit (VCU) and biogeographic provinces (BP) scales were also used. 

Wrangell Island forms a single wildlife analysis area (WAA 1903). WAAs were specifically delineated by 

ADFG to encompass areas used by larger, wide-ranging wildlife species, especially large mammals with 

large home ranges. For the Wrangell Island Project wildlife analysis, WAA 1903 is used to assess habitat 

reductions on National Forest System land (direct and indirect effects) and all land ownerships 

(cumulative effects) for all species.

Wrangell Island occurs in the southeastern portion of GMU 3 which encompasses Wrangell, Etolin, 

Zarembo, Kuiu, Kupreanof, Mitkof, Woewodski, Coronation, Deer, Kashevarof, and Woronkofski 

Islands. Analysis at the GMU-scale is used for species with ADFG harvest data.

Wrangell Island is made up of eight (six whole and two partial) VCUs (4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 

4800, and portions of 5040, and 5050), which are used as measures for landscape intactness and to 

analyze effects to species at a finer scale.

The Wrangell/ Etolin/ Zarembo Biogeographic Province is a mid-sized province consisting of those three 

major islands. Wolves were analyzed at the WAA and larger biogeographic province level to address longterm wolf sustainability.

Existing Condition

A representation of wildlife habitats on Wrangell Island was generated from the mapping of forest stands 

on the island, using the size-density model (SDM) (Caouette and DeGayner 2008, Krosse and O’Connor 

2009). SDM categories are described in detail in the Forest Plan FEIS (pp. 3-139 through 3-142 and 3-

231). For analyzing habitat for species in this document, size density classes are categorized as shown 

below. They are grouped this way to represent habitat utilized by species discussed in this document. 

SD4H: Volume class 4 on hydric soils. Low productive older forests associated with wet, poorly drained 

land types. Canopy closure is variable. Trees are small, old, and defective. Stand volume is low.

SD4N: Volume class 4 on non-hydric soils, north aspect, or flat. Low to moderately productive older 

upland forests. Canopy characteristics are variable and patchy, with moderate canopy closure and 

relatively coarse canopy texture. Stand volume is low to moderate. 

SD4S: Volume class 4 on non-hydric soils, not north aspect, or flat. Highly productive younger upland 

forests. Stand volume is moderate, but increasing rapidly. Crown competition is high. Canopy 

characteristics tend to be uniform, with high canopy closure and fine canopy texture.

SD5H: Volume class 5 on hydric soils. Moderately productive older forests associated with wet, poorly 

drained land types. Canopy closure, texture, and structure tend to be variable and patchy. Stand volume 

and annual growth is also variable and patchy.

SD5N: Volume class 5 on non-hydric soils, north aspect, or flat. Moderately productive older upland 

forests. Stand volume is moderate to high. Canopy characteristics tend to be variable, with moderate 

canopy closure and coarse canopy texture.

SD5S: Volume class 5 on non-hydric soils, not north aspect, or flat. Highly productive upland forests.

Stand volume is high. Canopy characteristics tend to be uniform, with moderate to high canopy closures.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 78

SD67: Volume classes 6 and 7. Highly productive forests associated with riparian areas, alluvial fans, 

colluvial toe slopes, karst geology, and wind-protected uplands. Stand volume is high. Stand age can vary.

Canopy closure is low to moderate and canopy texture is coarse.

Table 12. Size-density model habitat classifications

Habitat Size Density Map Classes

Productive Old-Growth SD4H, SD4N, SD4S, SD5H, SD5N, SD5S, SD67

High-volume POG SD5N, SD5S, SD67

Medium-volume POG SD4N, SD4S, SD5H

Low-volume POG SD4H

Forested muskeg FM

Non-forested NF

All young growth HS1, HS2, HS3,S1, S2, S3

Units of Measure

The following list shows the primary measurements used (i.e., units of measure) to assess the effects of 

proposed activities to wildlife and/or habitat at the wildlife analysis area (WAA 1903) spatial scale, which 

includes all of Wrangell Island:

• Acoustic disturbance to humpback whales and habitat degradation associated with marine access

facilities.

• For species-specific POG analyses, see table below

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

given current or zero value (cumulative effects)

• Percentage reduction in all classes of

♦ POG at all elevations

♦ POG below 1,500 feet in elevation

♦ POG below 800 feet in elevation

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

snow winter range habitat)

• Miles of open road at all elevations

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

• Patch size (acres) and number

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

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

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

analysis)

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

• Abundance and distribution of known wildlife subsistence resources

Methods Used to Analyze Effects

Table 13 shows the species analyzed in this document along with preferred habitat and how the units of 

measure apply to individuals and/or habitat.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 79

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

Species Preferred Habitat Project Level 

Indicator/Measurement

Humpback whale -

Mexico DPS (Megaptera 

novaeangliae)

Temperate and tropical waters. 

Feed in highly productive fjords in 

SE AK.

National Forest management 

activities generally fall into categories 

of acoustic disturbance and habitat 

degradation that are associated with 

marine access facilities.

Queen Charlotte goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis laingi)

Nests primarily in high-volume

POG habitat and forages in nonproductive forest types and young

growth

Acres of POG and high-volume POG 

habitat.

Alexander Archipelago 

wolf (Canis lupus ligoni)

Habitat generalist, POG provides 

habitat for prey

Deer/wolf interactions, fragmentation.

Measured by deer/mi2 and road 

density

American marten (Martes 

americana)

Represents POG and HPOG 

intercepts snow and provides 

cover and habitat for prey

Winter - acres of high-POG ≤1,500 

feet; non-winter - all POG

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) Within 1,000 feet of shoreline POG within beach/estuary buffer; 

disturbance

Black bear (Ursus 

americanus) and

Brown bear (Ursus 

arctos)

Young growth (<26 year old) and 

all types of old-growth POG and 

salmon streams

Denning habitat - acres of POG.

Foraging - POG within 500 feet of 

anadromous fish streams and all 

habitats except stem exclusion.

Brown creeper (Certhia 

americana)

Snag dependent species, interior 

POG and prefers patch sizes 

>15 ac.

Edge habitat and acres of interior 

POG and number of patches

Hairy woodpecker

(Picoides villosus)

Snag dependent species, 

represents high-volume POG.

Prefers patch sizes >500 ac. 

Acres of high-volume POG at all 

elevations and number of remaining 

of patch size requirement

Red-breasted sapsucker

(Sphyrapicus ruber)

Snag dependent species,

representing low-medium POG. 

Acres of low- and medium-POG at all 

elevations, patch size

Red squirrel

(Tamiasciurus 

hudsonicus)

POG or young growth greater 

than 40 years old and prefers 

patches of timber >30 ac.

Acres of POG and habitat patch size

River otter (Lontra 

canadensis) Riparian and coastal POG habitat POG within 500 feet of fish streams 

and within beach buffers

Sitka black-tailed deer

(Odocoileus hemionus 

sitkensis)

Represents a variety of habitat at 

all elevations. Winter = lowelevation POG that intercepts 

snow and provides cover (thermal 

and predation)

Habitat available in a deep snow 

winter - acres of high-POG ≤800 feet 

elevation; average winter habitat -

acres of POG ≤1500 feet; acres 

summer habitat - includes all 

terrestrial habitats except stem 

exclusion forest.

Measured by percent of historical 

condition total deer remaining.

Vancouver Canada goose 

(Branta canadensis fulva)

Forested wetlands for nesting and 

brood rearing, occasionally nests 

in trees 

Acres of forested muskeg, UF, and 

hydric POG (SD4H, SD5H)

Great blue heron (Ardea 

herodias) Riparian and coastal POG habitat Acres of POG within beach/estuary or 

lake buffers

Marbled murrelet

(Brachyramphus 

marmoratus)

Coastal old growth Acres of high-POG (SD5N, 5S and 

6/7) and within 5 miles of shore
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 80

Species Preferred Habitat Project Level 

Indicator/Measurement

Wrangell southern redbacked vole (Myodes 

gapperi wrangeli)

Endemic mammal; POG along 

with corridors and island 

connectivity is important to 

survival

Acres of POG, habitat connection 

patch habitat

Migratory forest birds Old-growth forests Acres of POG

Threatened and Endangered Species

Humpback Whale – Mexico distinct population segment (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Humpback whales were federally listed as endangered in 1970 under the precursor to the ESA and have 

remained on the list of threatened and endangered species since the ESA was passed in 1973 (35 FR 

8491). Humpback whales were also afforded additional protection under the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act in 1972 under which they are considered “depleted” (NMFS 2013). In November 1991, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published a recovery plan for humpback whales. Humpback whales are 

thought to be increasing throughout most of their range (NMFS 2013). 

On September 8, 2016, NMFS published a final decision changing the status of humpback whales under 

the ESA (81 FR 62259), effective October 11, 2016. Previously, humpback whales were listed under the 

ESA as an endangered species worldwide. In the 2016 decision, NMFS recognized the existence of 14 

distinct population segments (DPSs), classified 4 of those as endangered and 1 as threatened, and 

determined that the remaining 9 DPSs do not warrant protection under the ESA. Three DPSs of 

humpback whales occur in waters off the coast of Alaska: the Western North Pacific DPS, which is an 

endangered species under the ESA, the Mexico DPS, which is a threatened species, and Hawaii DPS, 

which is not protected under the ESA. Whales from these 3 DPSs overlap to some extent on feeding 

grounds off Alaska. Based on information provided by the NMFS, the Hawaii DPS and Mexico DPS may 

occur in waters surrounding the proposed project location. No critical habitat has been designated for the 

humpback whale.

Humpbacks in Southeast Alaska are likely part of the de-listed Hawaii DPS (89 percent probability), 

which is a relatively distinct population that winters near Hawaii and feeds in the waters of Southeast and 

Southcentral Alaska. They have a distinct seasonal pattern of occurrence in Southeast Alaska. To a much 

lesser extent, the Mexico DPS also occur in Southeast (11 percent probability) and is listed as threatened 

because revised abundance estimates are significantly lower than previously thought (3,264 instead of 

6,000 to 7,000 individuals). The Mexico DPS is likely to become endangered throughout its range within 

the foreseeable future (81 FR 93639). 

Dahlheim et al. (2009) documented that humpback whale numbers increased throughout the year, with the 

fewest whales seen in the spring and more whales seen during the summer and fall. In Southeast Alaska, 

capture-recapture analyses using data from the 1980s and 1990s produced various minimal estimates of 

400 to 1,000 humpbacks in the region, but more-extensive analyses recently increased the estimate 

substantially to 2,883 to 6,414 whales over a broader area of Southeast Alaska, northern British 

Columbia, and waters offshore from the region (Allen and Angliss 2010). 

National Forest management activities that could affect humpback whales generally fall into the 

categories of habitat degradation, acoustic disturbance, and potential for ship strike. Activities that could 

potential contribute to habitat degradation include development and use of marine access facilities and 

their associated camps, movement of log rafts from marine access facilities to mills, and potential 

development of other docks and associated facilities for mining, recreation, or other Forest uses and 

activities.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 81

Sensitive Species 

Queen Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi)

The Queen Charlotte goshawk is recognized as a distinct subspecies of the northern goshawk (Accipiter 

gentilis) that occurs only in coastal areas of British Columbia and in Southeast Alaska, and is identified as 

a species of concern throughout its range. It is also identified as a sensitive species by the Forest Service, 

Alaska Region (USDA Forest Service 2009a). In 2007, in response to a court-ordered remand on a 

petition to list the species, the USFWS updated a 1997 status review for the Queen Charlotte goshawk, 

and concluded that Alaska supports a DPS of this species though listing of this DPS was not warranted 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).

In Southeast Alaska, the northern goshawks inhabit forested lands but favor dense stands of conifer or 

deciduous old growth for nesting and foraging habitat. Goshawks have been found to not be continuously 

distributed across the landscape, but rather exhibit a patch distribution based on the presence and 

availability of suitable habitat (Sonsthangen et al. 2012). During the breeding season males use 

approximately 15,000 acres, while females use approximately 11,000 acres (The Shipley Group 2009). 

Nest trees are typically located in Sitka spruce or western hemlock and in mature to old-growth forest 

types. In Alaska, goshawks generally occur in low densities. Based on the most recent estimates and best 

available science, goshawk populations range from 261 to 336 breeding pairs on the Tongass National 

Forest and 300 to 400 pairs across Southeast Alaska (72 FR 63123). Research specific to Southeast 

Alaska concluded that goshawks are uncommon in this region and nesting densities are lower than other 

areas (72 FR 63123). The major threat to goshawks is the loss of old-growth habitat due to logging.

According to USFWS (2010), there were historically (year 1900) 6,395,070 acres of mature old forest, 

and by 2005 approximately 87 percent of that forest was remaining; by year 2100 at current harvest rates,

approximately 76 percent of old mature forest would remain.

Management Indicator Species

Alexander Archipelago Wolf (Canis lupus ligoni)

The wolf was selected as a MIS because of population concerns in some areas of the Tongass National 

Forest. The standards and guidelines put forth by the Forest Plan as they pertain to the Alexander 

Archipelago wolf can be found on page 4-91. The Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni), a 

subspecies of the gray wolf found in Southeast Alaska, inhabits the mainland and the larger islands south 

of Frederick Sound (MacDonald and Cook 2007a).

In 2012, Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) concluded that wolves are viable (i.e., not 

threatened with extinction) across their overall historic range in Southeast Alaska, which includes 

Wrangell Island. On January 5, 2016, the USFWS determined the Alexander Archipelago wolf does not 

warrant protection as an endangered or threatened species under the ESA. The decision came as a result 

from the Service’s 12-month finding on a petition from multiple groups to list the wolf (81 FR 435).

In 2015 the USFWS estimated that the range-wide population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf to be 

approximately 850 to 2,700 wolves with the majority (approximately 62 percent) occurring in coastal 

British Columbia where populations have been stable since 2000. Wolves in Southeast Alaska are 

generalist, although they exhibit some general preferences (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). They

use a wide variety of habitats but spend most of their time in productive and unproductive old-growth 

forests at elevations below 1,200 feet, because the abundance of prey is typically higher at lower 

elevations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). In addition to morphological and genetic analyses, the 

USFWS reviewed ecological and behavioral traits of Alexander Archipelago wolves and compared them 

with those of other gray wolf populations. They found that coastal wolves exhibit uncommon behaviors 

such as feeding on salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) and other marine prey when available and occupying 

home ranges that include marine habitat, requiring them to swim regularly among islands in the 

archipelago (Szepanski et al. 1999, Munoz-Fuentes et al. 2009 and references therein; Stronen et al. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 82

2014). Additionally, researchers have hypothesized that coastal wolves may have evolved to resist disease 

associated with marine food resources, potentially restricting movements between inland and coastal 

habitats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015).

Wolf packs typically remain within their home ranges year-round but they may occasionally stray in 

search of prey (Frame et al. 2004). Two wolf packs are thought to occur on Wrangell Island and there 

could be some exchange with the mainland. However, recent literature on Prince of Wales Island 

estimating home range size of three resident wolf packs averaged 250 mi2 (Roffler et al. 2016) and the 

size of Wrangell Island is approximately 208 mi2

, suggesting only one wolf pack on Wrangell Island. 

Wolves in Southeast Alaska are capable of swimming up to 2.5 miles, but currents, high frequencies of 

storms, and the shapes and distribution of land masses, combined with distance, impede dispersal among 

major island groups in the archipelago (Person et al. 1996). At its narrowest point Wrangell Island is 

approximately 300 yards from the mainland (Carstensen et al. 2007).

In 2015, the USFWS identified multiple stressors that may be impacting individuals and populations of 

the Alexander Archipelago wolf, although most of them have the potential to affect wolves indirectly, not 

directly. Key stressors examined as part of this assessment include timber harvest, road development, 

wolf harvest, and climate-related events. Of these, wolf harvest is the only source of direct mortality that 

may have an impact at the population and range-wide levels. They also considered a variety of other 

stressors such as effects of small populations, oil development, overexploitation of salmon, and 

hybridization with dogs.

American Marten (Martes americana) 

The American marten is considered an MIS in the Tongass because of its close association with oldgrowth forests, its susceptibility to habitat fragmentation from forest management practices, and as an 

indicator of medium old-growth reserves. They are also thought to be among the species most sensitive to 

changes in their environment, they provide early warning signals about ecosystem health (Aubry and 

Raphael 2014). Marten also are important furbearers on the Tongass, and trapping provides an economic 

supplement to some residents in Southeast Alaska. Marten occur throughout most of the forested areas of 

Southeast Alaska, including both the mainland and the Alexander Archipelago. The marten native to 

Wrangell Island and belongs to the subspecies M. a. americana (Small et al. 2003). 

ADF&G does not have population data for marten on Wrangell Island or within GMU 3, but according to 

trapping data, populations appear to fluctuate yearly. The average annual harvest of 203 marten between 

2009 and 2012 is above the preceding 10-year harvest (1999 to 2008) of 154 marten annually. The annual 

harvest between 1996 and 2012 is 182 marten (Lowell 2014). 

An average of 17 marten/year (range 0 to 69) were trapped on Wrangell Island between 1992 and 2010 

(ADF&G 2015). No marten were harvested 2009/2010, then it jumped up to 60 and 69 in 2011/2012, 

which far exceeded any previous year levels. In 2013 it dropped to 27. With the exception of Kuiu Island 

where trapping is closed, trapping of martens is currently unlimited in all GMUs within the Tongass 

National Forest. 

The only regulatory mechanisms that ADF&G can enact is closing the season by emergency order. For 

that reason, maintaining unroaded refugia for martens is very important. In GMU 3, furbearer populations 

appear to be abundant or common and remain stable in suitable habitat (Lowell 2014). Although trapping 

effort tends to be high near those communities with established road systems, on a unit-wide basis

trapping effort is moderate. Harvest is likely below sustained yield potentials in much of the unit. 

Increased road densities associated with timber harvest activities, however, have improved trappers’ 

access to furbearers’ habitat, reducing their refugia and making the animals increasingly vulnerable to 

overharvest (Lowell 2014). However, large areas of noncoastal habitat in unroaded portions of the GMU 

3 islands such as inventoried roadless area, old-growth reserves and T77 VCUs and TNC/Audubon 

Conservation areas remain untrapped, and can provide refugia for furbearer populations (Lowell 2014).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 83

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles are common year-round residents in Southeast Alaska, where they nest and winter in high 

numbers. The bald eagle was selected as an MIS to represent species associated with beach and estuary 

fringe, and riparian habitats. Bald eagles typically nest in large trees in spruce-hemlock forest, and over 

90 percent of the nests are within 500 feet of a saltwater beach. Nests are located within beach, estuary 

fringe, and riparian habitats. Since 1967, the USFWS has monitored, via aerial surveys, bald eagle 

populations along the North Pacific Coast from southern British Columbia to the Alaska Peninsula 

(Hodges 2011). In Southeast Alaska, the population increased until the 1980s, but since then has remained 

stable, with an adult population of approximately 13,000 to 26,000 birds (Hodges 2011). According to the 

USFWS eagle database, 14 bald eagle nests were located near proposed harvest units on Wrangell Island. 

Most of the nests were 10 to 25 years old and had not been checked in that many years. Eight of the 14 

nests could not be located again. It is suspected that some of the nests have fallen down or deteriorated to 

the point they cannot be recognized as nesting platforms. Six nests were located during survey, and all 

were determined to be inactive in 2010. Only one of the six nests was located again. It was in excellent 

condition and appeared to have been used in recent years. 

During aerial surveys for bald eagle, one new nest was located. This nest was in the Fools Inlet area near 

a historic nest documented in the USFWS database that was not found in 2010. The new nest was active 

in 2010 and had an incubating adult present in the nest on June 6. On July 18, when the nest was 

rechecked, there were two adults nearby and one fully feathered nestling in the nest.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides specific protections for bald eagles and their nests 

when timber-harvest activities are proposed, and all Forest Service projects must comply with 50 CFR 

§22.

Black and Brown Bears (Ursus americanus) and (Ursus arctos) 

Black and brown bears were selected as MIS due to their economic value for hunting and recreational 

viewing. Due to similar habitat components and the fact that brown bears only occur on Wrangell Island 

in very small numbers, they were combined here for analysis.

In Alaska, both bears are associated with a variety of habitats from sea level to alpine. Estuaries, riparian 

areas, and old-growth forests have the highest value; clearcuts, wetlands, small openings, and subalpine 

meadows can also provide forage opportunities (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 2-234). For analysis, 

POG is used to represent bear denning habitat and POG within 500 feet of anadromous streams is used 

for critical foraging habitat.

Black bears (Ursus americanus) are present throughout the mainland and on the islands south of 

Frederick Sound. They use habitats from sea level to the alpine. Estuarine, riparian, and forested coastal 

habitats receive the highest use by black bears and appear to have the highest habitat values (USDA 

Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-234). The black bear is the most abundant bear in Alaska (Schoen and Peacock 

2007), but little population information is available for Southeast Alaska including Wrangell Island. Most 

high-quality black bear habitat in GMU 3 is associated with low-elevation, old-growth forest with 

abundant and productive salmon streams (Lowell 2014).

Black bear hunters are required to obtain a harvest ticket prior to hunting; most non-residents hunt 

without a guide. According to harvest records and anecdotal evidence indicate that GMU 3’s black bear 

population has declined over the last decade (2000 to 2009), but has since stabilized at moderate levels 

(Lowell 2014). Annual black bear harvest in GMU 3 has increased from 29 bears in 1973 to 309 bears in 

2000 with the majority of the bears harvested on either Kuiu, Kupreanof or Mitkof islands. Reported 

black bear harvest on Wrangell Island is minor compared to Kuiu, although unreported harvest may occur. 

An average of 3.5 bears (range 1 to 10) were taken yearly between 1991 and 2014. On Wrangell Island, 

over 75 percent of the harvest was by resident hunters (Lowell 2011a).
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 84

Brown bears (Ursus arctos) mainly occur on the coastal mainland of Southeast Alaska, especially along 

major river systems and on the northern islands of the Alexander Archipelago between Icy Strait and 

Frederick Sound (MacDonald and Cook 2007a; Schoen and Gende 2007). Brown bears occur on 

Wrangell Island in low densities with no population estimates currently available, but populations are 

believed to be stable based on hunter anecdotal reports, observations, and sealing records (Lowell 2015a).

According to harvest data, brown bear hunting in GMU 3 is by registration permit with a bag limit of one 

bear every 4 years. GMU 3 has an annual harvest limit of no more than three bears annually. Primary 

threats to brown bears in GMU 3 would be the loss of habitat from clearcutting and increases in human 

caused mortality facilitated by increased road access (Lowell 2015a). Three brown bears have been 

harvested on Wrangell Island since 2005 and two out of three were female, which is a management 

concern (Lowell 2011b). Also, since 1978, there have been five reported instances of brown bears killed 

in defense of life and property (Lowell 2015a).

Brown Creeper, Hairy Woodpecker, and Red-breasted Sapsucker

The red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper were selected as MIS to represent oldgrowth associated and snag dependent species. Although no historical population estimates exist, it is 

likely that timber harvest and associated activities have reduced populations from current levels (Hejl et 

al. 2002). North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data collected between 1988 and 2015 on a route 

specific to Wrangell Island (Zimovia Strait 03224). Over this period the brown creeper, hairy woodpecker, 

and red-breasted sapsucker occurrences have fluctuated on Wrangell Island (Sauer et al. 2017). However, 

statistically significant State-wide trends are not available for these species (Sauer et al. 2017). Due to 

similar habitat components and the fact that timber harvest will impact these birds in similar ways, they 

were combined for analysis. It will be noted where differences occur.

Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus)

The red squirrel is considered an MIS on the Tongass because it is an important prey species for the 

northern goshawk and American marten. One of only two arboreal rodents in the region, red squirrels are 

common in Alaska and are endemic in the coastal mainland of Southeast Alaska and islands in the 

Alexander Archipelago south of Fredrick Sound and east of Clarence Strait (MacDonald and Cook 

2007a). A breeding population occurs on Wrangell Island. There are no specific standards and guidelines 

specifically covering red squirrels in the Forest Plan. However, because they use cavities in trees for 

nesting and denning (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-240), red squirrels are covered under the Reserve 

Tree/Cavity-Nesting Habitat guidelines and Legacy Forest Structure standard and guidelines (USDA 

Forest Service 2016b, pp. 4-86 and 4-87).

There is no harvest information available or conservation concerns for red squirrels. Under the current 

regulations, there is no harvest limit in the GMU3 and no closed season. 

River Otter (Lontra canadensis) 

The river otter was selected as an MIS because of its association with coastal and freshwater aquatic 

environments and the immediately adjacent (within 100 to 500 feet) upland habitats (USDA Forest 

Service 2016c, p. 3-234). There are no specific standards and guidelines put forth by the 2016 Forest Plan 

specifically covering river otters. There is a strong association with aquatic habitats and susceptibility to 

pollution and habitat degradation, making river otter’s good indicators of high water and environmental 

quality (Melquist et al. 2003).

ADF&G and the Federal Subsistence Board keep track of river otter harvest throughout Southeast Alaska. 

The ADF&G furbearer management report (Lowell 2014) provides information on GMU 3 furbearers 

with includes otters. No completed surveys or population data exist for Wrangell Island or GMU 3, but 

ADF&G believes that populations are currently abundant and stable in suitable habitat. Population levels 

are supported by information obtained from trappers and from mandatory sealing pelts, and there is 

currently no limit on the number of otter that can be harvested (Lowell 2014). Current trapping effort is 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 85

moderate due to low-to-moderate fur prices and relatively high fuel costs. Weather has also had a 

profound influence on trapper effort. An average of 25 otters was harvested annually between 2006 and 

2008; the average harvest increased to 41 between 2009 and 2011 in GMU 3, which is down from the 10-

year average of 53 otter/year (Lowell 2014). Beach and stream side POG is used to represent river otter 

habitat. 

Sitka Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) 

The Sitka black-tailed deer was chosen as an MIS because it is the wildlife species that receives the 

highest hunting and subsistence use of all terrestrial species in Southeast Alaska, and it represents those 

species that use lower elevation POG habitat (below 800 feet) during the winter period (USDA Forest 

Service 2016c, p. 3-230). They are also an important prey species for the Alexander Archipelago wolf. 

Standards and guidelines for Sitka black-tailed deer are on page 4-88 of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). See figure 16 for a map showing deep snow habitat on Wrangell Island.

The management goal for GMU 3 is to achieve and maintain a population of 15,000 deer while 

maintaining an annual harvest of 900 deer. This goal has not been reached since the year 2000 (Lowell

2013). Wrangell Island is classified as an intermediate and deep snow area based upon long-term yearly 

averages. Abundances are higher at lower elevations along the outer coast and islands as a result of milder 

winters and more productive forests. There are no reliable population estimates for deer populations in 

GMU 3 which includes Wrangell Island, but deer populations within this area have exhibited extreme 

historical fluctuations. 

Deer populations on most islands in GMU 3 have declined since 2004 and are thought to be well below 

carrying capacity based on harvest data. Lowell 2013 states in GMU 3 deer populations and estimated 

harvest steadily declined from RY04 to RY08. In RY05, the estimated unit-wide harvest began to decline 

annually before reaching a low of 333 deer in RY08. Although the unit-wide deer harvest rebounded to 

547 in RY09 and 673 in RY10, it declined to 514 in RY11.

Severe winter weather, reductions in deer winter range due to logging, and predation by wolves and black 

bears are believed to be the primary factors contributing to the observed decline in the GMU 3 deer 

population and hunter harvest. Because winter severity can influence the results of pellet-group surveys, 

inferences about population trends based on year-to-year variations in observed pellet-group densities 

must be made with caution. Nonetheless, ADF&G believes the recent declines in pellet-group densities 

and the decline in the estimated unit-wide harvest reflect actual declines in the unit’s deer population. 

Less clear are the effects of unfavorable long-term changes in habitat conditions resulting from decades of 

clear-cut logging, and potential competition from recently established and expanding moose populations. 

Moose are a relative newcomer to GMU 3, and the desire to rebuild deer populations may be counter to 

the goals of establishing moose (Lowell 2011c). In addition to mortality resulting from legal hunting, 

other sources of deer mortality include predation by wolves and bears, poaching, deer-vehicle collisions, 

injury and accidents, and starvation or other natural causes. ADF&G has no estimates of non-hunting 

mortality during the report period (Lowell 2015b).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 87

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 89

Interagency Deer Model

The interagency deer model (Suring et al. 1992), developed to evaluate potential winter habitat capability, 

was updated by a panel of wildlife biologists for the analysis during the 1997 Forest Plan revision. The 

interagency deer model is one tool used to evaluate winter habitat for deer. The interagency deer model is 

most appropriate for analysis over large planning areas such as the Tongass National Forest where data 

can be coarse and loses accuracy at the scale of a WAA or number of WAAs. 

The interagency deer model is used to provide a means of estimating habitat capability to compare 

alternatives. The interagency deer model assigns a habitat suitability index (HSI) to each GIS polygon 

based on vegetation, elevation, aspect, and typical snowfall for an average winter of how features 

correlate with deer winter habitat. HSI values range from 0.0 in areas that have no winter habitat value to 

1.0 in optimal habitat. Low-elevation, high-volume old-growth stands with southern aspects in low 

snowfall areas provide the best deer winter habitat and are assigned the highest HSI values. Areas above 

1,500 feet elevation are assumed to have no value as winter deer habitat and are assigned an HSI value of 

0.0. The model assesses young-growth stands by two age groups: 0 to 25 years (stand initiation phase) 

and 26 to 150 years (stem exclusion phase). Stands in the initiation phase have forage available but this 

food supply may be covered with snow in the winter, and therefore stands in this phase receive lower 

scores than old growth. Stands in the stem exclusion phase, where the canopy closure approaches 100 

percent basically blocking out light to the forest floor and thus inhibiting growth of understory vegetation, 

may provide cover but have little or no forage available and therefore receive the lowest non-zero scores 

(little value to deer). 

The interagency deer model does have limitations. It does not account for treatments in young stands that 

postpone the stem exclusion phase, increase growth and diversity, and limit the duration of the stem 

exclusion phase to provide better habitat, forage, and more rapid stand development than untreated young 

stands. The interagency deer model can overestimate the reduction of habitat capability because it 

assumes that all proposed timber harvest is accomplished using traditional clearcut methods (USDA 

Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-233 and 3-263). For the Wrangell Island project, all partial-harvest stands 

were treated as clearcuts. In actuality, partial-harvest methods, such as single-tree selection, are often used 

which result in similar structural diversity to old growth over time (approximately 60 years) (Deal 2001, 

Deal and Tappeiner 2002). Another important detail about the deer model run for Wrangell Island, for 

evaluating cumulative effects all non-NFS land is given a zero value, when in reality some of the land 

does contain suitable deer habitat. 

Habitat capability is a theoretical number of deer a particular habitat type is expected to support. It does 

not reflect actual deer numbers because population dynamics are more complex than habitat capability. 

Numbers should only be used for comparing potential effects of timber harvest by alternative. A detailed 

description of the interagency deer model can be found in the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 

2016c, pp. 3-230 to 3-233 and 3-262 to 3-266), FEIS Appendices (USDA Forest Service 2016d, pp. B-27 

and B-28) and in the 2012 deer model SIR, appendix A.

Vancouver Canada Goose (Branta canadensis fulva)

The Vancouver Canada goose is considered an MIS on the Tongass because of its association with 

forested wetland habitats, and because nesting and brood-rearing could be affected by various forestmanagement activities. There are specific standards and guidelines put forth by the 2016 Forest Plan 

specifically covering Vancouver Canada geese (WILD1 XII B, p. 4-90). However, because of their 

association with coastal and freshwater aquatic environments, Vancouver Canada geese management 

guidelines in the 2016 Forest Plan are covered under beach and estuary fringe (USDA Forest Service 

2016b, pp. 4-4 to 4-5), riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2016b, pp. 4-48 to 4-52 and pp. D-1 to D-20) 

and waterfowl and shorebird habitats (USDA Forest Service 2016b, pp. 4-89 to 4-90).
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 90

The Vancouver subspecies is found almost exclusively in Southeast Alaska and British Columbia with the 

breeding range in Alaska extending from Glacier Bay south to Dixon Entrance. They are relatively nonmigratory and move locally between nesting, brood rearing, and winter concentration areas (Hupp et al. 

2010). They are considered common, permanent residents throughout the Tongass National Forest. There 

is an estimated resident population of 10,000 Vancouver Canada geese in Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest 

Service 2016c, p. 3-242). Up to 25,000 individuals have been observed along marine shorelines during 

winter (Hodges et al. 2008). The total population is estimated at 87,000 geese. Data from CBCs specific 

to Wrangell Island between 1991and 2015 show that Canada geese were observed on thirteen annual 

winter counts, with an average of 68 geese per count (Audubon Society 2015). Hydric-POG and other 

unproductive land were used to analyze goose habitat.

Other Species of Interest

Great Blue Heron (Ardea Herodias fannini) 

The great blue heron is a species of concern and is considered in this analysis because of its association 

with forested wetland habitats. Management activities such as timber harvest could affect great blue heron 

nesting and brood-rearing habitat. There are specific standards and guidelines set forth by the 2016 Forest 

Plan specifically covering great blue heron rookeries (USDA Forest Service 2016b, WILD1 XIII, p. 4-

90). 

Great blue herons in Southeast Alaska primarily use near-shore marine waters and freshwater habitats for 

foraging on fish and invertebrates. Shallow, slow-moving water is preferred. Less frequently, they may 

use open upland habitats for foraging on small mammals. In Southeast Alaska, herons nest as single pairs 

and in small colonies in coastal habitats. During breeding, great blue herons are particularly susceptible to 

disturbance at rookeries. At some colonies, predation by bald eagles on eggs, nestlings, and fledglings can 

be a major cause of nest failure (Vennesland and Butler 2004). Overall, loss of habitat, particularly 

wetland nesting and feeding areas, may have had the strongest negative impact on the species through 

time (Vennesland and Butler 2011). Gebauer and Moul (2001) noted that in coastal British Columbia, 

great blue herons are likely more limited by the availability of high-quality foraging habitats than the 

presence of suitable nesting habitat. Great blue herons are thought to utilize forested muskeg and nonforest beach and freshwater habitats for foraging, and POG forests associated with hydric soils and stream 

drainages for nesting, the quantitative impact indicator for habitat loss/alteration for great blue herons will 

include the areal coverage (acres) of those habitats (1,000-foot beach buffer and 100 feet around all 

lakes).

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

Marbled murrelets are widely distributed across marine waters in Southeast Alaska. Where they typically 

nest on mossy-limbed branches of large, mature coniferous trees within stands of structurally complex,

coastal high-volume old-growth forest (DeGange 1996). However, on some treeless islands in Southeast 

Alaska marbled murrelets lay eggs on bare talus slopes in mountainous areas (Piatt et al. 2007). Nests can 

be very difficult to find but are protected with 600-foot radius no-cut buffer under the current Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-246). Marbled murrelets spend most of their 

lives in the coastal marine environment in sheltered bays, fjords, leeward sides of islands, and island 

passes (Arimitsu et al. 2010, Kuletz 2005, Piatt and Naslund 1995), but come onshore for nesting 

(Hobson 1990). Throughout much of their summer range, murrelets are often observed within 3.1 mi of 

the shore in water less than 131 feet deep (Day et al. 2003). 

In March 2006, a status review for the marbled murrelet was initiated by the USFWS for the northern part 

of the species range to support ESA deliberations over the listing of the species as threatened in the 

southern part of its range (California, Oregon, and Washington; Piatt et al. 2007). Genetic analysis 

conducted as part of the review identified three DPS: one in the central and western Aleutian Islands; one 

ranging from the eastern Aleutians to northern California; and one in central California.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 91

Although marbled murrelets are common in the marine waters surrounding Wrangell Island, no nests 

were found during numerous field reconnaissance trips, and no birds were observed flying inland from 

adjacent coastal waters. All POG was used represent their habitat for this analysis. 

Endemic

Wrangell Southern Red-backed Vole (Myodes gapperi wrangeli)

The southern red-backed vole occurs on the mainland south of the Taku Inlet and on near-shore islands on 

the southern end of the Alexander Archipelago (MacDonald and Cook 1996, 2007b). Four subspecies are 

recognized in the region; two taxa occur on the mainland, whereas the remaining two are island endemics 

(Runck and Cook 2005). The Wrangell southern red-backed vole (Myodes gapperi wrangeli) is the only 

endemic small mammal identified on Wrangell Island; it also occurs on nearby Sergief Islands 

(MacDonald and Cook 2007a).

In general, southern red-backed voles (Myodes gapperi) are globally secure (NatureServe 2015) and occur 

across much of northern North America and are a common resident of later successional, moist forest 

habitats (Runck and Cook 2005). According to NatureServe (2015), the Wrangell southern red-backed 

vole (Myodes gapperi wrangeli) have a global and State heritage status rank as vulnerable because of 

restricted distribution, unknown population size and trends, and unknown impacts of ongoing logging 

operations on species status. Smith reported in 2005 that the global population of Wrangell southern redbacked voles in the year 2000 was only 20 percent of what it was in 1998. There are still essential 

questions regarding the influence of annual population fluctuations on habitat distribution and population 

demography. The highest densities and highest reproductive rates are often found in old-growth forest 

(Smith 2005), but also concluded that the southern red-backed vole are not as sensitive to canopy removal 

as has been indicated elsewhere. In 2011 the ADF&G documented southern red-backed voles in the alpine 

(at approximately 2,400 to 2,700 feet elevation) on Etolin Island (Blejwas, personal communication, 

2016).

Information about Wrangell Island southern red-backed voles comes from Smith and Nichols (2004) and 

the related Smith (2005) and Smith et al. (2005) studies on Wrangell Island. They tested the association 

with old growth specifically for the Wrangell Island southern red-backed vole and found that vole 

populations attain their highest densities in continuous, late-seral, mesic coniferous forests with abundant 

understory. However, in 1999 and 2000 they found that vole densities were unexpectedly similar between 

old-growth and young-growth stands. Muskegs and scrub forest supported the fewest voles and Smith and 

Nichols felt it was unlikely that these habitats supported breeding populations. Habitat features that were 

positively correlated with vole density included the amount of down, decayed wood and the cover of 

surface water during spring (Smith et al. 2005). Density of small 4 to 19 inches diameter (DBH) snags 

and percentage of conifer seedlings were negatively associated with population density as was high moss 

cover in the spring (Smith et al. 2005). They also found that voles are constrained to wetter environments 

because of their physiological requirements for water, but this habitat selection may also mitigate 

desiccation following canopy removal and renders open-canopied young growth more suitable for voles 

(Smith 2005).

From 1998 to 2000, Smith and Nichols caught 682 voles and 540 mice (unique individuals), with 72,845 

trap nights of effort. Average population density of voles on Wrangell Island in 1999 was 3.29 voles/ha 

and in 2000 it dropped to 2.36 voles/ha (Smith and Nichols 2004). The Island Surveys to Learn about 

Endemic Species (ISLES) project conducted small mammal trapping on Wrangell Island in 2009 and 

caught 74 southern red-backed voles. The data from this study can be found in the Arctos online database 

along with the trap locations. In total, eight different species were trapped in 169 captures with a total 

effort of 1,865 trap nights. 

Because densities and reproductive rates were highest in POG forest and questions remain on young 

growth, all POG was selected (forest types SD67, SD5S, SD5N, SD5H, SD4S, SD4N, and SD4H) as the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 92

measurement criteria for Wrangell Island southern red-backed voles (table 40 and table 41). However,

questions do remain whether habitat features required to sustain breeding vole populations occur only in 

late seral forest. 

Migratory Birds 

Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds) provides for the 

conservation of migratory birds and their habitats and requires the evaluation of the effects of Federal 

actions on migratory birds, with an emphasis on species of concern. Federal agencies are required to 

support the intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, 

and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse 

impacts on migratory birds when conducting agency actions (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-242). 

Although a comprehensive list of the bird species occurring in Southeast Alaska or on Wrangell Island has 

not yet been published, an authoritative list of species occurring in the Ketchikan area (Revillagigedo 

Island) has been prepared (Heinl and Piston 2009). This list likely is representative of the Alexander 

Archipelago region and especially of the southern islands in the archipelago including Wrangell. 

Neotropical migratory birds (referred to as migratory birds) are far ranging species that require a diversity 

of habitats for foraging, breeding, and wintering. Many of the 295 species of birds that occur regularly in 

Alaska are migratory, some coming from as far away as Central or South America to their nesting, 

breeding, and rearing grounds in Alaska. Approximately 236 species of birds occur regularly in Southeast 

Alaska. Roughly 160 species are known or suspected to breed in Southeast Alaska (Armstrong 1995). The 

number of breeding species on Wrangell Island may be fewer than 70, but this is not currently known. 

Twenty bird species are identified as species of concern in Southeast Alaska by the Boreal Partners in 

Flight program (BPIF 1999, USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-244 and 3-245, table 3.10). Another 24 

species were selected from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s birds of conservation concern (BCR 5) 

that can occur in Southeast Alaska (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Seventeen of these species are 

linked to coniferous forest (hemlock, Sitka spruce and cedar) and could be affected by the proposed 

timber harvest on Wrangell Island. Refer to the 2016 Forest Plan FEIS pages 3-242 through 3-245 for 

additional information on migratory bird species.

Environmental Consequences

For a more in-depth analysis of effects by alternative to the wildlife species outlined below, see the 

Wildlife Resources Report.

Humpback Whale – Mexico distinct population segment

Direct and Indirect Effects

The action alternatives will authorize harvest of 39 to 56 MMBF of timber, but this will not modify 

marine or estuarine habitat. No new marine access facilities or other dock facilities will be constructed 

under any of the action alternatives. Operation of all marine access facilities and similar facilities require 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and State of Alaska tidelands 

permits. The permit requires that marine access facility operation maintain water quality in the specific 

facility locations and that marine circulation and flushing are maintained. Bark deposition and water 

quality at existing marine access facilities are in compliance with permit requirements and are not 

expected to exceed thresholds as a result of this project. Strict adherence to water quality standards and 

hazardous material containment and spill guidelines will limit the potential for contamination from 

associated marine access facilities. Likewise, stream monitoring has not shown any significant 

detrimental impacts from sedimentation caused by previous logging, and Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for riparian management will be applied. Therefore, effects to humpback whales or their prey 

are expected to be minor.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 93

It has been demonstrated that increases in human activity and background noise can alter habitats of 

marine animals and potentially mask communications for species that rely on sound to mate, feed, avoid 

predators, and navigate (Ellison et al. 2011). Acoustic disturbance sources include all types of marine 

vessels and low-flying aircraft. “There is compelling evidence that factors other than received sound 

level, including the activity state of animals exposed to different sounds, the nature and novelty of a 

sound, and spatial relations between sound source and receiving animals (i.e., the exposure context) 

strongly affect the probability of a behavioral response. Responses have ranged from leaving or avoiding 

feeding and nursery areas to becoming habituated to vessel traffic and its noise. Habituation, however, 

may cause humpbacks to be more vulnerable to vessel strikes” (USDA Forest Service 2008c).

All helicopter yarding is land-to-land under all action alternatives; none of the helicopter units are near 

the shore. Therefore, acoustic disturbance from helicopters should be minor to non-existent. 

The potential for ship strikes is expected to be discountable because all permitted watercraft are required 

to follow MMPA regulations and stay at least 100 yards from any marine mammal. Direct pursuit of 

whales by boats and frequent changes in boat speed and direction appear to elicit avoidance behaviors 

more frequently than other types of boat traffic. Tug boats towing log barges maintain relatively slow, 

constant speeds and direction. Ships of this type are less likely to lead to ship strikes (Jensen et al. 2010). 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines direct the Forest Service to ensure that Forest Service permitted or 

approved activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and NMFS regulations for approaching whales, dolphins, and porpoise. 

"Taking" of whales is prohibited; "taking" includes harassing or pursuing, or attempting any such activity 

(USDA Forest Service 2016b, WILD4.B, p. 4-99). The daily volume of boat traffic from the project is not 

expected to be distinguishable from baseline conditions.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed project has the potential to result in a minor increase in vessel traffic occurring irregularly 

over a number of years. This would contribute to the existing level of noise and disturbance and increase 

the potential for oil or fuel spills and humpback whale collisions associated with vessel activity in the 

vicinity of the marine access facilities. There may be cumulative effects when combined with past, 

present or reasonably foreseeable activities. Activities within the analysis area that have affected 

humpback whales and could add cumulatively to the proposed project include: any project that utilized 

the existing marine access facilities on Wrangell Island, the Roadside EA which allows up 500 MBF of 

timber harvest/year and may use the marine access facility, and all future harvest completed by other land 

owners (Alaska Mental Health Trust and Alaska Department of Natural Resources). These activities have 

all increased acoustic levels and vessel traffic.

It is assumed that other vessel activity would abide by MMPA and NMFS guidelines for speed and 

approaching marine mammals which would reduce the likelihood of disturbance and collisions.

Therefore, the action alternatives when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities 

in the marine environment in the vicinity of the marine access facilities would only have a minor 

cumulative effect to humpback whales.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under all the action alternatives there may be adverse impacts to individuals, but these effects are not 

likely to result in a loss of viability on Wrangell Island nor cause a trend toward Federal listing. The 

Wrangell Island Project has the potential to directly affect goshawks through activities that create noise or 

disturbance of adults or young, resulting in the temporary displacement of individual birds, removal of 

active nests, nest abandonment, habitat loss and fragmentation. There are no known goshawk nests within 

any of the proposed harvest units; therefore, none of the alternatives would directly impact known 

actively nesting birds but potential habitat would be removed and fragmented. Goshawks are year-round 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 94

residents in the project area; therefore, timber harvest and associated activities could disturb or 

temporarily displace birds during the non-breeding season. Indirect effects of the Wrangell Island Project 

include the reduction of perching, foraging (POG), and potential nesting habitat (high-volume POG). 

Impacts to goshawks are assessed in terms of the reduction in total POG, which provides general habitat 

requirements especially foraging POG habitat (all SD classes) and high-volume POG (SD 5N, 5S & 6/7), 

which represents optimal nesting habitat due to the presence of large-trees and snags. Reductions in forest 

cover, and the subsequent progression of forest succession of young-growth stands, also have the 

potential to affect the abundance and availability of prey. This may cause goshawks to increase their 

breeding home range size in order to gather sufficient prey to raise young (McClaren 2004). 

Timber harvest reduces the proportion of the landbase consisting of POG and mature young-growth forest 

to below 50 percent, this could result in portions of the landscape becoming marginal or unsuitable for 

goshawks. Therefore, alternatives that harvest the most POG and reduce the proportion of the landscape 

consisting of mature high-volume POG, would be expected to have the greatest effect on goshawks. All 

action alternatives would reduce potential habitat across Wrangell Island (WAA 1903) by 5 to 11 percent 

depending on which alternative is selected; however, Wrangell Island would still maintain at least 92

percent of the existing total POG within National Forest System (NFS) lands in WAA 1903 and maintain 

a minimum of 89 percent high-volume POG (table 14 and table 15). At the VCU scale the most impacted 

are 4750 and 4770 maintaining approximately 82 percent of foraging habitat and 74 percent of optimal 

nesting habitat.

Alternative 2 would harvest the most total POG (foraging habitat and nesting habitat) (4,116 acres), 

followed by Alternatives 5 (2,972 acres), 4 (2,586 acres), and 3 (2,303 acres; table 14). The numbers of 

acres harvested are somewhat misleading because approximately 50 to 77 percent of the area would be 

partially harvested, maintaining 67 percent or more of the stand’s pre-treatment basal area. As a result,

impacts would not be as severe as using the clearcut harvest method, because habitat structure would be 

maintained for foraging.

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

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

VCU / 

WAA

Existing 

acres of 

POG 

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG 

left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG 

left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG 

left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG 

left

4750 4,940 902 82 0 100 74 99 901 82

4760 3,560 318 91 228 94 245 93 228 94

4770 5,923 1,093 82 926 84 954 84 895 85

4780 7,710 689 91 531 93 576 93 515 93

4790 9,531 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

4800 13,395 1,114 92 618 95 738 94 432 97

5040 1,779 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5050 5,760 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

WAA 

1903 52,598 4,116 92 2,303 96 2,586 95 2,972 94
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 95

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

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

VCU / 

WAA

Existing 

acres of 

highvolume 

POG

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

4750 1,896 485 74 0 100 27 99 478 75

4760 1,472 172 88 122 92 147 90 122 92

4770 2,701 614 77 562 79 591 78 538 80

4780 2,639 282 89 235 91 237 91 235 91

4790 3,089 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

4800 4,522 502 89 267 94 394 91 154 97

5040 1,074 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5050 2,044 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

WAA 

1903 19,437 2,057 89 1,187 94 1,396 93 1,527 92

Alternative 2 would also harvest the most high-volume POG (nesting habitat) at approximately 2,057

acres, followed by Alternative 5 (1,527 acres), Alternative 4 (1,396 acres), and Alternative 3 (1,187 acres; 

table 15). Within the project area VCUs, the amount of existing high-volume POG remaining would range 

from 74 to 100 percent, depending on the action alternative. 

Under all action alternatives, the project area as a whole would continue to provide goshawk foraging and 

nesting habitat, by maintaining at least 89 percent of the land base in POG and mature forest habitat (table 

14 and table 15).

Under all alternatives there would be no direct impact to any known nesting area. However, timber 

harvest will remove potential nesting habitat, which could alter the distribution of nesting goshawks 

(resulting in more widely spaced nesting territories) on Wrangell Island as the landscape becomes more 

fragmented around potential nest sites. Reductions in forest cover, and the subsequent progression of 

forest succession in young-growth stands, also have the potential to affect the abundance and availability 

of prey, benefitting some prey species while adversely affecting others. This may cause goshawks 

foraging on Wrangell Island to increase their breeding home range size in order to gather sufficient prey 

to raise young, resulting in increased energy expenditure and potentially decreased fitness (McClaren 

2004; Bloxton 2002).

The extent of such effects depends in part on the amount of tree retention in resulting forested stands. An 

uneven-aged prescription, which leaves a proportion of the trees standing in the harvest unit, would 

maintain some habitat value for goshawks following harvest, provided that the trees with branches 

adequate to support goshawk perching are retained (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). Recent 

research have found that metapopulations such as the Wrangell Island goshawk, can be more resilient to 

extinction than single isolated populations, the ability of individuals to disperse is considered critical to its 

continued stability and small increases in connectivity can markedly increase population persistence 

(Sonsthagen et al. 2012). Widén (1997) concluded that fragmentation of mature forest patches reduced 

goshawk hunting opportunities where remaining patches were surrounded by young-growth forests; 

therefore, uneven-aged harvest also may reduce the effects of fragmentation by retaining more structure 

adjacent to unharvested stands. 

In contrast, even-aged harvest (e.g., clearcuts), which may involve cutting all the trees in a unit, provides 

poor quality habitat for goshawks immediately following timber harvest and marginal habitat for a few 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 96

decades near the end of each rotation. Thus, the inclusion of uneven-aged harvest may lessen the effects 

to goshawks. Of the action alternatives, Alternative 5 includes the most uneven-aged harvest (77 percent 

of harvest, 2,635 acres), followed by Alternatives 2 (71 percent, 3,359 acres), Alternative 4 (53 percent, 

1,572 acres), and Alternative 3 (50 percent, 1,311 acres). Therefore, implementation of the action 

alternatives would not directly affect goshawk individuals, but would indirectly affect nesting and 

foraging habitat. Furthermore, a cornerstone of the Tongass Forest Plan is the old-growth associated 

wildlife conservation strategy. The conservation strategy was developed to maintain viable, well 

distributed old-growth wildlife populations. This meets the requirement of the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) and implementing regulations (Iverson, personal communication, 2006).

Cumulative Effects

In addition to effects to goshawk individuals and their habitat from all of the action alternatives, there 

would also be cumulative effects when combined with past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities. 

Past activities on Wrangell Island that have affected potential goshawk habitat and are cumulative with 

this project include: timber harvest (10,490 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of 

utility corridors (26 miles) and property development on lands of other ownership. Activities that have

improved habitat include pre-commercial thinning which have improved approximately 4,000 acres since 

the 1970s with an additional 1,250 acres planned over the next 10 years. One possible benefit is the 

recently approved AMHT land exchange (Consolidated Appropriations Act 2017). NFS lands would gain 

approximately 1,071 acres; however, the majority of this land has already been harvested and currently 

would be of little value to this POG-associated species. The land to be acquired through the land 

exchange will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

Timber harvest since 1954 has increased fragmentation of productive forest habitat and reduced the 

amount of high-quality habitat on Wrangell Island. Taking all land ownerships into account, 85 percent of 

the original total POG and 68 percent of the original high-volume POG remain on Wrangell Island 

(existing condition) (table 16). Within individual VCUs, and by alternative, the amount of historical total 

POG would range from 58 to 98 percent, and the amount of historical high-volume POG remaining would 

range from 41 to 97 percent. Ongoing and future timber harvest on NFS and State lands, such as ongoing 

harvest cleared by the Wrangell Ranger District Roadside EA and the 700 acres proposed for harvest 

around the Earl West Cove area, as well as private lands, would result in additional fragmentation of oldgrowth forest habitat and cumulatively add to the effects of the proposed action.

Foraging goshawks could be temporarily disturbed or displaced by timber harvest activities associated 

with the Wrangell Island Project; similar disturbance also has the potential to occur in association with 

future projects such as timber harvest on lands of other ownership, and future State of Alaska 

transportation and utility construction. These disturbances are considered to have low incremental effects 

when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. 

All of the action alternatives in combination with past, present, and foreseeable timber harvest would 

result in an additional cumulative reduction of potential goshawk habitat on Wrangell Island (table 16). 

Within the project area WAA 1903, Alternative 2 would maintain 78 percent of the original total POG and 

60 percent of the original high-volume POG. Alternative 3 would maintain 81 percent of the original total 

POG and 63 percent of the original high-volume POG within the project area WAA. Alternative 4 would 

maintain 80 percent of the original total POG and 63 percent of the original high-volume POG within the 

project area WAA. Alternative 5 would maintain 80 percent of the original total POG and 62 percent of 

the original high-volume POG within the project area WAA.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 97

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

ownerships)

Percent of 1954 Remaining

1954 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

VCU 

/ 

WAA

POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG 

4750 6,362 3,065 83 67 69 51 83 67 82 66 69 51

4760 5,062 2,871 71 52 64 46 66 47 66 47 66 47

4770 8,434 5,142 71 53 58 41 60 42 60 41 61 42

4780 11,916 5,808 76 53 71 48 72 49 72 49 72 49

4790 12,199 5,019 90 77 90 77 90 77 90 77 90 77

4800 14,536 5,661 92 80 85 71 88 75 87 73 89 77

5040 2,166 1,447 98 97 98 97 98 97 98 97 98 97

5050 5,880 2,164 98 95 98 95 98 95 98 95 98 95

WAA 

1903 66,554 31,177 85 68 78 61 81 64 81 63 80 63

Cumulative reductions in nesting and foraging habitat on Wrangell Island could result in the local 

expansion of individual goshawk home ranges, potentially leading to a reduction in breeding density.

Effects would be greatest under Alternative 2. However, given goshawks are highly mobile and breeding 

density is currently low on the Tongass National Forest, the effects of the Wrangell Island Project in 

combination with past, present, and foreseeable activities would result in minor effects to goshawks on 

Wrangell Island. Despite cumulative impacts from the proposed action alternatives, Wrangell Island 

would continue to provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the Queen Charlotte goshawks.

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The potential direct effect from timber harvest to Alexander Archipelago wolves for which some evidence 

exists is the modification of and disturbance at den sites. Person and Russell (2009) found that most used 

den sites were located farther from logged stands and roads than unused locations; on average, dens were 

located 0.6 mile from logged stands and 0.8 mile from roads. Wolves never located dens in clearcuts or 

young-growth forests. Although wolves were tolerant of short periods of researcher disturbance, the 

authors believed that wolves avoided logged areas and roads because of regular and long-term use by 

humans. To minimize destruction of and disturbance at den sites, the Forest Service developed standards 

and guidelines specific to active wolf dens. Other potential direct effects from timber harvest may exist, 

such as loss of rendezvous sites and movement corridors, but no evidence was found suggesting these 

effects are impacting individuals or populations of Alexander Archipelago wolves. Nonetheless, the 

Forest Service acknowledges wolves in southeastern Alaska and coastal British Columbia may be 

impacted directly by timber harvest in undocumented ways (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015). There 

are no known den sites within the proposed harvest units. For more on wolf standards and guidelines see 

the 2016 Forest Plan (pp. 4-91 and 4-92).

Indirect effects of the Wrangell Island Project may include the reduction of wolves and their prey base 

(deer) with the increased human hunting and trapping access along project roads. It is assumed that a 

decline in the deer population would likely result in a decline in the wolf population (USDA Forest 

Service 2016c, p. 3-273). Therefore, impacts to wolves are assessed in terms of the reduction in deer 

habitat capability (based on habitat capability model outputs in terms of theoretical deer density). Note 

that this density does not represent actual population numbers, but represents the functioning of the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 98

predator-prey system dynamic. Model methods are based on recent direction provided by the Forest 

Service and include:

• For the project-related indirect effects analysis, deer habitat capability by WAA (including only 

NFS lands) was divided by the total square miles of NFS lands (all elevations included, but with 

acres above 1,500 feet elevation receiving a zero value) in the WAA.

• For the cumulative effects analysis, deer habitat capability from all land ownerships (NFS and 

other lands) was divided by the total square miles of all land ownerships (all elevations included, 

but habitats on lands of other ownership and land above 1,500 feet elevation receiving a zero 

value) in the WAA.

Timber harvest would decrease carrying capacity for deer over the long-term due to reductions in the 

quality of available winter range. Current deer habitat capability on Wrangell Island (WAA 1903) is below 

the Forest Plan guideline of 18 deer/mi2

, which suggests the project could result in insufficient numbers of 

deer to sustain wolves and human hunting (see existing modeled deer densities in Table 17). Deer model 

calculations show there would be an estimated decline on NFS lands of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 deer/mi2

at 1 year post-implementation and 0.7 to 1.0 deer/mi2 across Wrangell Island at 25 years (WAA 1903) due 

to young-growth stands entering stem exclusion. Alternative 2 would have the greatest impact on deer 

density, but there should be sufficient habitat to maintain 12.3 deer/mi2 1 year post-implementation and 

11.8 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (table 17). Although there may be effects to the overall deer density on 

Wrangell Island, deer habitat is expected to be sufficient to provide deer for both wolf and hunter 

consumption.

Table 17. Deer density (deer/mi2) estimates for each alternative compared to the current (2015) condition on 

NFS lands in WAA 1903 

Deer Density

Alt 1

(existing 

condition)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 15.3 -- -- -- --

Existing 12.8 -- -- -- --

1 yr. post 

implementation 12.8 12.3 12.5 12.4 12.4

At stem exclusion 

(2042) 12.6 11.8 12.2 12.1 12.1

All action alternatives involve road construction which can increase the risk of hunting and trapping 

mortality through increased human access. Although wolf mortality has not been identified as a concern 

on Wrangell Island, some impacts can be mitigated through road closures (USDA Forest Service 2007a). 

Open roads are expected to have a greater effect than those closed either through storage or 

decommissioning (Person and Russell 2008). However, Person and Logan (2012) modeled the effects of 

such closures and found them to have little influence on reducing mortality risk. Under all action 

alternatives, there is a slightly different configuration of NFS roads to be constructed and/or closed (see

the “Issue 4: Access Management” section for more details).

Existing total road densities on NFS lands in WAA 1903 are within the Forest Plan guidelines of 0.7 to 

1.0 mi/mi2 where road access and associated human-caused wolf mortality may be a concern. Therefore, 

all action alternatives would have no direct or indirect effects to wolves or their habitat. Alternatives 2 to 

4 would increase road densities to 0.94 to 0.95 mi/mi2 (table 18). Changes in road densities would be 

minor as they stay within the 0.7 to 1.0 mi/mi2 under all alternatives. Although there could be an increase 

in human-caused wolf mortality, reported wolf harvest on Wrangell Island has averaged 2.7 wolves/year 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 99

(range 0 to 6) over the last 24 years (Lowell, personal communication, 2015), and is not expected to 

substantially increase.

Table 18. Road miles (mi) and density (mi/mi2) below 1,200 feet on NFS lands by alternative and road status

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Road 

status mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2

Open 53.0 0.53 63.4 0.64 62.0 0.62 61.8 0.62 53.0 0.53

Closed 18.8 0.19 31.4 0.32 31.5 0.32 33.4 0.34 34.2 0.34

Total 71.8 0.72 94.8 0.95 93.4 0.94 95.0 0.95 87.2 0.88

NFS land below 1,200 feet 99.64 mi2

Open = objective maintenance level (ML) 2 through 4

Closed = objective ML 1 + decommissioned

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to wolves from all action alternatives, there would be 

cumulative effects when considering past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities (Table 5). 

Commercial timber harvest has occurred on the Tongass National Forest since 1954 and as a result has 

reduced habitat capability for deer in WAA 1903 through the removal of productive old-growth habitat.

All action alternatives would result in additional reduction of deer habitat capability, contributing to 

similar effects associated with ongoing and future timber harvest across all ownerships.

Activities on Wrangell Island that have affected wolf habitat and/or prey and cumulatively add to the 

effects of this project include: past timber harvest (10,490 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), 

installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on lands of other ownership and any 

future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal organizations. Activities that have improved wolf 

habitat and their primary prey (deer) include pre-commercial thinning which has improved the forage on 

approximately 4,000 acres since the 1970s with an additional 1,250 acres planned over the next 10 years. 

One other possible benefit is the recent AMHT land exchange approved in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31). NFS lands would increase by approximately 1,071 acres, but the 

majority of this land has already been harvested, so any benefits to deer habitat would be minimal at this 

time. The land to be acquired through the land exchange will be managed in a natural condition, which 

will protect wildlife habitat.

Cumulatively, these impacts may have the potential to result in localized declines in the deer population, 

and therefore wolves, because deer is their primary prey. The historical and current theoretical deer 

habitat capability on Wrangell Island have never supported 18 deer/mi2

, and the model shows even further 

decline with increased harvest. Historical deer density on Wrangell Island on all land ownerships was 

12.9 deer/mi2

. The density is currently 10.8 deer/mi2. Alternative 2 would have greatest impact on deer 

density (reduced to 10.4 deer/mi2 1 year post-implementation and 9.9 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (table 

19)). Although there would be effects to the overall deer density on Wrangell Island, both deer and wolf 

habitat are expected to remain on Wrangell Island. Furthermore, Wrangell Island is approximately 

134,306 acres in size, of which 113,000 is NFS land. Approximately 31,000 of the NFS acres are 

protected by medium and small OGRs. An additional 21,000 acres are protected by the conservation 

strategy matrix (beach and stream buffers) and 47,000 acres are within inventoried roadless areas and are 

not suitable for timber harvest. This equates to nearly 88 percent of the NFS acres on Wrangell Island 

being excluded from old-growth timber harvest activities.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 100

Table 19. Cumulative effects to deer density (deer/mi2) on all land ownerships in WAA 1903 by alternative

Timeframe Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 12.9 -- -- -- --

Existing 10.8 -- -- -- --

1 yr. post 

implementation 10.8 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.5

At stem exclusion 

(2044) 10.6 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.2

Important note: when calculating deer density all partially harvested stands were treated as clearcuts and all non-National Forest

System lands were given a zero value.

Wolves are known to be highly mobile within their territories, therefore, wolves on adjacent islands with 

higher deer densities would continue to support wolves on the Wrangell Ranger District. Wrangell Island 

is located within the Etolin Complex biogeographic province, which is a midsized province consisting of 

three major islands (Wrangell, Etolin and Zarembo). Seventeen percent of the province is legislatively 

protected in the South Etolin Wilderness, 26 percent is protected by the Tongass Land Management Plan 

and 58 percent is managed in developed lands. Within the biogeographic province, three WAAs currently 

meet or exceed the 18 deer/mi2 habitat capability. The current road densities on all land ownerships below 

1,200 feet on Wrangell Island are above the guideline and are expected to increase among the action

alternatives. All action alternatives would put Wrangell Island above a road density of 1.0 mi/mi2 which 

could lead to an increase in human-caused wolf mortality. Alternatives 2 to 4 would increase road 

densities to 1.3 mi/mi2

, and Alternatives 3 and 5 would be slightly less (1.2 mi/mi2) (table 20).

Table 20. Cumulative road density below 1,200 feet (mi/mi2) on all land ownerships on Wrangell Island by 

alternative

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Road 

status mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2 mi mi/mi2

Open 90.1 0.68 101.6 0.77 99.8 0.75 99.9 0.75 90.1 0.68

Closed 52.4 0.39 65.8 0.50 62.4 0.47 66.9 0.50 69.6 0.52

Total 142.5 1.1 167.3 1.3 164.9 1.2 166.8 1.3 159.7 1.2

Roads include existing, motorized trails, closed and decommissioned on all land ownerships below 1,200 feet in elevation.

The area of all land ownerships below 1,200 feet on Wrangell Island is 132.67mi2

.

There could be minor cumulative effects on wolves and their prey when past, present and reasonably

foreseeable projects are combined with the implementation of the Wrangell Island Project.

Although there is the possibility of increased mortality, road density and decreased deer density across 

Wrangell Island, habitat would remain for both wolves and their prey.

American Marten

All action alternatives would have moderate direct and indirect effects to marten individuals and/or 

habitat because of the removal of potential habitat and increased motorized access. Two primary activities 

have been identified as affecting marten habitat: timber harvest below 800 feet (especially in high-volume 

POG forest) and increases in open motorized access. Alternatives that result in the greatest reduction in 

POG and high-volume POG habitat are expected to have the greatest effects to marten. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Marten would be directly affected through disturbance from harvest activities, which could result in 

habitat loss, displacement or adversely affecting young. The American marten is considered to be one of 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 101

the species most sensitive to disturbances induced by timber harvesting. Martens prefer to live under a 

dense canopy cover, which provides protection against avian predators and avoid stands with less than 30

to 40 percent overhead tree cover (Cheveau et al. 2013). Through the removal of forest cover and oldgrowth forest features such as decadent live trees and snags (POG), timber harvest would reduce the 

vertical and horizontal structural complexity important to marten in relation to prey access, denning and 

resting sites, escape from predation, and thermoregulation (Flynn and Schumacher 2001). Marten would 

see the greatest reduction in habitat under Alternative 2 which would reduce habitat by 6 to 11 percent, 

depending on habitat type (table 21).

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

NFS land only

Existing 

Condition Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Elevation POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG

NFS lands at all 

elevations 52,598 19,437 8 11 4 6 5 7 6 8

NFS lands 

below 1,500 ft.

elevation

41,218 17,029 9 11 5 6 6 7 6 8

NFS lands 

below 800 ft.

elevation

22,301 9,344 6 8 4 4 4 6 4 5

Forest fragmentation resulting from timber harvest may also alter patterns of occupancy, and movement 

by marten (Chapin et al. 1998, Cushman et al. 2011). Habitat loss and fragmentation could increase 

individual movement costs, because of constrained movements, increased predation risk and decrease 

foraging efficiency (Cheveau et al. 2013). Cheveau et al. (2013) theorized that martens would expand 

their home range or overlap with neighboring martens as a result of habitat loss and fragmentation but 

none of this was supported in his research. They were unable to find a relationship between home range 

size and the proportion of clearcuts nor a correlation between home range size and landscape type. Table 

22 displays historical and current POG patch sizes across Wrangell Island demonstrating that as harvest 

occurs, the more fragmented the landscape becomes. The larger patches (1000+ acres) get broken into the 

smaller patch size categories, thus, showing that the landscape would maintain patches of habitat for 

marten. 

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

alternatives (NFS land only)

Patch Size (acres) Historical (1954) Existing Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

15-50 66 66 86 65 65 65

50-100 13 12 18 13 13 13

100-250 10 15 20 14 16 14

250-500 4 5 5 5 3 5

500-1000 0 0 1 0 0 0

1000+ 3 5 9 5 5 5

Total Acres 66,210 55,571 51,098 53,276 52,990 52,606

Research has shown a negative linear relationship between clearcut logging and marten densities (Flynn 

1991). Clearcut logging directly affects marten habitat and can reduce the connectivity of POG across the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 102

project area. Clearcut harvest would also reduce canopy cover, the amount of coarse woody debris, the 

availability of denning and resting sites, habitat for prey species, and marten hunting efficiency. It would 

also create a relatively fine-grained, highly fragmented landscape pattern that includes increases in forestopening edge and decreases patch size (Thomas et al. 1988). Clearcutting differs from natural 

disturbances in that it represents a large-scale change rather than small dispersed patches where trees 

remain standing or partially standing (Hansen et al. 1991). Clearcuts and forest openings also reduce 

forest cover exposing martens to much higher snow accumulations and predation risks (Schoen et.al. 

2007). Marten are thought to avoid both young and older clearcuts in the winter (Flynn and Schumacher 

2001).

Under the current Forest Plan, the marten populations are supported by the conservation strategy which 

works to maintain old-growth forest cover and coarse woody debris to provide structure important to 

marten for resting, denning, escape from predators, trapping refugia, and facilitate dispersal. The beach 

and estuary fringe and RMAs provide travel corridors for marten, and inventoried roadless areas, old 

growth reserves and other non-development LUDs provide refugia from trapping.

Table 23 displays marten habitat acres harvested by alternative. Alternative 2 is expected to have the 

greatest impact on marten habitat with potential reductions of 4,116 acres of POG and 2,057 acres of 

HPOG at all elevations. Below 1,500 feet, POG could be reduced by 3,522 acres and HPOG by 1,812 

acres. Below 800 feet, POG could be reduced by 1,446 acres and HPOG by 743 acres.

Table 23. Acres of marten habitat harvested by alternative

Habitat Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS land (all elevations)

POG 4,116 2,303 2,586 2,972

High-volume POG 2,057 1,187 1,396 1,527

NFS land below 1,500 feet

POG 3,522 2,041 2,309 2,464

High-volume POG 1,812 1,067 1,267 1,304

NFS land below 800 feet

POG 1,446 787 934 942

High-volume POG 743 386 520 463

The uneven-aged harvest prescription using a single-tree selection (STS) harvest method may have less 

effect on marten habitat because approximately 67 percent or more of the stand’s pre-treatment basal area 

would be retained and available for use by martens. Thompson and Harestad (1994) theorized that 

selective logging that removed less than 30 percent of the basal area every 100 years in temperate rain 

forests would not reduce habitat carrying capacity. Godbout and Ouellet (2008) found similar results in 

that marten neither selected for or against units that had been partial cut as long as canopy cover remained 

greater than 30 percent and structure was maintained. Table 24 displays clearcut and STS of high-volume 

POG marten habitat acres which are the most important, especially during the winter. In areas proposed 

for the single-tree selection harvest method, which would maintain 67 percent or more of the stands’ pretreatment basal area, impact may not be as severe. This is especially true for Alternatives 2 and 5 where 

approximately 71 and 77 percent of the area, respectively, would maintain 67 percent or more of the 

stands’ basal area. Alternatives 3 and 4 would maintain at least 67 percent of the stands’ basal area on 

more than 50 percent of the area harvested.

The Marten Scientific Panel (USDA Forest Service 1997b, appendix N) concluded that clearcut 

silviculture prescriptions on a 100-year rotation would result in further fragmentation of marten habitat 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 103

and that while breeding populations would occur across the forest, there could be substantial gaps in 

marten distribution that could be permanent and result in limited interaction between populations. They 

defined the spatial scale of a gap to be one vacant marten territory every 1 to 3 mi2 (640 to 1,920 acres) in 

size. These gaps were in areas in which habitat capability had been reduced to the point that 

reproductively successful marten populations may no longer exist (USDA Forest Service 1997a, pp. 3-

396 and 3-397). The consequence of a gap would be some measure of reduced gene flow within the 

population: the greater the size and number of gaps, the higher the risk of reducing gene flow. Populations 

that have become isolated or reduced in size face increased risks of extirpation from inbreeding, genetic 

drift, and random environmental events (Flynn and Schumacher 1997). Schumacher (1999) concluded 

that to maintain marten populations in managed landscapes in Alaska, it is necessary to provide for a 

continuous recruitment of old, large-diameter trees for denning and resting sites and prey habitat 

throughout the affected area.

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

Habitat and silvicultural 

prescription Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS land - all elevations

Clearcut 557 524 568 262

STS 1,500 663 828 1,265

Total 2,057 1,187 1,396 1,527

NFS land below 1,500 feet

Clearcut 544 507 556 245

STS 1269 561 712 1,060

Total 1,812 1,067 1,267 1,304

NFS land below 800 feet

Clearcut 250 227 252 76

STS 493 159 268 387

Total 743 386 520 463

The project area has an extensive road system and new roads associated with all action alternatives, as 

well as other forest management projects that would contribute to potential issues associated with human 

access and over-exploitation of marten along the road system. Project total road densities would not 

exceed 1.3 mi/mi2 below 1,200 feet in elevation on all land ownerships (Table 20). There is no road 

density threshold for marten in the Forest Plan, but it is important when examining roadless refugia 

(Flynn et al. 2004). Roads are expected to have minor impacts to martens because the existing roadless 

refugia (roadless areas, unroaded OGRs and other matrix lands) within the project area would be 

maintained under all action alternatives.

Alternative 2 is expected to have the greatest impact on marten and their habitat because it removes the 

most habitat and would result in the highest road densities. The reduction of productive old growth (POG) 

and high-volume POG on Wrangell Island NFS lands would be as follows: approximately 4 to 8 percent 

of POG and 6 to 11 percent of high-volume POG at all elevations; 5 to 9 percent of POG and 6 to 11 

percent of high-volume POG below 1,500 feet in elevation; and 4 to 6 percent of POG and 4 to 8 percent 

of high-volume POG below 800 feet (table 21).

Cumulative Effects – Action Alternatives

Because there would be direct/indirect effects from all action alternatives to martens and their habitat, 

there would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 104

with the implementation of this project. Past activities on Wrangell Island that have affected marten 

habitat include: past timber harvest (10,490 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of 

utility corridors (26 miles), property development on lands of other ownership and any future timber sales 

proposed by Federal, State or tribal organizations. Ongoing or foreseeable timber harvest projects on NFS 

and State lands such as harvest cleared by the Wrangell Ranger District Roadside EA and 700 acres 

proposed for harvest near the Earl West Cove area, as well as harvest on private lands would contribute 

similar effects and further reduce marten POG habitat and high-volume POG habitat. One possible future 

benefit is the recently approved AMHT land exchange (Consolidated Appropriations Act 2017). NFS 

lands would acquire approximately 1,071 acres; however, the majority of this land has already been 

harvested so there would be no gain in current habitat. The land to be acquired through the land exchange 

will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

Approximately 85 percent of the original (1954) POG habitat remains within the project area WAA (Table 

25). Alternative 2 would have the greatest impact on marten habitat where critical winter habitat, which is 

deep snow marten habitat (high-volume POG below 800 feet elevation), only maintains 60 percent of the 

original 1954 historical acres (Table 25). In addition to the Wrangell Island project other on-going or 

foreseeable timber harvest projects on NFS, State, and private lands would contribute similar effects and 

further reduce marten POG and high-volume POG habitat.

Cumulatively, on all land ownerships, at all elevations within the project area WAA, approximately 85

percent of the original (1954) POG habitat remains (Table 25). There are currently 17,734 acres (60

percent of the original acres) of critical winter (deep snow) marten habitat (Table 25). All action 

alternatives would further reduce the amount of habitat available for martens. The greatest impact is from 

Alternative 2, which would decrease critical winter habitat by an additional 4 percent. Therefore 

implementation of the action alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects, through the loss of 

travel corridors, denning and hunting sites, and decreased ability to avoid predators. Although, there could 

be effects to martens and/or habitat, Wrangell Island would still maintain approximately 79 to 81 percent 

of the original POG habitat and 61 to 64 percent of the original high-volume POG habitat. Below 1,500 

feet in elevation, 76 to 78 percent of the original POG habitat and 60 to 62 percent of original highvolume POG habitat would be maintained; and below 800 feet in elevation, 74 to 76 percent of POG and 

56 to 58 percent of high-volume POG would be maintained (Table 25).

The project area has an extensive road system and new roads associated with the proposed action, as well 

as other forest management projects that would contribute to potential issues associated with human 

access and over-exploitation of marten along the road system. However, implementation of the Wrangell 

Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) would close or store roads in Alternatives 2 

and 5, which could mitigate some trapping effects. Project total road densities would not exceed 0.52 

mi/mi2 for all land and all elevation WAA 1903 (all ownerships). There is no road density standard and 

guideline for marten under the Forest Plan but it is important when examining roadless refugia (Flynn et 

al. 2004). The existing roadless refugia (roadless areas, unroaded old growth reserves (OGRs) and other 

matrix lands) within the project area would be maintained under all action alternatives. Flynn et al. 2006, 

stated that OGRs may not provide enough habitat by themselves to maintain healthy populations, and 

matrix land needs to be managed as productive habitat with adequate corridors among OGRs. Wrangell 

Island is approximately 134,306 acres in size, of which 113,000 is NFS land. Approximately 31,000 of the 

NFS acres are protected by medium and small OGRs. An additional 21,000 acres are protected by the 

conservation strategy matrix (beach and stream buffers) and 47,000 acres are within inventoried roadless 

areas and are not suitable for timber harvest. This equates to nearly 88 percent of the NFS acres on 

Wrangell Island being excluded from old-growth timber harvest activities.

Therefore, implementation of all action alternatives would have minor cumulative effects to martens or 

their habitat when combined with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future projects with the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 105

implementation of the Wrangell Island Project. Despite cumulative effects, Wrangell Island would 

continue to provide available habitat for martens.

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

alternative within WAA 1903 for all land ownerships

Historical 

(1954) 

acres

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Elevation POG / 

HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG

All lands 

at all 

elevations

66,524 / 

31,157 85 68 79 61 82 64 81 64 81 63

All lands 

below 

1,500 ft.

elevation

54,912 / 

28,490 82 66 76 60 78 62 78 62 78 61

All lands 

below 800 

ft.

elevation

32,966 / 

17,937 78 60 74 56 76 58 75 57 75 57

Bald Eagle

All action alternatives have been grouped together because any effects associated with timber harvest 

under the action alternative would affect bald eagles in similar ways.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat loss is the most significant long-term threat to bald eagle populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1986), but human disturbance, contaminants, food availability, and weather can also affect eagle 

densities and nesting success (Gende et al. 1998). Gende and others (1998) also noted that the nesting 

density of eagles along the shoreline was reduced within 330 feet of clearcuts although individual nesting 

success was similar. They recommended buffers of about 1,000 feet to maintain eagle populations in 

Alaska. The Forest Plan designates and protects a 1,000-foot forested beach-buffer along shorelines and 

estuaries. There is approximately 96 percent of bald eagle habitat remaining on National Forest System

land from historical condition (table 39).

Timber harvest and associated activities would create noise and disturbance (e.g., helicopter logging) and 

may have the potential to result in minor, temporary negligible direct/indirect effects to individual birds. 

As required by the Forest Plan, all alternatives would be conducted in accordance with the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act, including maintaining appropriate distances from active bald eagle nests. 

Helicopter flight paths that would avoid disturbance to bald eagle nests based on Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act requirements will be identified for the final unit pool as appropriate. There is no proposed 

timber harvest within the beach/estuary or within stream buffers.

The Forest Plan states that bald eagle nest sites should be managed in accordance with the USFWS

guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/alaska/eaglepermit/guidelines/timber.htm). The guidelines recommend

that active nests are protected with a 660-foot radius buffer, in which no harvest-related activities may 

occur, during the nesting season. There are also seasonal timing and activity restrictions for repeated 

helicopter flights within a 1,000 feet of active nests and for road blasting or rock crushing activities within 

0.5 mile of active nests. These recommendations will be implemented if active nests are located in or 

adjacent to proposed activities. Currently all known bald eagle nest sites within the project area fall within 

the established 1,000-foot beach fringe buffer. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 106

Cumulative Effects

Because there are measureable direct/indirect effects to bald eagles or their habitat under all action 

alternatives, there would be cumulative effects of past, present or reasonably foreseeable future activities 

combined with the implementation of the proposed project. All project activities would be implemented in 

accordance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. It is assumed that ongoing and foreseeable 

actions in the project area would also be conducted accordingly. Therefore, the Wrangell Island Project, in 

combination with ongoing and foreseeable activities, would have negligible cumulative effects to bald 

eagles or their habitat.

Black and Brown Bears

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber harvest has the potential to adversely affect bears through activities that create a disturbance, the 

removal of habitat and increased mortality through increased road access. There are no known dens that 

have been located within any of the proposed harvest units. Preferred habitats by bears, which include 

coastal, estuarine, and riparian areas, are protected by the Forest Plan conservation strategy. These areas 

support salmon which are an important component to a bear’s diet. Therefore, none of the alternatives are 

expected to significantly affect the highest quality black or brown bear habitats. All activities near Class I 

salmon streams, will follow the mandatory Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Additionally, reductions 

in deer habitat capability resulting from timber harvest could reduce fawn productivity, and therefore the 

prey base for bears in the spring. However, due to the variety of food consumed by bears and the shortterm availability of fawns as a food source, it is unlikely that this will have a substantial effect to the 

black or brown bear populations. Currently on NFS lands on Wrangell Island there are approximately 

52,598 acres of denning habitat and 3,741 acres of foraging habitat within 500 feet along Class I streams. 

Through the proposed alternatives, bear habitat could be reduced by 1 to 8 percent (table 26). Alternative 

2 would have the greatest reduction in bear denning habitat at 8 percent. 

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

condition

Habitat type

Historical

condition 

(1954)

Existing

condition

(2015)

% 

remaining 

from 

original

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Denning 

habitat1 59,683 52,598 88 0 8 4 5 6

Foraging 

habitat2 111,879 107,968 97 0 4 2 3 3

Foraging 

within 500 

feet of Class 

I streams

4,189 3,741 89 0 2 1 2 1

1 – Denning habitat includes all POG at all elevations

2 – Foraging habitat includes all habitats except young growth, lakes and water (volstrata e, o and w)

Timber harvest would have a beneficial impact by increasing forage availability over the short-term in the 

resulting early-successional plant communities. However, this food source typically lasts about 25 years 

post-logging in association with canopy closure. Over the long-term, timber harvest would decrease 

habitat suitability for bears, due to the reduced understory forage in young-growth stands as they enter the 

stem exclusion stage and loss of denning habitat in upland areas (e.g., large woody structures such as 

hollow logs and hollow living trees; Davis et al. 2012). At the WAA scale, it can be expected that habitat 

capability for bears would decline as harvested stands move into stem exclusion. Over time, this reduction 

in foraging habitat may result in a decrease in the bear population (Rogers 1976).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 107

Roads associated with timber harvest may indirectly increase the susceptibility of bears to be overharvested with an increase in access. Although there is no road density standard and guideline for bears, it 

can be assumed that an increase in open roads, particularly in open habitats such as clearcuts, muskegs, 

and alpine areas where bears forage and easier to see, increases the potential for human-bear interactions.

The amount of road access, quantified in terms of the amount of road construction and reconditioning

proposed under each alternative, is representative of the potential for increased human access, which can 

result harvest-related mortality; however black bear harvest risk is not tied to a particular road density 

level (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 234). For more information on road densities, see the full wildlife 

report.

Therefore, there would be minor direct/indirect effects to both bears because of disturbance and increased 

road densities; there would also be a minor reduction in black bear denning habitat as a result of 

implementing the action alternatives. Alternative 2 is expected to have the greatest impact because it 

proposes the most timber harvest and road building.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to both brown and black bears from all the action 

alternatives, there would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable activities. Activities on Wrangell Island that have affected bear habitat and prey and would 

cumulatively add to this project include: timber harvest (10,490 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 

miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on lands of other ownership and 

any future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal organizations. Activities that have improved 

habitat include pre-commercial thinning which has improved approximately 4,000 acres since the 1970s 

with an additional 1,250 acres planned over the next 10 years. One other possible benefit is the recently 

approved AMHT land exchange (Consolidated Appropriations Act 2017) through which NFS lands would 

gain approximately 1,071 acres. The majority of this land, however, has already been harvested so the

benefit would be a gain in short-term foraging habitat. The land to be acquired through the land exchange 

will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

The harvest of POG under the action alternatives would reduce the original (historic 1954) POG 

remaining within the project area WAA 1903 (table 27). Currently on all lands ownerships within WAA 

1903 (Wrangell Island), there are approximately 55,922 acres of denning habitat and 4,353 acres of 

foraging habitat along Class I streams (table 32). The proposed project would contribute to similar effects 

resulting from ongoing and foreseeable harvest on NFS, State lands, such as harvest cleared by the 

Wrangell Ranger District Roadside EA and 700 acres of harvest planned near the Earl West Cove area, as 

well as harvest on private land. After timber harvest there would be a short-term (about 25 years) increase 

in the forage availability for bears, which may result in short-term population growth. However, over the 

long-term (25 to 150 years), as the forest canopy fills, forage species would be reduced and thus reduce 

carrying capacity for bears. Alternative 2 would maintain approximately 78 percent of historical POG 

habitat (table 27).

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

ownerships) in WAA 1903

Habitat type

Historical 

condition 

(1954)

Existing 

condition

% 

remaining Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Denning 

habitat1 66,150 56,922 85 100 78 81 81 80

Foraging 

habitat2 130,067 124,362 96 100 92 94 93 93

Foraging 

within 500 5,260 4,353 83 100 81 82 82 82
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 108

Habitat type

Historical 

condition 

(1954)

Existing 

condition

% 

remaining Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

feet of Class I 

streams

1 – Denning habitat includes all POG at all elevations

2 – Foraging habitat includes all habitats except older young growth, lakes and saltwater

Ongoing and future thinning of young-growth stands on NFS lands would improve habitat conditions for 

bears over the short-term by increasing the period during which forage is available and over the long-term 

promote the development of larger trees which could provide suitable den sites.

Cumulative total road densities on all land ownerships would increase under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 and 

be reduced in Alternatives 1 and 5. Increased harvest of bears due to human access along roads would be 

greatest under Alternative 2 because it proposes the greatest amount of construction miles (includes 

motorized trails) that would remain open following project implementation. Other timber harvest projects 

on NFS and State lands that involve road construction also have the potential to result in cumulative roadrelated effects to bears. Projected total road densities (all land ownerships) would be between 0.72 to 0.87

mi/mi2 in WAA 1903 (all of Wrangell Island). Therefore, implementation of all action alternatives would 

have cumulative effects to both brown and black bears or their habitat when combined with past, present 

and reasonably foreseeable projects with the implementation of the Wrangell Island Project. Despite 

cumulative effects, Wrangell Island would continue to provide available denning and foraging habitat for 

both bear species. Depending on which alternative is selected, approximately 78 to 81 percent of historic 

denning habitat would remain and be available to bears and 81 to 82 percent of prime foraging habitat 

along Class I streams would remain. Although road densities would increase, it is not expected to have a 

major impact on bears because black bear harvest on Wrangell Island has historically been low, averaging 

3.5 bears/year (1991 to 2014) and has exceeded that average only once in last 5 years. As for brown bears, 

the last one harvested on this Island was in 2008.

Brown Creeper, Hairy Woodpecker, and Red-breasted Sapsucker

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber harvest and associated activities under all action alternatives have the potential to disturb nesting 

adults and young, remove nests, reduce habitat availability, or cause nest abandonment. Because these 

species are year-round residents, timber harvest activities could also displace birds during the nonbreeding season.

Direct effects to the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper would result from the 

removal of nesting and foraging habitat (POG forest). These species rely on structural components (e.g., 

large diameter trees, snags) of the old-growth forest ecosystem for nesting and foraging. Red-breasted 

sapsuckers are most closely associated with low- and medium-volume old growth; whereas hairy 

woodpeckers and brown creepers are associated with high-volume and large-tree, respectively. All harvest 

prescriptions and methods would reduce the number of large trees; however, uneven-aged harvest would 

retain some structural components suitable for these species. It is assumed that alternatives that prescribe 

the most even aged harvest of POG would have greater effects to these species. Table 28 displays existing 

and reduction of habitat by alternative. Alternative 2 would remove the greatest amount of habitat - 1 to 

11 percent of existing condition. Table 28 displays historical, existing and percent remaining by 

alternative.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 109

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

and percent remaining by alternative (NFS land)

Volstrata

Historical

condition

(1954)

Existing 

condition

(% 

remaining 

from 

historical)

Alt 2 

Harvest

(% 

reduction 

from 

existing)

Alt 3 

Harvest

(% 

reduction 

from 

existing)

Alt 4 

Harvest

(% 

reduction 

from 

existing)

Alt 5 

Harvest

(% 

reduction 

from 

existing)

High (5N, 

5S and 6/7) 26,522 19,437

(73)

2,057

(11)

1,187

(6)

1,396

(7)

1,527

(8)

Medium 

(4N, 4S and

5H)

-- 21,291

(--)

1,344

(6)

709

(3)

759

(4)

952

(4)

Low (4H) -- 11,870

(--)

715

(6)

406

(3)

431

(4)

493

(4)

Nonproductive 

lands1

-- 52,499

(--)

619

(1)

325

(1)

387

(1)

432

(1)

1 – Non-Productive Lands: Size Density shows the Volume Strata to be “Non-Productive Lands” for between 12 percent and 15

percent of the acres in the proposed alternative harvest units. This is partially caused by inaccurate Cover Type polygon delineation 

and, more substantially, caused by a lack of attribute data in Cover Type. When attribute fields in Cover Type contain no data 

(<NULL>) for FPROD (Forest Productivity), SSIZEC (Stand Size Class), or VOLC (Volume Class), then the VEG_CODE 

(Vegetation Code) field in Size Density gets populated with a value of “Unknown Forested Data.” For these same features, the 

VOLSTRATA (Volume Strata) field of Size Density is calculated to be “Non-Productive Lands.”

There would be minor direct/indirect effects to brown creepers, hairy woodpeckers and red-breasted 

sapsuckers because of disturbance and reduction in potential habitat as a result of implementing the action 

alternative. Alternative 2 is expected to have the greatest impact because it proposes the most timber 

harvest. Although there would be effects to these species and/or habitat, Wrangell Island would still 

maintain potential habitat. Alternative 2 would result in a loss of 6 to 11 percent of high-volume POG; 

and a loss of 3 to 6 percent of medium and low-volume POG (Table 28). Furthermore, the uneven-aged 

harvest prescription for approximately 50 to 77 percent of the proposed harvest (depending on alternative) 

is single-tree selection (STS), which would maintain at least 67 percent of the stand volume. As a result, 

impact may not be as severe.

At the VCU scale, Alternative 2 has the greatest impact it would reduce POG habitat in VCU 4750 by 18 

percent. Alternative 5 is the least impact except in VCU 4750 where it also reduces POG by 18 percent 

(table 29).

Indirect effects to these species would be associated with fragmentation and the reduction in POG patch 

sizes acres (table 29). Fragmentation reduces the amount and effectiveness of interior forest habitat by 

creating habitat edges along which there may be increased rates of nest predation by avian predators 

(Kissling and Garton 2008). Alternatives that result in the greatest increase in the number of patches in the 

smallest size classes, and result in the greatest decrease in acres of interior forest, would be expected to 

have greater effects to the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper. At the VCU 

scale, VCU 4750 POG habitat could be 18 percent in Alternatives 2 and 5 (table 29).
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 110

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

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

VCU / WAA

Acres of 

historical

condition 

(1954)

Alt 1

(Acres of 

existing 

condition)

(% remaining 

from 

historical)

Alt 2

(% reduction

from 

existing)

Alt 3

(% reduction

from 

existing)

Alt 4

(% reduction

from 

existing)

Alt 5

(% reduction

from 

existing)

4750 5,169 4,940

(96)

902

(18)

0

(0)

74

(2)

901

(18)

4760 4,226 3,560

(84)

318

(9)

228

(6)

245

(7)

228

(6)

4770 7,469 5,923

(79)

1,093

(18)

926

(16)

954

(16)

894

(15)

4780 9,966 7,710

(77)

689

(9)

531

(7)

576

(7)

515

(7)

4790 10,645 9,531

(90)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

4800 14,529 13,395

(92)

1,110

(8)

614

(5)

736

(6)

432

(3)

5040 1,814 1,779

(98)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

5050 5,866 5,760

(98)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

WAA 1903 59,684 52,598

(88)

4,002

(8)

2,299

(4)

2,585

(6)

2,970

(6)

Cumulative Effects

Past timber harvest has reduced the amount of foraging and nesting habitat available in the project area 

for the hairy woodpecker, brown creeper, and to a lesser extent, red-breasted sapsucker. Fragmentation 

resulting from past timber harvest has also reduced patch sizes, decreasing the suitability of remaining 

habitat through the loss of interior forest conditions. All of the action alternatives would contribute to 

these effects. Other activities on Wrangell Island that have affected potential brown creeper, hairy 

woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker and are cumulative with this project include: past timber harvest 

(10,490 acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles) and property 

development on lands of other ownership. An activity that has improved habitat by encouraging tree 

growth includes pre-commercial thinning approximately 4,000 acres since the 1970s. There are an 

additional 1,250 acres planned over the next 10 years. One other possible benefit is the recently approved 

AMHT land exchange (Consolidated Appropriations Act 2017) which would result in a gain of 

approximately 1,071 acres of NFS land. The majority of this land, however, has already been harvested 

and would be of little value to these POG-associated species. The land to be acquired through the land 

exchange will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest on NFS lands, including harvest cleared by the Wrangell Ranger 

District Roadside EA, micro-sales and free use, and the planned harvest of 700 acres of State land around 

the Earl West Cove area, would result in additional habitat loss and associated fragmentation. Younggrowth treatments on NFS lands may provide additional foraging opportunities for cavity nesters through 

the increase in downed wood and decaying debris. Restoration activities that involve thinning would have 

similar effects. At the VCU scale, VCU 4770 would only maintain 58 percent of the historical POG under 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 111

Alternative 2 (table 30). Despite having cumulative impacts for all alternatives on all land ownerships, 85 

percent of the historical POG in WAA 1903 is intact, and after implementation between 70 and 98 percent 

would remain depending on alternative and VCU. The Forest Plan conservation strategy would maintain 

habitats for the brown creeper, hairy woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker. 

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

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

VCU / WAA

Historical 

condition

(1954)

Alt 1

(existing 

condition)

(% remaining

of historical)

Alt 2

(% remaining

of historical)

Alt 3

(% remaining

of historical)

Alt 4

(% remaining

of historical)

Alt 5

(% remaining

of historical)

4750 6,362 5,263

(83)

902

(70)

0

(84)

74

(83)

901

(70)

4760 5,062 3,583

(71)

318

(65)

228

(66)

245

(66)

228

(66)

4770 8,434 5,998

(71)

1,093

(58)

926

(60)

954

(60)

894

(60)

4780 11,916 9,111

(76)

689

(71)

531

(72)

576

(72)

515

(72)

4790 12,199 11,028

(90)

0

(90)

0

(90)

0

(90)

0

(90)

4800 14,536 13,402

(92)

1,110

(84)

614

(88)

736

(87)

432

(89)

5040 2,166 2,127

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

5050 5,880 5,774

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

WAA 1903 66,554 56,285

(85)

4,112

(78)

2,299

(81)

2,585

(81)

2,970

(80)

Red Squirrel

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects to red squirrels can result from disturbances and habitat removal that adversely affect 

individuals or young including removing active nests. Squirrels are year-round residents and would be 

disturbed and displaced by harvest activities. Indirect effects result from the reduction of nesting, 

foraging, and caching habitat. The greatest threat to red squirrels is the loss of large cone producing trees 

and nest sites. Clearcutting directly impacts red squirrels by reducing the number of seed producing trees, 

nest sites, removing canopy and escape routes. It can take up to 40 years for regenerating trees to produce 

cones. Through the action alternatives, there could be a 4 to 8 percent decline in potential POG habitat at 

the WAA scale, on NFS lands on Wrangell Island (Table 29). Although there would be a decline in 

habitat, the remaining habitat on Wrangell Island would be sufficient to support red squirrel population. 

Therefore, there would minimal effects to red squirrels or their habitat as a result of implementing the 

action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to red squirrels from all action alternatives, there would be 

cumulative effects when combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities. Other 

activities on Wrangell Island that have affected potential red squirrel nesting and foraging habitat and are 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 112

cumulative with this project include: past timber harvest (10,490 acres), road/trail construction (100 

miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles) and property development on lands of other ownership. 

One possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange. The Forest Service would gain approximately 1,071

acres of National Forest System land, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and 

currently would be of little value to these POG-associated species. The land to be acquired through the 

land exchange will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

Past timber harvest has reduced the amount of red squirrel denning, nesting, and foraging habitat 

available on Wrangell Island. Fragmentation resulting from past timber harvest and POG removal 

activities has also reduced patch sizes, decreasing the suitability of remaining habitat through the loss of 

interior forest conditions. All of the proposed action alternatives would contribute to these effects.

Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest on NFS lands and State lands, such as those cleared by the 

Wrangell ranger District Roadside EA and 700 acres of planned harvest on State land near the Earl West 

Cove area, would result in additional habitat loss and associated fragmentation. The cumulative reduction 

in POG and connectivity within the matrix would result in negative impacts to red squirrel populations.

Impacts would be greatest in VCUs where there has already had substantial timber harvest, and where 

large young-growth stands or large clearcuts (greater than 0.6 mile across) are already present, which may 

act as barriers to red squirrel movements.

Young-growth treatments on NFS lands and restoration projects that involve thinning would improve 

habitat quality for red squirrels by creating structural conditions in young-growth stands that are 

conducive to red squirrel dispersal. At the WAA scale, POG habitat would be maintained at 78 to 85

percent of historical habitat (Table 30). Therefore, implementation of all action alternatives would have 

cumulative effects on red squirrels or their habitat when combined with past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable projects with the implementation of the Wrangell Island Project. Despite cumulative effects, 

Wrangell Island would continue to provide available denning and foraging habitat for red squirrels.

River Otter

Direct and Indirect Effects

With the implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the beach and estuary fringe, lake 

buffers, and stream buffers, as well as best management practices (BMPs) for maintaining water quality, 

all of the action alternatives would be expected to have negligible effects to river otters or their habitat.

There would be a 2 to 4 percent reduction of otter habitat on NFS lands through the action alternatives 

(table 31). Preferred river otter habitat, which includes old-growth forest immediately adjacent to coastal 

and fresh water aquatic environments (1,000-foot beach buffer and Class I and II streams), are protected 

by Forest Plan standards and guidelines and minimally affected by this project. The OGR and Scenic 

Viewshed LUD designations also protect shoreline habitats. Therefore, adverse effects to this species are 

negligible under all action alternatives.

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

reduction by alternative (NFS lands)

Historical

condition

(1954)

Existing

condition

(% remaining)

Alt 2 

(% reduction)

Alt 3

(% reduction)

Alt 4

(% reduction)

Alt 5

(% reduction)

9,681 8,347

(86)

364

(4)

150

(2)

255

(3)

167

(2)

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be negligible direct/indirect adverse effects to river otters with the implementation 

of all action alternatives, there would be no cumulative effects when combined with past, present and 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 113

reasonably foreseeable projects. All alternatives would follow standards and guidelines that protect 

important river otter habitat such as maintaining the beach and estuary fringe, lake buffers, and stream 

buffers, as well as BMPs for maintaining water quality. There would be a 2 to 4 percent reduction of 

POG, but would still maintain 78 to 80 percent of the habitat from the historical 1954 condition within 

500 feet of Class I and II streams (table 32). Furthermore, the Forest Service has a minimum of 100-foot 

no-harvest buffer along these streams. Therefore, any effect from the action alternatives would have a 

negligible contribution to effects (adverse or beneficial) to river otters. Ongoing and foreseeable timber 

harvest, young-growth treatments, and restoration activities on NFS lands would be subject to the same 

standards and guidelines, minimizing effects to river otter habitat. Any young-growth treatments on NFS 

lands in riparian, beach, and estuary habits would improve habitat quality for river otters, as would 

restoration activities in the project area, particularly those focused on riparian and in-stream habitat 

improvement but no such projects are scheduled in the reasonably foreseeable future.

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

shows percent of historical POG remaining for each alternative

Historical

1954

Existing

condition

(% remaining)

Alt 2

(% remaining)

Alt 3

(% remaining)

Alt 4

(% remaining)

Alt 5

(% remaining)

11,363 9,224 

(81)

364 

(78)

150 

(80)

255

(79)

167 

(80)

Sitka Black-tailed Deer 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be direct and indirect effects from all action alternatives on deer and/or habitat. All action 

alternatives would reduce POG habitat, therefore reducing deer habitat capability on Wrangell Island 

(table 33). Effects would be realized immediately after project completion, but more so at stem exclusion 

(2042), as forest succession progresses. Under all alternatives, this would occur to some extent due to 

natural succession of previously harvested stands. Over the long-term, reductions in habitat capability 

could reduce carrying capacity, or the number of deer an area is capable of supporting given the available 

resources. This could lead to a decline in the deer population, particularly following severe winters, if the 

demand for resources (e.g., food or habitat) exceeds what is available.

Uneven-aged harvest prescriptions would lessen reductions in habitat capabilities as both some cover and 

forage would be maintained in harvested stands. Uneven-aged management can take 50 years to recover 

as compared to 150 with some even-aged management. Likewise, reductions in deer habitat capability 

over the long-term may reduce the access to and availability of deer to subsistence hunters. In 2012, the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game estimated that deer numbers in GMU 3 are so low that the influence 

of habitat on deer numbers is likely to be of very little importance for many years to come. There are large 

areas of GMU 3 that have adequate remaining old-growth winter range, and deer numbers are still low. 

The Department does not believe that evaluating or improving habitat, or protecting more areas of old 

growth for deer can help restore deer numbers and harvest in the short-term; however, maintaining 

reserves of old-growth will be important for maintaining deer numbers once recovery has occurred 

(ADF&G 2012).

No old growth reserves would be modified by this project; therefore, deer habitat would be protected 

within these reserves.

Alternative 2 would have greatest reduction in deer habitat capability of 9 percent at stem exclusion (table 

33).
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 114

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

DHC reduced by alternative in WAA 1903 on NFS lands only

Deer Habitat 

Capability

Existing 

condition

(% remaining)

Alt 2

(% reduction)

Alt 3

(% reduction)

Alt 4

(% reduction)

Alt 5

(% reduction)

Historical (1954) 2,677 -- -- -- --

Current 2,254

(84) -- -- -- --

One year post

implementation

2,246

(100)

2,154

(5)

2,193

(3)

2,182

(3)

2,183

(3)

Stem exclusion 

(2042)

2,216

(98)

2,074

(8)

2,134

(5)

2,118

(6)

2,118

(6)

Timber harvest under all of the alternatives would decrease the amount of available average snow and 

deep snow winter habitat, and to a much less extent the non-winter habitat (table 34). Deer habitat 

capability could be reduced by 3 to 4 percent 1 year post-project completion and 5 to 8 percent at stem 

exclusion. This could alter the distribution of these habitats on the landscape resulting in concentrated 

deer use of these areas (Schoen and Kirchhoff 1984), although they are already patchily distributed in the 

project area. Resident deer that concentrate use within remnant patches of low-elevation forested habitat 

may be more prone to increased predation pressure or may resort to using lower quality habitats (McNay 

and Vollner 1995, B.C. Ministry of Forests 1996); such effects may indirectly affect the migratory deer 

population.

Timber harvest would also increase foraging habitat over the short-term in summer and low-snow winters, 

but could also reduce overall the amount of habitat (through POG reduction). Loss of non-winter habitat 

could reduce the ability of deer to withstand harsh winter conditions if not enough forage is available for 

deer to build fat reserves. Currently on NFS land there are 1,810 acres of deep snow habitat (high-volume 

POG SD 5S, 5N, 6/7 below 800 feet in elevation on south aspects), 41,219 acres of average snow habitat, 

and 108,473 acres of non-winter habitat (all habitat at all elevations) (table 34). Project activities would 

reduce habitat across Wrangell Island by 1 to 9 percent, all depending on which habitat type and 

alternative. The greatest impact to deer would be from Alternative 2 on average snow habitat, which could 

be reduced by as much as 9 percent from existing condition. Although there would be effects to deer 

density and capability on Wrangell Island, deer habitat would be expected to remain because Wrangell 

Island would still maintain approximately 96 to 97 percent of habitat capability 1 year post-project 

completion and 92 to 95 percent at stem exclusion.

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

Also includes percent reduction from current acres

Habitat

Historical

(1954) 

acres

Existing

acres

% of 

Historical

Alt 2

(% 

reduction)

Alt 3

(% 

reduction)

Alt 4

(% 

reduction)

Alt 5

(% 

reduction)

Deep 

snow1 2,660 1,810 68 29

(2)

18

(1)

25

(2)

13

(1)

Average 

snow2 48,045 41,219 86 3,522

(9)

2,041

(5)

2,309

(6)

2,464

(6)

Nonwinter3 112,422 108,473 96 1,239

(1)

1,254

(1)

1,252

(1)

1,240

(1)

1 – High volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, and 6/7) on south-facing slopes

2 – All POG (SD 4H, 4N, 4S, 5H, 5S, 5N, and 6/7) at or below 1,500 feet elevation

3 – Spring/summer/fall habitat; all habitat except (volstrata e, o, & w) at all elevations
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 115

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to deer and their habitat from all action alternatives, there 

would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present or reasonably foreseeable activities. Other 

activities on Wrangell Island that have affected deer habitat and are cumulative with this project include: 

past timber harvest (10,490 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors 

(26 miles), property development on lands of other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by 

Federal, State or tribal organizations. Activities that have improved habitat include pre-commercial 

thinning which has improved approximately 4,000 acres since the 1970s with an additional 1,250 acres 

planned over the next 10 years. Stands entering stem exclusion would continue into the future but be 

alleviated through thinning. One other possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange. The Forest Service

would gain approximately 1,071 acres of National Forest System land, but the majority of the land has 

already been harvested and would be of little value other than possible foraging habitat. The land to be 

acquired through the land exchange will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife 

habitat.

Past harvest activities have reduced deer habitat capability on all land ownerships within WAA 1903 

(table 35). Additional harvest on Wrangell Island, such as the 700 acres that would occur as part of the 

Earl West Cove area harvest or as cleared by the Wrangell Ranger District Roadside EA, would further 

reduce deer habitat capability; however, micro-sales and free use have a negligible effect on deer habitat 

capability because they do not result in substantial stand modification. Deer habitat capability would be 

maintain 77 percent of historical condition under Alternative 2, all other alternatives would affect deer 

habitat capability similarly (table 35). 

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

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

Deer habitat 

capability

Existing

condition

(% remaining)

Alt 2

(% remaining)

Alt 3

(% remaining)

Alt 4

(% remaining)

Alt 5

(% remaining)

Historical (1954) 2,677 -- -- -- --

Current 2,254

(84) -- -- -- --

One year

Post-implementation

2,245

(84)

2,154

(81)

2,193

(82)

2,182

(82)

2,183

(82)

Stem exclusion 

(2042)

2,216

(83)

2,074

(78)

2,134

(80)

2,180

(79)

2,118

(79)

Cumulative reductions in deep snow and average snow winter habitat would be reduced under all action 

alternatives (table 36). Currently in all land ownerships within WAA 1903 there is approximately 67

percent of the historical deep snow habitat, 82 percent of the average snow habitat and 96 percent of the 

non-winter habitat remaining on Wrangell Island (table 36). Average snow, deep snow, and non-winter 

habitat have also been reduced by past harvest and would be further reduced from historical condition by 

all the proposed action alternatives. The proposed project would reduce the existing deep snow habitat by 

1 percent, average snow by 5 to 7 percent and non-winter habitat by 1 percent. Therefore, implementation 

of the proposed project would moderately increase habitat fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a 

loss of habitat when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable harvest. Despite cumulative 

effects, Wrangell Island would continue to provide available habitat for deer. Depending on which habitat 

type and alternative that is selected, approximately 66 to 96 percent of historic habitat would remain and 

be available to deer. Deer habitat capability would decrease but still maintain 81 to 82 percent 1 year postproject completion and 78 to 80 percent at stem exclusion.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 116

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

harvested, percent remaining from historical condition

Habitat

Historical

condition

(1954) 

acres

Current

condition

acres

% 

remaining 

of 

historical

Alt 2

(%

remaining)

Alt 3

(%

remaining)

Alt 4

(%

remaining)

Alt 5

(%

remaining)

Deep 

snow1 3,333 2,248 67 29

(66)

18

(67)

25

(67)

13

(67)

Average 

snow2 54,913 44,902 82 3,522

(75)

2,041

(78)

2,309

(78)

2,464

(77)

Nonwinter3 133,396 127,652 96 1,239

(95)

1,254

(95)

1,252

(95)

1,240

(95)

1 – High volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, and 6/7) on south-facing slopes

2 – All POG (SD 4H, 4N, 4S, 5H, 5S, 5N, and 6/7) at or below 1,500 feet elevation.

3 – Spring/summer/fall habitat; all POG, non-productive OG, non-forested, muskeg at all elevations

Vancouver Canada Goose

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be negligible direct and indirect effects to Vancouver Canada geese as a result of 

implementing the proposed action alternatives. Timber harvest and associated activities would have the 

potential to affect Vancouver Canada geese through noise but any adverse effects would be short-term and 

negligible. The Vancouver Canada goose nests and rears its broods in coastal forested habitats near water 

sources and winters along marine waters. These geese have been known to utilize both forested and nonforested wetlands. Timber harvest would affect this species through the removal of forested wetlands.

Habitat for Vancouver Canada geese on NFS lands could be reduced by 3 to 6 percent through the action 

alternatives (table 37), but once these units are laid out for harvest the poorer quality timber which is what 

the geese prefer normally gets dropped from harvest. Forest Plan standards and guidelines would maintain 

habitats in beach/estuary buffers, riparian and lake buffers. Additional protection of wetlands and areas of 

concentrated waterfowl use is also provided for under the waterfowl and shorebird habitat standards and 

guidelines although there are no such areas identified in the project area. Conversion of these stands to 

young growth would be expected to lower the ability of this habitat to support Vancouver Canada geese. It 

is assumed that alternatives that harvest the most forested wetlands would have the greatest effects to 

Vancouver Canada geese. Any effects from the proposed project is expected to negligibly affect 

Vancouver Canada geese.

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

by alternative (NFS lands only)

Habitat Existing 

acres

Alt 2

(% reduction)

Alt 3

(% reduction)

Alt 4

(% reduction)

Alt 5

(% reduction)

Hydric POG (SD4H) 11,869 6 3 4 4

Other unproductive 

lands1 52,481 1 1 1 1

1 – Other unproductive lands = Volstrata (N)

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be negligible adverse direct/indirect effects to Vancouver Canadian geese with the 

implementation of any of the action alternatives, there would be negligible cumulative effects when 

combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. The project area would maintain a 

minimum of 94 percent of the original 1954 historical conditions (table 38). Furthermore, there are 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 117

standards and guidelines in place that protect important Vancouver Canada goose habitat, such as 

maintaining the beach and estuary fringe, lake buffers, and stream buffers, as well as BMPs for 

maintaining water quality, and timber harvest in Vancouver Canada goose habitat has generally been 

minimal because these sites are fairly unproductive for timber harvest. Therefore all action alternatives 

would have negligible effects on Vancouver Canada geese. Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest, 

young-growth treatments, and restoration activities on NFS lands would be subject to the same standards 

and guidelines, minimizing effects to Vancouver Canada goose habitat.

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

Habitat

Historical

condition 

(1954)

Alt 2

(% remaining)

Alt 3

(% remaining)

Alt 4

(% remaining)

Alt 5

(% remaining)

Hydric POG

(4H and 5H) 12,809 acres 93 96 96 95

Other 

unproductive 

lands1

64,060 acres 99 99 99 99

1 – Other unproductive lands = Volstrata (N)

Great Blue Heron 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be negligible direct and indirect effects to great blue herons or their habitat from all 

proposed action alternatives. Timber harvest and associated activities would have the potential to affect 

great blue heron through noise and disturbance, but all potential disturbances are expected to short-term 

and negligible because these known areas are protected by Forest Plan Standard and Guideline buffers.

This species utilizes both forested and un-forested wetlands and on Wrangell approximately 96 percent of 

the historical 1954 habitat remains on NFS lands within WAA 1903 (table 39). 

Timber harvest could affect this species through the removal of forested wetlands, but no harvest 

activities are scheduled to occur within the 1000-foot beach buffer or 100 feet of any lake. The great blue 

heron usually nest within 2 miles of coastal foraging areas and rears its broods in coastal forested habitats.

There are Forest Plan standards and guidelines that maintain habitats in beach and estuary buffers and 

riparian, lake, stream and nest buffers. Protection of wetlands and areas of concentrated waterfowl use is 

also provided for under the waterfowl and shorebird habitat standards and guidelines, though there are no 

such areas identified in the project area. Conversion of these stands to young growth would be expected to 

lower the ability of this habitat to support great blue heron. It is assumed that alternatives where logging 

activity would have the most impact is when mature timber is in close proximity to prime foraging 

habitat. There are known heron rookeries on Wrangell Island that are currently protected and would 

remain so with a 600-foot buffer. Harvest activities adjacent to rookeries should be deferred until after the 

breeding season (March 1 to July 31). If any previously unknown nests are discovered during 

implementation they will also be protected. Therefore any direct or indirect effects to great blue herons 

are expected to be negligible.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be negligible adverse direct and indirect effects to great blue herons and/or their 

habitat with the implementation of all action alternatives, there would be negligible cumulative effects 

when combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. Currently 88 percent of the 

historical 1954 habitat remains on Wrangell Island (all ownerships). Also, the Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines in place that protect important habitat such as maintaining the beach and estuary fringe, lake 

buffers, and nest buffers (on NFS lands only). Some potential nesting habitat may be affected through 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 118

harvest activities, but nesting habitat is not a limiting factor affecting great blue herons. Therefore, all 

action alternatives would only have negligible effects on great blue herons or their habitat. Ongoing and 

foreseeable timber harvest, young-growth treatments, and restoration activities on NFS lands would be 

subject to the same standards and guidelines, minimizing effects to great blue heron habitat.

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

1903

Historical condition

(1954) Existing condition % remaining from historical

condition

All land ownerships

6,715 acres 5,928 acres 88

NFS lands only

5,275 acres 5,081 acres 96

Marbled Murrelet 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Timber harvest and associated activities would have direct/indirect effects on marbled murrelets through 

noise, disturbance, and the removal of potential nesting habitat. Although no murrelets were observed 

during field reconnaissance, they are common in marine waters surrounding Wrangell Island. 

Direct impacts from logging on murrelet nesting habitat can be assumed because clearcut logging 

combined with a short (100-year) timber rotation cycles will permanently reduce potential murrelet 

nesting habitat on Wrangell Island. In Southeast Alaska trees in younger forests are much smaller and lack 

the large branches and epiphyte growth required for successful nesting sites (Cotter and Kirchhoff 2007).

Effects to POG forests resulting from all the action alternatives are summarized in (table 40). Effects 

would be greatest under Alternative 2, where the Wrangell Island Project would reduce habitat by 

approximately 4 to 8 percent of the existing POG habitat on National Forest System lands within WAA 

1903. Although there would be effects NFS lands would still maintain a minimum of 92 percent of the 

existing POG on Wrangell. Therefore any direct or indirect effects to marbled murrelets or their habitat 

would be minor because of the amount of habitat remaining on Wrangell Island.

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

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

Historical

condition 

(1954)

Existing

condition

(% remaining 

from historical)

Alt 2

(% reduction 

from existing)

Alt 3

(% reduction 

from existing)

Alt 4

(% reduction 

from existing)

Alt 5

(% reduction 

from existing)

59,683 52,598

(88)

4,116

(8)

2,303

(4)

2,586

(5)

2,972

(6)

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to marbled murrelets, there would be cumulative adverse 

effects with the implementation of all action alternatives when combined with past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable projects. Activities on Wrangell Island that have affected marbled murrelet 

potential nesting habitat and are cumulative with this project include: past timber harvest (10,490 NFS

acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property 

development on lands of other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal 

organizations. One possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange where the Forest Service would gain 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 119

approximately 1,071 acres, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and is of little value to 

this POG-associated species. The land to be acquired through the land exchange will be managed in a 

natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

There are standards and guidelines in place that would protect nests if any were discovered. Cumulative 

effects to murrelet habitat in the project area are described in table 41. The Wrangell Island Project in 

combination with past, present, and foreseeable projects would decrease POG and increase the number of 

habitat patches across the landscape, which are smaller and thus result in a greater fragmented landscape.

The percent of habitat remaining upon project completion is approximately 79 to 82 percent of the 

historical 1954 condition on all land ownerships on Wrangell Island (table 41). Therefore, all action 

alternatives may result in local declines of marbled murrelet population due to the reduced availability of 

potential nesting habitat. Implementation of the proposed project will increase habitat fragmentation, 

human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, but despite these cumulative effects, Wrangell Island 

would continue to provide available habitat for marbled murrelets.

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

Island in WAA 1903

Historical

condition

(1954)

Existing

condition

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 2

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 3

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 4

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 5

(% remaining 

of historical)

66,527 56,259

(85)

4,116

(79)

2,303

(82)

2,586

(81)

2,972

(81)

Wrangell Southern Red-backed Vole

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be direct/indirect effects to Wrangell southern red-backed voles as a result of implementing 

the proposed action alternatives. Timber harvest would directly affect the Wrangell southern red-backed 

vole through habitat loss (all POG), and by altering the distribution of habitats across the landscape. This 

may inhibit the ability of individuals to move between patches of suitable habitat, and therefore may 

further limit the distribution of a population or reduce genetic interchange between subpopulations.

Alternatives that harvest the most POG would result in the greatest increase in the number of smaller 

POG patches on the landscape and would be expected to have the greatest effect to the Wrangell southern 

red-backed vole.

Effects to POG forests resulting from all alternatives (NFS lands only) are described in table 40. Effects 

would be greatest under Alternative 2, where the Wrangell Island Project would reduce approximately 4

to 8 percent of the existing POG habitat on NFS land. Therefore all action alternatives that remove POG 

habitat would have minor effects on red-backed voles, which could lead to population declines and 

reduced genetic interchange because of habitat fragmentation. Although, there would be minor effects to 

southern red-backed voles and/or habitat, Wrangell Island would still maintain approximately 92 to 96

percent of the existing POG habitat on NFS lands.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative habitat disturbance is especially problematic for archipelagos such as the Tongass, where 

habitat is already naturally fragmented among oceanic islands, average population size is smaller than in 

mainland habitats, source populations are isolated, and demographic stochasticity and inbreeding 

depression increase risk of extinction (Cook et al. 2006). This is particularly pertinent for endemic taxa 

that already exist in isolated populations by default, and for species that are less mobile. The conservation 

strategy was designed to address this through the network of non-development LUDs, including the OGR 

system, and Forest-wide standards and guidelines both of which were intended to maintain habitat 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 120

components important to a variety of species and maintain connectivity across the landscape (USDA 

Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-295).

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to Wrangell southern red-backed voles, there would be 

cumulative adverse effects with the implementation of all the action alternatives. Activities on Wrangell 

Island that have affected southern red-backed vole habitat and are cumulative with this project include: 

past timber harvest (10,490 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors 

(26 miles), property development on lands of other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by 

Federal, State or tribal organizations. One possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange where the Forest 

Service would gain approximately 1,071 acres, but the majority of this land has already been harvested 

and is of little value to this POG-associated species. The land to be acquired through the land exchange 

will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

Timber harvest proposed under the action alternatives would further reduce and fragment POG habitat

across Wrangell Island. Cumulative effects to POG and patch size in the project area by alternative is 

described in table 41. The Wrangell Island Project in combination with past, present, and foreseeable 

projects would result in a reduction in habitat, patch size acres, which would all lead to a more 

fragmented landscape. Wrangell Island would maintain approximately 79 to 82 percent of 1954 POG 

levels. Therefore, all action alternatives may result in local declines in red-backed vole population due to 

the reduced availability of optimum POG habitat. Implementation of the proposed action alternatives 

would increase habitat fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, when combined 

with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. There are still questions as to whether habitat 

features required to sustain breeding vole populations occur only in late seral forest. On nearby Etolin 

Island, southern red-backed voles were discovered in alpine habitat, opening up previously overlooked 

habitat type for these voles on Wrangell Island. Furthermore, southern red-backed voles (Myodes gapperi) 

are globally secure (NatureServe 2015) and occur across much of northern North America.

Migratory Birds 

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be direct/indirect effects to migratory birds as a result of implementing the proposed action 

alternatives. Direct effects to migratory birds would result from disturbance, nest abandonment or 

removal, and loss of habitat. For species that are year-round residents, timber harvest (POG removal) and 

associated activities (road building) have the potential to disturb and displace birds during the nonbreeding season. Indirect effects would result from the reduction of perching, foraging, and potential 

nesting habitat and the increase in habitat fragmentation. After timber harvest there would be a short-term 

increase in the habitat for species associated with early successional habitats and forest edges, which may 

result in short-term population growth for these species. However, extended local reductions in available 

habitat for both early and late successional species would be expected as forest succession progresses.

Matsuoka and others (2012) estimated that at 35 years post-clearcutting, bird communities in managed 

stands were beginning to more-closely resemble old growth. Thus, the retention of legacy trees and snags 

may be useful in carrying over some of the functions of old-growth forests into harvested stands 

(DellaSala et al. 1996, Hanley et al. 2005 and Matsuoka et al. 2012).

Habitat fragmentation can strongly influence bird community composition, and bird distribution has been 

identified as a major cause of population declines of breeding migratory songbirds (Kissling and Garton 

2008). Reduction in patch size would reduce the effectiveness of interior forest habitat and increase the 

potential for nest predation and nest parasitism for some species, which can ultimately reduce 

reproductive success (Robinson et al. 1995). Migratory birds would be most susceptible to impacts from 

harvest activities occurring in suitable habitat during the nesting/fledging period, which generally begins 

in mid-April and ends about mid-July, when young birds have fledged.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 121

Species most likely to be affected are those that nest in hemlock/Sitka spruce forests and those that utilize 

POG forests. The magnitude of effects will vary depending on bird species, amount of harvest, and the 

season in which harvest activities occur. Species that would be impacted include the western screech-owl, 

rufous hummingbird, red-breasted sapsucker, Pacific-slope flycatcher, Steller’s jay, northwestern crow, 

chestnut-backed chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, Townsend's warbler, blackpoll 

warbler, northern goshawk, purple finch, dusky grouse, Vaux’s swift, Hammonds flycatcher, olive-sided 

flycatcher, bald eagle, Western wood-pewee, and marbled murrelet. Species that utilize early successional 

or shrub habitats such as McGillivray’s warbler, golden-crowned sparrow, golden-crowned kinglet, purple 

finch, and varied thrush may benefit in the short to mid-term from the proposed timber harvest due to the 

creation of new habitat. Habitat would be reduced with the onset of stem exclusion. Impacts to other 

species that could occur on Wrangell Island but are associated with habitat types other than 

spruce/hemlock/cedar would be negligible to non-existent. Therefore, this discussion focuses on oldgrowth associated species. Alternatives that harvest the most POG and result in greater increases in the 

number of POG patches on the landscape would be expected to have greater effects to these migratory 

bird species (table 40). The proposed project through all the action alternatives would cause a 4 to 8

percent reduction in POG habitat on NFS lands on Wrangell Island. Therefore, there would be minor 

direct/indirect effects to all hemlock/Sitka spruce/cedar associated migratory bird species because of 

disturbance and reduction in potential habitat as a result of implementing the action alternative. 

Alternative 2 is expected to have the greatest impact because it proposes the most timber harvest. 

Although there would be effects to these species and/or habitat, Wrangell Island would still maintain 

approximately 89 to 94 percent of high-volume POG and 92 to 96 percent of the existing POG on NFS 

lands on Wrangell Island (table 21). Furthermore, one of the proposed silvicultural prescriptions

prescribes a partial-harvest method (single-tree or group-selection) that would maintain at least 67 percent 

of the stand volume on 50 to 77 percent of the harvest acres, which would also lessen impacts to 

migratory birds.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to migratory birds and/or habitat from all action 

alternatives, there would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present or reasonably 

foreseeable activities. Other activities on Wrangell Island that have affected migratory birds or their

habitat and are cumulative with this project include: past timber harvest (10,490 NFS acres), road/trail 

construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on lands of 

other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal organizations. One 

possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange. The Forest Service would gain approximately 1,071 acres, 

but the majority of this land has already been harvested and currently would be of little value to this POGassociated species but good for shrub-associated species. The land to be acquired through the land 

exchange will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect wildlife habitat.

Past timber harvest in the project area has removed migratory bird habitat or reduced its suitability 

through fragmentation (and associated edge effects such as predation). All action alternatives would 

further contribute to the loss and fragmentation of migratory bird habitat. The total amount of POG 

habitat remaining at project completion would be approximately 79 to 82 percent of historical 1954 

condition across the entire Island (Table 41). Alternative 2 would harvest the most POG of all action 

alternatives and thus cause the greatest impact to migratory birds and their habitat; however, 62,390 acres 

of migratory bird habitat is currently being maintained on Wrangell Island through the Forest Plan 

conservation strategy (OGR, RMAs and beach fringe). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project 

will increase habitat fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat when combined with 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. Despite cumulative impacts under all alternatives, the 

Forest Plan conservation strategy would maintain habitats for all POG associated migratory bird species.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 122

Issue 3: Scenic Quality

Introduction

Scenery is defined as the general appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or features of 

a landscape. Scenery is a resource of the Tongass National Forest much like recreation, timber, or 

wildlife. As a resource, it represents the attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide 

varying responses from and varying degrees of benefits to humans (USDA Forest Service 1995). For 

many visitors and those who experience the Tongass National Forest there is an expectation that the 

Forest provides visually appealing scenery, especially in areas along the Alaska Marine Highway, tour 

ship and small boat routes, State highways, and NFS roads, and from popular recreation places (Clausen 

and Schroeder 2004), with the objective of maintaining scenic integrity based upon land use objectives

(USDA Forest Service 2016b, p. 2 4).

The scenic integrity of Wrangell Island would be affected by timber harvest activities and road 

development. The intent of this analysis is to disclose to what extent the proposed activities in each 

alternative would affect scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) adopted for land areas within the Forest Plan. 

Scenic integrity objectives are a measure of the degree of alteration to the landscape and generally 

coincide with management objectives for specific land use designations.

Affected Environment

Analysis Area and Methods of Assessment

The scenery analysis area for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is Wrangell Island and sub-sections 

of the project area represented within value comparison units (VCUs) 4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, and 

4800. Value comparison units 5040 and 5050 along Blake Channel along the eastern shoreline of 

Wrangell Island would have no proposed development. VCUs are a useful land area component from a 

comparative aspect in that they have a commonality in observation of a specific landscape area from 

multiple viewpoints and generally consist of a single LUD with common resource objectives. Also 

considered in this analysis is scenery guidance from the Forest Plan, which outlines levels of concern for

scenic effect found in the Forest Plan Scenery standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2016b, pp.

4-54 to 4-60), in addition to visual priority travel routes and use areas (VPRs) (USDA Forest Service 

2016d, pp. F-5 to F-6). Also incorporated as a basis of scenic assessment is the Scenery Management 

System (SMS), which provides a framework for integrating scenery management principles into all levels 

of Forest Service planning. The SMS is described in Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery 

Management, Agriculture Handbook #701 (USDA Forest Service 1995).

Integral to the assessment of scenic effects within the project area are Visual Priority Routes (VPRs).

Locations viewed from any observation point from any VPR incorporate scenic attributes to assess the 

visibility and effect of development upon landscape. The assessment begins with the distance from which 

the activity is observed, defined as a Distance Zone (table 42). When viewed from VPRs, distance zones 

to the point of observation include Foreground (point of the observer up to 0.5 mile), Middleground (0.5 

mile to 3-5 miles), and Background (beyond 5 miles, but less than 15 miles), and Seldom Seen 

(landscapes deemed least affected by change and not visible from VPRs). By combining distance zone 

and LUDs, scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) are derived (USDA Forest Service 2016b, p. 4-55). LUDs 

proposed for development for the Wrangell Island Project include, Scenic Viewshed (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b, p. 3-103), Modified Landscape (USDA Forest Service 2016b, p. 3-111), and Timber 

Production (USDA Forest Service 2016b, p. 3-118).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 123

Table 42. Acres by distance zone for Wrangell Island

Distance Zone Acres

Foreground 10,638

Middleground 66,363 

Background 1,929

Seldom Seen 33,112

Total NFS 112,936

Acres of land of other ownership are not inventoried. About 894 acres (<1% of NFS lands) are lands of other ownership, saltwater, 

or result from data inaccuracy. These uncategorized acres are inconsequential to this analysis as the acres are unaffected by this 

project.

SIOs are used to define the visual appearance as a result of management and the degree to which the 

landscape must be retained intact, or can be perceived as modified by alterations by human activities

(Table 43). The long-term future scenic condition for each area is set as a scenic integrity level that 

defines maximum levels of visual impact desirable from human alterations to the natural landscape 

character. Associated with each objective is a set of recommended scenery standards and guidelines that 

include harvest unit size ranges and method of treatment. These recommendations are guidelines that 

roughly define how much modification can occur and still achieve the desired SIO. Each objective makes 

recommendations for each distance zone and the period of time to meet the adopted SIO (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b, pp. 4-54 to 4-58). Visual depictions of SIO criteria can also be found in the Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 2016b, pp. 4-58 to 4-60).

The following are classifications of scenic integrity objectives.

• High: The characteristic landscape appears intact. Deviations may be present but must repeat 

form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at 

such a scale that they are not evident. Under this condition the Forest visitor would not notice 

change.

• Moderate: The landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations are visually subordinate 

to the character. Under this condition the appearance timber harvest activities would be evident 

but the natural characteristics of the forest would be predominant. 

• Low: The landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations may be dominant, but are shaped to 

borrow from the natural landform and other visual dominance elements (line, form, texture, color) 

and are subordinate to the characteristic landscape when viewed as background. Under this 

condition timber harvest very noticeable with some characteristics of a natural forest being 

retained. 

• Very Low: Deviations are dominant, but borrow from the natural terrain and other elements 

common to the characteristic landscape. Under this condition timber harvest activities would be 

highly evident with few characteristics of a natural forest being retained.

The High SIO is adopted under the Forest Plan include areas surrounding Fools Inlet, the shoreline of 

Blake Channel, the vicinity of Earl West Marsh, the Upper and Lower Salamander Creek drainage, the 

lands adjacent to Thoms Place State Marine Park, the shoreline at Nemo Point, and portions of north 

Wrangell Island. The High SIO is also designated within the Old-growth Habitat and Municipal 

Watershed LUDs which are excluded from development for this project.

Moderate SIO areas consist of the Foreground along the northwest segment of the Nemo-Skip Loop Road 

(6267) and associated recreation use areas, the Foreground along Middle Ridge Road (50060) and the 

Foreground along a segment of McCormack Creek Road (6265) between Nemo-Skip Loop and Garnet 

Road (50022).
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 124

Low SIO areas consist of the remaining areas of north Wrangell Island, the north side of Salamander 

Ridge to the west of Middle Road (50060), the remaining Foreground of Nemo-Skip Loop Road (6267), 

lands adjacent Upper Salamander Campsite and Highbush Lake, the Foreground of Fools Inlet Road 

(6270), a portion of the Foreground Thoms Creek Road (6299), a portion of the Middleground along 

Blake Inlet, and smaller tracts near Thoms Point and Fools Inlet.

Very Low SIO areas consist of the alpine and Seldom Seen defined distance zone areas between Fools 

Inlet and Blake Channel, Fools Inlet and Thoms Place, alpine settings around Long Lake, the 

mountainous area to the north of the southern extent of Nemo-Skip Loop Road (6267), the southern slope 

of Salamander Ridge, and isolated locations in the northeastern part of the island.

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

Scenic integrity objective Acres

High 34,571

Moderate 10,589

Low 34,455

Very Low 31,948

Total NFS 112,936

Acres of land of other ownership are not inventoried. About 1,373 acres (approximately 1%) are lands of other ownership, saltwater, 

or result from data inaccuracy. These uncategorized acres are inconsequential to this analysis as the acres are unaffected by this 

project.

Existing Condition

The landscape in the north portion of Wrangell Island has significant visible alteration to the landscape 

with the predominant modifications due previous timber management and associated roads development,

as well as management occurring on portions of State and private lands. The majority of this change has 

occurred along the shoreline. The central portion of Wrangell Island has been highly modified, and as a 

result, the network of forest system roads, recreation areas, and previous timber harvest activities visually 

dominate the landscape. The southwest and eastern portions of the island are generally unaltered in 

appearance. Previously harvested areas continue to regenerate and contribute to a matrix of varying stages 

of vegetation regrowth ranging from areas of recent harvest to areas appearing fully natural. Remote 

alpine or inaccessible locations off the road system are intact or appear to be intact with no or very little 

visual change. Areas adjacent to Blake Channel remain unnoticeable to change with the exception of the 

Tyee power transmission line bordering the waterway.

Desired Condition

The desired condition for the scenery resource on Wrangell Island is defined by the LUDs identified in 

the Forest Plan. Each land use designation has varying degrees of acceptable scenic alteration based upon 

the goals and objectives corresponding to a level of scenic quality to be maintained.

A primary goal of the Scenic Viewshed LUD is to provide a sustained yield of timber and a mix of 

resource activities while minimizing the visibility of developments as seen from visual priority travel 

routes and use areas. The desired condition is for forest visitors to generally experience a mostly naturalappearing landscape as viewed from these locations. Those areas screened from view of visual priority 

travel routes and use areas may be heavily modified by timber harvest.

In areas designated as Modified Landscape, a primary goal is to provide a sustained timber yield and a 

mix of resource activities while minimizing the visibility of developments in the Foreground distance 

zone. The desired condition is for forest visitors using visual priority travel routes and use areas to view a 

somewhat modified landscape, where management activities in the visual Foreground will be subordinate 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 125

to the characteristic landscape but may dominate the landscape in the Middle and Background distance 

zones.

For locations designated for Timber Production, a primary goal is to maintain and promote wood 

production from suitable forest lands, providing a continuous supply of wood, seeking a timber based 

objective. The desired condition is for management activities to generally dominate most seen areas. 

Timber harvest would occur in a mix of age classes from young stands to trees of harvestable age, often 

of 40 to 100 acres in size. Forest visitors would view a landscape modified by change in most areas 

beyond the Foreground distance zone.

Old-growth Habitat LUD would maintain forested areas in their associated natural ecological processes to 

provide habitat for associated resources. The desired scenic condition would seek to sustain an 

environment where development is unnoticeable to Tongass National Forest visitors. 

Effects Analysis Indicators (Units of Measure)

The following indicators were used to measure the potential effects of project alternatives to scenery.

Table 44. Issues and indicators for the scenery resource

Resource Issues Issue Indicators

Direct and indirect effects of timber harvest. Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) achieved.

Cumulative effect of timber harvest. Total allowable visual disturbance by value comparison 

unit (VCU). 

Changes to areas of scenic importance

expressed in public scoping. 

Timber harvest within Foreground distance zone by 

alternative.

Acres of harvest by scenic integrity objective (SIO).

Acres of land use designation (LUD) by alternative.

The issue indicators used to determine the direct and indirect effects of proposed activities on the scenery 

resource include the expected SIO achieved by the activity relative to those adopted in the 2016 Forest 

Plan. The cumulative effects for the scenery resource are expressed as the percentage of total visual 

disturbance past, present, and future within a value comparison unit relative to the total suitable timber 

acres. Landscapes designated for timber production would have a greater acceptable change over time.

For the purpose of this project analysis, previously harvest units older than 30 to 35 years are considered 

visually recovered to a natural-appearing condition and are not included in the cumulative effects 

analysis. The resulting unit of measure and consequence would be represented by the acres of Foreground 

distance zone, acres of harvest by SIO, and acres of harvest by LUD.

Factors contributing to the visual magnitude associated with timber harvest include: the size, shape, type 

of treatment, slope and aspect, distance at which it is observed, time of day and lighting conditions, 

prevailing weather, and vegetation composition of the surrounding landscape. For the Wrangell Island 

Project, design measures to minimize scenic effects include: 

• Deferral of timber harvest; 

• Removal of trees by helicopter and shovel methods; 

• Modifying unit size and/or shape; 

• Method of harvest treatment; and 

• Retention of timber within harvest units utilized as vegetative screening.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 126

In areas where road construction or reconditioning is proposed, final design of rock quarry development 

may be reviewed by a landscape architect prior to implementation to ensure compliance with the Forest 

Plan.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of timber harvest on scenery would be greatest immediately following implementation. Green 

tree retention in the harvested areas, such as remaining stand structure for uneven-aged management, 

legacy trees for wildlife, visual buffers, riparian buffers, and other locations of stand retention would 

reduce the overall contrast of new growth with the surrounding forest. Within 5 years after harvest, the 

color contrast with adjacent forested areas would be reduced as vegetation would begin to grow and 

transition in color from brown to light green. From 5 to 20 years after tree removal, established young 

trees would reach a height of approximately 15 to 30 feet and further reduce the color contrast with 

adjacent forested areas. After 50 years, the emerging forest within the harvested area would continue to 

grow. Although this emerging forested area would still be a lighter green in color than mature or oldgrowth forest, the color contrast would continue to diminish. Textural differences would be apparent 

because young-growth stands are more uniform in appearance, predominantly in locations of clearcut 

treatment. Edge lines forming harvest boundaries would become less apparent over time especially those 

units having straight lines. At 80 years after harvest, regrowth vegetation would achieve nearly 75 percent 

of its rotation height. At 100 to 120 years, the stand would reach the height and appearance where the past 

harvest would no longer be evident.

Harvest of all suitable timber lands on Wrangell Island would continue transitioning toward the applicable 

desired condition. The landscape would be characterized by a mixture of stands ranging in various stages 

of development. Age classes of these stands would include recently harvested, emerging seedlings, stands 

of young growth composed of pole-sized trees, and eventual development into mature young-growth and 

old-growth stands. The appearance of the activities associated with timber harvest within the Timber 

Production LUD would present a landscape highly modified by the effect of timber harvest. To a lesser 

degree, the effects of timber harvest within the Modified Landscape and Scenic Viewshed LUDs would 

appear less altered to almost unnoticeable in areas using helicopter removal to achieve uneven-aged 

management. Landscapes within non-development LUDs would remain unchanged from a naturalappearing forest environment.

Alternative 1 – No Action

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects upon the scenery resource associated with this

project under Alternative 1 as no development is proposed. Existing previously approved NEPA activities 

such as small sales, commercial or pre-commercial thinning, and road maintenance would continue, 

resulting in scenic effects documented for those projects. This alternative defers timber harvest and would 

maintain the existing scenic condition (See figure 17). Young-growth stands within the project area would 

continue to grow to a more mature forest.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

All alternatives would meet the SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan. The resulting future condition would be 

representative of the goals and objectives adopted by the LUDs identified in the Forest Plan or achieve a 

higher scenic integrity than adopted.

Alternative 2 is the proposed action, and has the greatest amount of harvest acres of all the alternatives. 

As with all action alternatives, the effect upon scenery would be reduced by the amount of uneven-aged 

management (single-tree or group-selection) proposed. Outside of VCU 4790, timber harvest would be 

evident along the Nemo-Skip Loop Road in the Foreground distance zone and nearly identical to all other 

action alternatives. Within areas of Scenic Viewshed LUD (Zimovia Strait, Nemo Point, and the Back 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 127

Channel north of Earl West Cove) proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, timber harvest would be only 

slightly visible meeting the designated SIO of Moderate (See figure 18, figure 19, figure 20 and figure 

21). Single-tree selection, a partial-harvest prescription, proposed for helicopter removal adjacent to Long 

Lake in Alternatives 2 and 4, and Highbush Lake (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) would be slightly evident in 

achieving the High to Moderate SIO which is designated as a Low to Very Low SIO. The scenic effects of

the proposed road up into the mill basin, also proposed in Alternatives 2 and 4, would be reduced by a 

buffer zone of full timber retention on the downhill side of the road and partial harvest by helicopter

outside of the road prism. Timber harvest visible from all other VPRs not mentioned above fully meet the 

adopted SIOs.

Alternative 3

This alternative responds primarily to Issue 3 by minimizing clearcut harvest potentially visible within the 

most visually sensitive viewsheds in the project area. It does this by proposing harvest using single-tree

selection by helicopter only, and no harvest and road construction up to the mill basin which would be 

potentially visible from Zimovia Strait. Overall, Alternative 3 is designed to reduce the scenic effects of 

timber harvest by applying less-intensive harvest prescriptions (from the scenery perspective) than 

allowable under the Forest Plan. 

Scattered clearcut harvest along the Nemo-Skip Loop Road, designated within Modified Landscape and 

Timber Production LUDs, would incorporate portions of the Foreground distance which is adopted as a 

Moderate to Low SIO, similar to all other action alternatives. Timber harvest units would be small in size,

proportional to the desired SIO and partially screened by non-harvested foreground vegetation and 

landforms. Other harvest of scenic concern within the Timber Production LUD includes clearcut harvest 

within proximity to Highbush Lake which would achieve a higher scenic integrity than the designated 

Low to Very Low SIOs. As with Alternative 5, minimal harvest would occur in areas surrounding Long 

Lake. No timber harvest is proposed within VCU 4750. Timber harvest from all other VPRs not 

mentioned above fully meet the adopted SIOs. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would meet the scenic integrity objectives in the Forest Plan for all identified VPRs. In the 

Timber Production LUD slightly more timber harvest is proposed than in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, with the 

scenic effect being reduced by a mixture of even-aged and uneven-aged management. Timber harvest 

proposed adjacent to Long and Highbush Lakes would achieve a higher degree of scenic integrity than the 

adopted SIOs of Low to Very Low. The effect to areas within the Scenic Viewshed LUDs would be 

similar to Alternatives 2 and 5. As with Alternative 3, no timber harvest or road construction is proposed 

up to the mill basin. Timber harvest from all other VPRs, not mentioned above, fully meet the adopted 

SIOs.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 would meet the SIOs adopted by the Forest Plan, and proposes the least amount of timber 

harvest for the action alternatives. The effects within the Scenic Viewshed LUD would be similar to 

Alternatives 2 and 4. As with Alternative 3, no timber harvest would occur in areas adjacent to Long 

Lake. Timber harvest from all other VPRs, not mentioned above, fully meet the adopted SIOs.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 45 presents acres of timber harvest within each scenic integrity objective classification by

alternative. Acres of timber harvest are separated by harvest method – clearcut (CC), clearcut with 

reserves (CCR15) and single-tree or group-selection (STS). Clearcut harvest removes all trees in a single 

harvest (clearcut), or nearly all the trees (clearcut with reserves). Single-tree or group-selection harvest 

leaves 67 percent or more of the stand structure. To account for the benefit of stand retention to scenery, 

only the actual acres harvested are represented. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 propose similar amounts of timber 

harvest by volume and treatment, but the effects upon scenery vary. Alternative 3 lessens the effects by 

deferring harvest in VCU 4750. This alternative addresses concerns defined in Issue 3. Effects to scenery 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 128

in Alternative 5 are reduced due to the application of less-intensive harvest prescriptions and the reduction 

of total acres of treatment.

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

objective

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

SIO CC CCR

15 STS CC CCR15 STS CC CCR15 STS CC CCR15 STS

High 5 0 308 5 0 36 5 0 68 1 0 265

Moderate 357 41 1,270 363 41 327 357 41 417 219 41 1,213

Low 883 25 1,603 845 25 793 895 25 965 475 25 940

Very Low 92 1 183 51 1 156 92 1 124 40 1 171

Total 1,337 57 3,364 1,264 57 1,312 1,349 57 1,574 735 57 2,589

Table 46 presents the miles of new road construction and existing road reconditioning by SIO for each 

alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 would be similar in effect for miles of new road construction with 

Alternative 3 including 1.6 miles of reconstruction. Alternatives 4 and 5 would be similar in effect for

miles of road construction with less than proposed in Alternatives 2 and 3. Roads generally are not a 

scenic concern in locations of Low and Very Low scenic integrity as their appearance diminishes in a 

relatively short period of time (less than 35 years), and are within the degree of scenic effect allowed for 

those scenic objectives. In areas of high and moderate scenic integrity, design and stand retention may be 

used to lessen effects.

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

integrity objective (SIO)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

SIO New Rec New Rec New Rec New Rec

High 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0

Moderate 6.2 0 6.2 0 2.3 0 6.7 0

Low 7.6 0 7.4 1.6 7.6 0 5.4 0

Very Low 1.7 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 0 0

Total Miles 15.7 0 15.7 1.6 11.6 0 12.3 0
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 129

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 131

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 133

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 135

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 137

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 139

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 141

Figure 23. Viewpoint #1. Zimovia Highway at Shoemaker Bay looking south towards the mill basin area; existing condition 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 142

Figure 24. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #1
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 143

Figure 25. Viewpoint #2. Zimovia Strait looking northeast toward Pat Lake; existing condition
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 144

Figure 26. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #2
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 145

Figure 27. Viewpoint #3. Eastern Passage looking southward toward Salamander Ridge; existing condition
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 146

Figure 28. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #3
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 147

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects analysis for the Wrangell Island Project considered the overall scenic effect expected 

as a result of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Table 5. Previous development on 

Wrangell Island has modified the scenic environment of many areas from a natural-appearing condition to 

a condition where some landscapes appear heavily altered. The cumulative effect of timber harvest 

incorporating adjacent lands of other ownership was considered, resulting in the proposed helicopter 

removal by individual tree and group-selection methods in these locations. The effects of past timber 

harvest continue to lessen over time, and will result in a more natural-appearing forest in the future.

As described in appendix B of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2016d, p. B-22), the “percent 

allowable visual disturbance” represents an indicator of scenery cumulative effects modeled as scenic 

consequences of timber harvest in order to achieve a desired scenic integrity objective. The visual 

disturbance percentages are rough estimates intended to depict the possible level of disturbance one may 

encounter when viewing the landscape from certain areas. Allowable visual disturbance percentages vary 

by the land use designation objectives and scenic integrity objectives to be maintained over the period of 

harvest rotation. Using this model, it was assumed on NFS lands within the Timber Production LUD that 

up to 50 percent of suitable lands within areas of very low scenic integrity may be under development at 

one time. For areas of high scenic integrity, this percentage would be much lower at 8 to 10 percent. For 

all alternatives, the level of cumulative visual disturbance is within the expected scenic condition for the 

affected viewsheds, and the visual disturbance is below what is defined in the modeling analysis. This 

was calculated by totaling the past and present harvest acres within each VCU and then dividing by the 

VCU’s total suitable acres. Reasonably foreseeable harvest on NFS lands would have also been included 

in the total harvest calculation, but there are none.

Table 47 and table 48 present the cumulative visual disturbance acres and percentage of cumulative 

timber harvest on NFS lands. For Alternative 1, this includes only past harvest less than 35 years old. For 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, this includes past harvest less than 35 years old and proposed timber harvest 

acres. While the past harvest includes harvest between 1980 and 2016, young-growth stands greater than 

35 years old are considered to be visually recovered. Therefore, only young-growth stands less than 35 

years old were included as a past effect. Because STS is considered a partial removal of an individual 

stand, only that percentage of harvest is considered as a cumulative effect.

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

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

VCU Post1980

Proposed 

Harvest

Post1980

Proposed

Harvest

Post1980Proposed 

Harvest

Post1980Proposed 

Harvest

4750 85 345 85 0 85 27 85 345

4760 609 160 609 94 609 134 609 94

4770 1,090 758 1,090 689 1,090 712 1,090 553

4780 2,195 525 2,195 525 2,195 481 2,195 340

4790 1,131 0 1,131 0 1,131 0 1,131 0

4800 1,196 718 1,196 718 1,196 520 1,196 333

5040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5050 104 0 104 0 104 0 104 0

Table excludes land ownership other than National Forest. Uneven-aged harvest acres are reduced by the amount of retention.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 148

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

percentage of cumulative visual disturbance

VCU Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

4750 1% 13% 1% 2% 13%

4760 8% 10% 9% 10% 9%

4770 9% 25% 15% 15% 14%

4780 10% 13% 13% 14% 13%

4790 5% 5% 5% 5% 7%

4800 3% 6% 5% 5% 5%

5040 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5050 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

The State’s Division of Forestry Earl West Cove Area timber sale, harvest anticipated by 2019, is the only 

reasonably foreseeable project on non-NFS lands relevant to the scenery cumulative effects analysis. As 

described in the State’s 5-year plan, the project would include 700 acres of harvest. Harvest would be 

distributed over the State-owned parcel, approximately 3,500 acres in size, located within VCU 4780 on 

the central portion of the eastern coast of Wrangell Island. Based past Division of Forestry practices, it is 

assumed for this analysis that the 700 acres of proposed harvest will be clearcut. Clearcuts in this area 

may be visible from the Eastern Passage, a route popular with tourists, or from the Earl West recreation 

site, which includes a popular boat launch. Since the harvest prescriptions and unit locations are unknown 

at this time, it is not possible to accurately determine the effects on scenery that may result from future 

harvest by the Division of Forestry. However, because the partial cut harvest prescriptions planned on 

sensitive National Forest System lands would result in only very minor effects on scenery, it can be 

assumed this activity would not add significantly to the cumulative effects in the Earl West Cove Area.

The land to be acquired through the AMHT land exchange will be managed in a natural condition, 

protected from future development, which would serve to protect the scenery resource.

Visual Simulations in Locations of Visual Sensitivity

Visual simulations are intended to graphically represent potentially future landscape conditions after 

management activities, such as timber harvest. Figure 23 through figure 28 represent three viewpoints 

deemed visually sensitive in terms of project scope of the proposed action. Each simulation depicts the 

existing scenic condition, as well as a probable effect of proposed timber harvest based upon modeling in 

GIS. It should be noted that the areas with up to 33 percent removal show minimal visible impact. The 

outcome indicates the project activity would meet Forest Plan requirements for scenery standards and 

guidelines.

Issue 4: Access Management

The transportation resource considers the potential effects of the new construction and road 

reconditioning proposed to access the proposed harvest units. It also considers the status of these roads 

after timber harvest, i.e., to be open or closed, as well as their maintenance costs. Roads can provide the 

public access for recreation and subsistence gathering. Roads also have the potential to affect fish habitat, 

soils, and water quality by increasing erosion and landslide potential, changing recreation settings and 

opportunities, altering scenery, and increasing legal and illegal wildlife harvest. Roads also have the 

potential to affect logging system feasibility, and the long-term viability of economical and sustainable 

forest management. The complete analysis, based on Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

transportation, is available in the transportation resource analysis report located in the project record. The 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 149

analysis utilizes existing information from recent field surveys, spatial GIS data, monitoring results, and 

scientific literature.

National Forest System (NFS) roads are constructed to provide access to NFS lands and are intended to 

be maintained for the long-term. Most of these roads are single lane, constructed with blasted quarry rock, 

and designed for off-highway loads.

Affected Environment

Analysis Area

The analysis area for the transportation system is Wrangell Island. There are no roads extending from 

within the project area and terminating outside the project area.

Existing Condition

The majority of roads discussed in the analysis area were originally built for logging and the associated 

administration, although recreation and subsistence use, including firewood gathering, now occurs 

throughout the area. The maintenance and reconditioning requirements of the existing system depend 

mainly on the volume of timber hauled and, to a lesser extent, on recreation use. It is anticipated the 

amount of future road construction will be determined by the continuing need to access timber resources.

A road may be classified as a National Forest System (NFS) road or a temporary road. 

National Forest System (NFS) Road

A National Forest System road is defined as “A forest road other than a road which has been authorized 

by a legally documented right-of-way held by a State, county, or other local public road authority.” NFS 

roads are generally required to provide long-term or intermittent motor vehicle access. These roads 

receive constant or intermittent use depending upon the timing of the timber harvest(s) and other 

activities. NFS roads form the primary transportation network in the project area. 

When a NFS road is not needed in the short-term but future use is anticipated, it is placed in storage. Road 

storage is intended to be the primary maintenance strategy on intermittent use roads during their closure 

cycle. Road storage is defined in FSH 5409.17 as “the process/action of closing a road to vehicle traffic 

and placing it in a condition that requires minimum maintenance to protect the environment and preserve 

the facility for future use.” Roads in storage are left in a self-maintaining state to provide more road 

maintenance funds for the open drivable roads. Roads in storage are assigned maintenance level 1 (see 

definitions of maintenance levels in the “Road Maintenance and Reconditioning” section below).

Temporary road or trail

“A road or trail necessary for emergency operations or authorized by contract, permit, lease, or other 

written authorization that is not a forest road or trail, and that is not included in a forest transportation 

atlas” (36 CFR 212.1) Temporary roads are intended for short-term use and maintained for a limited time 

usually to access a timber harvest unit. 

Temporary roads are decommissioned after a timber harvest. Road decommissioning activities stabilize

and restore unneeded roads to a more-natural state. The term “decommissioned roads” generally refers to 

temporary roads constructed for timber harvests that have had stream courses restored, culverts removed, 

water-bars added where needed, and cut and fill slopes re-vegetated.

Road Maintenance and Reconditioning

Road maintenance consists of superficial periodic repairs to the existing road surface, brushing, cleaning, 

and repairing drainage features. These tasks are performed to keep the roads in a safe and useful condition 

for which they were designed and to minimize potential adverse effects to other resources. Repairs may 

be accomplished as annual maintenance. Road reconditioning is heavier maintenance of an existing NFS

road, such as culvert replacement, surface rock replacement and subgrade repair.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 150

Maintenance levels (ML) assigned to NFS roads depend on the intended road use and suitability for 

various types of vehicles. These levels range between ML 1 (closed), ML 2 (suitable for high-clearance 

vehicles), ML 3 (suitable for passenger vehicles, rough surface), ML 4 (suitable for passenger vehicles, 

smooth surface), and ML 5 (suitable for passenger cars, dust free, possibly paved).

Maintenance and reconditioning of existing NFS roads occurs on a periodic basis and may occur before, 

during, and after this project analysis. Normally this type of work is determined to fit the category of 

routine repair and maintenance of roads that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect 

on the environment and may be categorically excluded. This work is done through separate service 

contracts or included with timber harvest contracts to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance, 

recondition roads to comply with best management practices, and maintain the existing infrastructure for 

National Forest management activities. Any effects from ongoing road maintenance and reconditioning 

work are included in the cumulative effects analyses for this project.

The maintenance of NFS roads is dynamic in the sense that roads are given both an operational 

maintenance level (OPML) and an objective maintenance level (OBML). The purpose of maintenance 

levels is to define the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road or road 

segment. Roads are often built and operated at a higher maintenance level during project implementation.

The OPML is the maintenance level currently assigned to a road considering today’s needs, road 

condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. It defines the level to which the road is 

currently being maintained. It reflects the current condition and the ability to drive on the NFS roads on 

Wrangell Island. The OBML is the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date considering future 

road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. The OBML 

may be the same as, or higher or lower than, the OPML.

The current conditions of roads in the Wrangell Island project area are displayed in table 49.

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

Route Status / System

National 

Forest 

system 

road 

OPML

National 

Forest 

system 

road 

OBML

Other 

public 

roads1

TMP – temporary 

(decommissioned) Total miles2

NFSR maintenance level

1 - Basic custodial care (closed) 9.41 23.52

2 - High clearance vehicles 30.95 19.94

3 - Suitable for passenger cars 59.19 53.62

4 - Moderate degree of user comfort 0.15 0.15

D - Decommission 2.48

Total Forest Road Miles 99.70 99.71 21.32 121.03

Other non-NFS roads 0 0 12.7 20.79 33.49

Decommissioned miles 6.92 22.89 29.81

Total road miles not needed for 

the administration of National 

Forest System lands

6.92 12.7 43.68 63.3

Grand Total Road Miles 184.33

1 – Includes State of Alaska and Wrangell Borough roads

2 - Grand Total Road Miles within the project area equals Total Forest Road Miles and Total road miles not needed for the 

administration of National Forest System lands.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 151

Marine Access Facilities (MAFs) and Log Transfer Facilities (LTFs)

A marine access facility (MAF) is an area used to transfer items from land to saltwater or vice versa, that 

contains structures such as a mooring buoy, dock, log transfer facility, boat ramp, or a combination of 

these. A log transfer facility (LTF) is used to transfer logs and timber products from land-based 

transportation to water-based transportation (or vice-versa). These facilities are often used for the 

movement of equipment needed for logging and road work. 

There are three existing marine access facilities on Wrangell Island: Pat Creek and Earl West Cove (Venus 

Cove) are Forest Service facilities, and a third MAF is on private property in Shoemaker Bay. All three

MAFs are options for a timber purchaser to move logs off Wrangell Island.

Pat Creek

The Pat Creek (MAF) is located at approximately mile 11 on the Zimovia Highway (State Highway 16) 

and consists of a barge loading and unloading ramp, a log-staging area, and a LTF. The marine access 

facility is a single level, concrete block bulkhead with an approximately 0.5-acre log-staging area attached 

to it.

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) issued authorization AK-G70-0024 

under Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit AK-G70-0000 on April 1, 2015 

allowing for the discharge of bark and wood debris associated with in-water log transfer and log storage.

The authorization expires March 31, 2020. 

The last benthic dive survey associated with the Pat Creek tideland easement was completed in October 

2000. The bark accumulation was determined to be 0.33 acre of continuous debris and 0.16 acre of 

discontinuous debris, which is within the requirements of the permit.

Earl West Cove

The Venus MAF, commonly known as Earl West, is located at the terminal end of NFS road 6265. Earl 

West consists of a LTF, log-staging area, and a barge and equipment loading and unloading ramp. The 

marine access facility is a low angle, concrete reinforced ramp with steel rails with an approximately 0.5-

acre log-staging area.

The ADEC issued authorization AK-G70-0060 under Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

General Permit AK-G70-0000 on April 1, 2015 allowing for the discharge of bark and wood debris 

associated with in-water log transfer and log storage. The authorization expires March 31, 2020.

The last benthic dive survey associated with the Earl West tideland easement was completed in June 2001. 

The bark accumulation was determined to be 0.1 acre of continuous debris and 0.1 acre of discontinuous 

debris, which is within the requirements of the permit.

Silver Bay Mill

The site of the privately-owned former Silver Bay mill in Shoemaker Bay is approximately at mile 5.5 on 

the Zimovia Highway (State Highway 16). The site consists of a large sort yard and LTF with a bulkhead 

where a crane can transfer logs. Additionally, there is a low angle ramp where logs can be delivered by 

vehicle directly into the water. The mill has been decommissioned.

Rock Quarries

There are numerous rock quarries throughout the project area. Existing quarries are typically limited to 5

acres. More details regarding rock quarries can be found in the Transportation Resource Report located in 

the project record.

Bridges

Table 50 displays all existing National Forest System bridges on Wrangell Island. All bridges with a less 

than satisfactory rating would require maintenance prior to log haul.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 152

Table 50. Existing bridges, Wrangell Island project area 

Road Number Milepost Status Length (ft.) Bridge Type Year Built Condition

50022 0.195 Existing - Inactive 60 Sawn Timber 1982 Satisfactory

50050 0.635 Existing - Active 88 Glulam 1988 Good

50055 0.700 Existing - Active 60 Sawn Timber 2004 Good

6265 0.815 Existing - Active 30 Sawn Timber 1982 Good

6265 5.270 Existing - Active 55 Sawn Timber 1989 Good

6265 10.645 Existing - Active 62 Sawn Timber 1988 Satisfactory

6265 11.994 Existing - Active 66 Sawn Timber 1980 Satisfactory

6270 1.621 Existing - Active 51 Glulam 1982 Good

6270 2.33 Existing – Active 61 Glulam 1982 Satisfactory

6270 8.054 Existing – Active 61 Glulam 1982 Fair

6270 8.282 Existing – Active 81 Glulam 1982 Fair

6270 9.032 Existing – Active 61 Glulam 1982 Fair

6270 9.092 Existing – Active 81 Glulam 1982 Good

6273 0.097 Existing – Active 68 Glulam 1986 Good

6299 0.967 Existing – Active 61 Glulam 1982 Poor

6299 5.525 Existing – Active 71 Steel 1982 Satisfactory

Note: Bridge data summarized from USFS INFRA data

Fish Stream Crossings

The Tongass National Forest developed a juvenile fish passage evaluation criteria matrix with an 

interagency group of professionals. The evaluation matrix stratifies culverts by type, and establishes 

criteria thresholds for culvert gradient, stream channel constriction, debris blockages, and vertical barrier 

(or perch) at the culvert outlet. Culvert categories are as follows (USDA Forest Service 2012):

• Green Category: conditions have a high certainty of meeting adult and juvenile fish passage 

requirements at all desired stream flows.

• Gray Category: conditions are such that additional and more detailed analysis is required to 

determine their juvenile fish passage ability. 

• Red Category: conditions that have a high certainty of not providing juvenile fish passage at all 

desired stream flows.

Most Class I and Class II fish stream crossing culverts for NFS roads on Wrangell Island have been 

surveyed and categorized as green, gray or red. Additional discussion involving Class I and Class II 

streams are addressed in the “Aquatics” section of this chapter.

Road System Management

Road System Management provides road and access management in a tiered travel analysis process. The 

2003 Tongass Forest-wide Roads Analysis provided management for the higher standard (Maintenance 

Levels 3, 4, and 5) category roads. The existing lower standard roads (Maintenance Levels 1 and 2) 

within the analysis area are currently managed under the 2007 Wrangell District Access and Travel 

Management Plan (ATM) decision. That decision identified but deferred road closures pending the record 

of decision for the Wrangell Island Project.

Road management for the Wrangell District is prescribed in the forest road atlas which serves as the forest 

development road system plan. The road atlas contains the road management objectives for NFS roads. 

The road management objectives define the motorized access for each NFS road. Access management for 

the NFS roads is implemented through the Motorized Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) which designates roads 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 153

for motor vehicle use by vehicle class under 36 CFR §212.51. The MVUM is reviewed and published 

annually.

The Wrangell Island Project analysis includes the road management for the existing NFS roads and any 

proposed NFS roads needed to access timber for the Wrangell Island project area. The decision for this 

project includes public access travel management decisions. The existing road management objectives are 

summarized in table 49. A travel access management proposal is provided under each alternative.

Methods Used to Analyze Effects

This analysis utilizes existing information from recent field surveys, spatial GIS data, monitoring results, 

and scientific literature. Information sources for transportation analysis include the transportation GIS

records which house the spatial data for road locations. An inventory of road attributes for NFS roads is 

maintained in a national database. A complete list of road attributes and definitions of these attributes is 

located in the project record. 

Road miles presented in the effects analysis are under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service unless stated 

otherwise. Refer to table 49 for the most current records of road miles across other ownerships and 

jurisdictions.

Proposed new road construction routes were designed by transportation specialists and field reviewed by 

resource specialists during 2010 through 2012. Specific comments and concerns along with site-specific 

mitigation measures are discussed in the respective resource reports and in the road cards for NFS roads 

or the unit cards for temporary roads. The analysis method for road location and field review does not 

vary by alternative; rather, the roads are included or excluded by alternative based on the design criteria 

of each alternative. 

Timber Sale Roads Units of Measure

The following indicators were used to measure potential effects of project activities and for comparing 

alternatives:

• Miles of NFS road constructed

• Miles of temporary road construction

• Miles of NFS road reconditioning

• Total cost of NFS and temporary road construction and NFS road reconditioning.

• Total road cost per net thousand board feet of sawlog and utility volume harvested ($/net MBF)

Overview of Issues Addressed

Access management decisions for motorized road use will affect future public access for recreation and 

subsistence and for agency administrative purposes.

Some commenters offered support for creating more NFS roads and keeping roads open longer for 

subsistence, firewood gathering, and recreation. Other commenters indicated the project should limit new 

road construction to provide added resource protection and to minimize overall maintenance costs. 

Commenters requested analysis of road development, closures, maintenance levels, and management 

objectives.

36 CFR §212.55(a) provides direction and criteria for designation of NFS roads on NFS lands. The 

Responsible Official shall consider effects on NFS natural and cultural resources, public safety, provision 

of recreational opportunities, access needs, conflicts among uses, the need for maintenance and 

administration of roads, and availability of resources for that maintenance and administration.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 154

Access Management Issue Indicators

The following units of measure were used to compare alternatives.

• Miles of NFS roads designated as open to all vehicles

• Miles of NFS roads designated as motorized trails

• Miles of NFS roads designated as closed to all vehicles

• Miles of NFS roads designated to be decommissioned

• Estimated change in anticipated future road maintenance costs (percent change from current 

costs)

Environmental Consequences

Summary of Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 all propose varying amounts of timber harvest and, subsequently, varying 

amounts of road construction. Alternatives 1 and 5 share similar road access and travel management 

objectives, which are based on the decision for the existing road management objectives for Wrangell 

Island. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 incorporate changes to road access and travel management objectives to 

reflect the public needs identified through project scoping. Refer to the transportation resource report for a 

detailed list of road management objectives by alternative. The effects of road construction, road 

reconditioning, and road access management decisions on other resources are discussed in their respective 

resource sections and reports. Site-specific design criteria can be found on road cards and unit cards. 

Short-term effects to access and travel management are anticipated as a result of conflicts that may occur 

during project implementation when hunters, loggers, and log trucks use the roads simultaneously during 

the fall deer season. Long-term effects to access and travel management, following the completion of 

silvicultural activities, would vary by alternative. 

New road construction and reconditioning may cause a timber sale to be uneconomical if there is not 

enough volume to amortize these road costs. To offset this effect, in terms of road costs and efficiencies, 

sufficient volume must be harvested. Additionally, it is more economical to offer a single, larger timber 

sale versus multiple, smaller timber sales spread over time, to minimize the cost of opening and closing

roads with each harvest entry.

Roads Proposed

Table 51 summarizes the miles of proposed road construction and existing road miles for both NFS roads

and temporary roads. Temporary roads are decommissioned after their period of use has expired; they 

would not be open and drivable and would not be counted as part of the NFS roads network. Temporary 

roads are not needed for future access and are typically constructed to a lower design standard than 

system roads resulting in a lower construction cost. Temporary roads under Alternatives 1 and 5 would

not provide the public access to firewood after the timber harvest is complete. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

would provide short-term access for firewood gathering after harvest operations have concluded, if the 

temporary roads can be satisfactorily storm-proofed with drivable water-bars. NFS roads may remain 

open until silvicultural activities are completed, depending on the road management objective of the 

alternative.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 155

Table 51. Proposed and existing road miles

Road Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Proposed NFS - New construction 0.0 16.8 15.4 15.9 12.7

Existing NFS1 97.1 99.5 99.5 99.5 97.1

Total NFS - after implementation 97.1 116.3 114.9 115.4 109.8

Proposed temp - new construction 0.0 9.9 8.9 10.3 6.6

Existing decommissioned2,3 50.6 47.4 48.1 48.1 48.0

Total decommissioned - after 

implementation 50.6 57.2 57.0 58.4 54.5

Total proposed road construction 0.0 26.7 24.3 26.2 19.3

Road reconditioning (maintenance 

of closed roads) 0.0 4.4 4.4 4.0 2.9

1 – Miles are based on Objective Maintenance Level (OBML)

2 – Existing miles vary to account for miles being converted to NFS or reused as Temporary

3 – Existing Decommissioned = decommissioned NFS + Temporary (refer to table 49).

Table 52 displays the access management indicators to provide a comparison of the recommended road 

management objectives by alternative. The anticipated impacts of these road management objectives are 

discussed, where relevant, in other resource sections in this chapter.

Alternatives 1 and 5 are essentially the same when comparing proposed road management objectives. All 

proposed NFS construction in Alternative 5 would be closed to all motorized vehicles. This is based on 

the amount of roads determined to be open and accessible in the ATM decision (USDA Forest Service 

2007b).

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are similar when comparing proposed road management objectives, which are 

based on the interdisciplinary team’s recommendations for how roads should be managed. Road 

management objective recommendations for each road remain consistent between these alternatives. 

Differences between alternatives are related to which roads and lengths of road are needed for timber 

access.

Table 52. Proposed Road Management Objective recommendations by alternative

Road Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS roads designated as open to all 

vehicles (ML2 - ML5)

Proposed roads 0 5.6 5.0 5.3 0

Existing roads 73.7 80.4 80.4 80.4 72.9

Total 73.7 86.0 85.4 85.7 72.9

NFS roads designated as motorized 

trails (ML1, OHV)

Proposed roads 0 7.1 5.8 5.5 0

Existing roads 0 7.4 7.4 7.4 0

Total 0 14.5 13.2 12.9 0
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 156

Road Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS roads designated to be closed to 

all vehicles (ML1)

Proposed roads 0 4.2 4.6 5.0 12.7

Existing roads 23.5 11.8 11.8 11.8 24.3

Total 23.5 15.9 16.4 16.8 37.0

NFS roads designated to be 

decommissioned

Proposed roads 0 0 0 0 0

Existing roads 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5

Total 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5

Change in annual road maintenance 

costs

Total -18% -5% -5% -5% -19%

Road Costs

Estimated costs for construction of roads are shown in table 53. Road development costs are based upon 

regional average costs for constructing roads in Southeast Alaska. Costs are applied based upon an 

average cost per mile for different classifications of road construction and reconditioning with an 

additional cost per stream crossing. Refer to the Transportation Resource Report for a more in-depth 

discussion of road costs and calculations.

Table 53 displays the sum total of road costs per alternative, as well as the relationship between road costs 

and volume harvested.

Table 53. Estimated transportation costs and efficiencies

Road Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS construction $0 $3,122,860 $2,600,868 $2,715,160 $2,417,067

NFS reconditioning $0 $13,140 $13,140 $11,910 $8,670

Temporary construction $0 $1,416,756 $1,332,294 $1,525,041 $910,031

Estimated total road costs $0 $4,552,756 $3,946,302 $4,252,111 $3,335,768

Net MBF harvested (sawlog and utility) (net MBF) 0 55,770 40,748 43,315 39,058

Total road costs per net MBF ($/net MBF) $0 $81.60 $96.80 $98.20 $85.40

Note - Costs are estimated by road, but are not exact values; these values are presented to provide a relative comparison between 

the alternatives. All costs are subject to change.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives

Each action alternative proposes varying amounts of timber harvest to meet different management 

objectives and, subsequently, varying amounts of road construction. The effects of new road construction, 

road reconditioning, and access and travel management decisions on resources are discussed in their 

respective resource sections and reports. Site-specific resource concerns and design criteria are discussed 

in the road and unit cards.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 157

Road miles and cost

All newly constructed roads would extend from the existing road system. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned. Any closures or decommissioning of NFS roads would occur following the completion 

of timber harvest and associated silvicultural management activities.

Existing and newly developed rock would be needed for new road construction and reconditioning 

(approximately one rock source for every 2 miles of new road construction). Though existing quarries 

would be used where feasible, most new road construction would require the development of new 

quarries. Newly developed quarries would be located adjacent to newly constructed roads and resource 

protections identified in the Forest Plan will be met prior to development.

For all newly constructed roads crossing fish streams, designed structures would be used to provide fish 

passage. These structure types may include bridges, log culverts, or metal culverts which would be 

specifically designed to allow for adequate fish passage. These structures would be removed from all 

temporary roads when the road is decommissioned. These structures may remain in place on NFS roads 

depending on the road management objectives.

New road construction and reconditioning may cause a timber sale to be uneconomical if there is not 

enough volume to amortize these road costs. To offset this effect, in terms of road costs and efficiencies, 

sufficient volume must be harvested. Additionally, it is more economical to offer a single, larger timber 

sale versus multiple, smaller timber sales spread over time to minimize the cost of opening and closing or 

decommissioned roads with each harvest entry.

Cable and shovel yarding methods require the added cost of new road construction and road 

reconditioning to gain access to harvest units. These road costs are offset by the minimal logging costs 

achieved by these methods. Additionally, the value of these road improvements can be realized through 

improved future economics for timber harvest and associated silvicultural management activities, and the 

ability to achieve Forest Plan desired conditions for the development land use designations.

Compared to conventional logging methods, helicopter yarding requires minimal new road construction 

and road reconditioning to gain access to harvest units. Helicopter yarding is typically used in areas where 

the use of cable or ground based yarding is limited due to prohibitively high road costs or for 

environmental protection measures. This is primarily due to the harvest method’s high cost of yarding and 

because of their need of access for perpetual stand management. Where new road construction 

opportunities exist and helicopter yarding is being utilized rather than other conventional yarding 

methods, the remaining volume would likely not support the future cost of new road construction to 

access the unit.

Access and Travel Management

Alternatives 1 and 5 share similar road access and travel management objectives, which are based on the 

existing ATM decision for Wrangell Island. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 incorporate changes to some road 

access and travel management objectives to reflect the public needs identified through project scoping.

Refer to the transportation resource report of the complete list of road management objectives.

Short-term effects to access and travel management are anticipated as a result from conflicts that may 

occur during project implementation where hunters, loggers, and log trucks are concurrently using the 

roads during the fall deer season. Long-term effects to access and travel management, following the 

completion of silvicultural activities, would vary by alternative.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Road miles and cost

Under Alternative 1, there would be no new road construction or reconditioning, and, therefore, no 

additional road costs, as a result of this project. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 158

The Forest Plan’s transportation goal is to “Develop and manage transportation systems corridors to 

support resource management activities; recognize the potential for future development of major 

transportation and systems.” Alternative 1 proposes no new development of roads and would not develop 

the road system required to move the forest toward its desired silvicultural condition.

Access and Travel Management

All NFS roads would be managed as directed by the Forest Plan, road management objectives, and 

previous NEPA decisions. A decision to implement this alternative would not impact projects that are 

already planned or currently being implemented. 

No changes would be made to the existing road management objectives. The ATM decision for roads on 

Wrangell Island would be fully implemented and, as resources and funding become available, the roads 

would be stored or decommissioned to match the currently assigned OBML. Estimated annual 

maintenance costs would be reduced by 18 percent.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Road miles and costs

Alternative 2 proposes construction of 16.8 miles of NFS road, 9.9 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 4.4 miles of existing NFS roads (Table 51).

Future harvest along these roads is a possibility, as well as future road extensions. Future opportunities for 

economical road construction would be limited due to this alternative’s high proportion of helicopter 

logging and single-tree selection harvest (STS) since the remaining volume would likely not support 

future road development. Approximately 3,241 acres, or 68 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, 

are proposed for helicopter. This is the greatest number of acres proposed as helicopter and is the second 

greatest in proportion to the total acres. 

Of the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the highest amount of new road construction

(Table 51). This alternative also ranks the highest in transportation development costs; however, at 

$81.60/net MBF, this alternative ranked the most efficient in road costs (table 53). The road development 

proposed in this alternative is the minimum amount of road required to harvest the units in accordance 

with the objectives of this alternative.

Access and Travel Management

To address the access and travel management issue while meeting the overall alternative objectives, this 

alternative was designed to incorporate the road designation recommendations by the interdisciplinary 

team and the City and Borough of Wrangell.

Of the 16.8 miles of new NFS roads, 4.2 miles would be closed to all vehicles, 7.1 miles would be closed 

yet dual-designated as motorized trails, and 5.6 miles would remain open to all vehicles. Approximately 

0.2 mile of existing NFS roads would be designated for decommission. The 86.0 miles of NFS roads 

designated as open would reduce estimated annual maintenance costs by 5 percent (Table 52).

Alternative 3

Road miles and costs

Alternative 3 proposes construction of 15.4 miles of NFS road, 8.9 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 4.4 miles of existing NFS roads (Table 51).

Future harvest along these roads is a possibility, as well as future road extensions. Future opportunities for 

economical road construction will be limited due to this alternative’s high proportion of helicopter 

logging and STS since the remaining volume would likely not support future road development. 

Approximately 1,268 acres, or 48 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, are proposed for helicopter. 

This is the fewest number of acres proposed as helicopter and is tied with Alternative 4 for the lowest

proportion of the total acres. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 159

Of the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the third-highest amount of new road construction

(Table 51). This alternative also ranks as the third highest in transportation development costs; however, 

at $96.80/net MBF, this alternative ranked the second least-efficient in road costs (table 53). The road 

development proposed in this alternative is the minimum amount of road required to harvest the units in 

accordance with the objectives of this alternative.

Access and Travel Management

To address the access and travel management issue while meeting the overall alternative objectives, this 

alternative was designed to incorporate the road designation recommendations identified by the 

interdisciplinary team.

Of the 15.4 miles of new NFS roads, 4.6 miles would be closed to all vehicles, 5.8 miles would be closed 

yet dual-designated as motorized trails, and 5.0 miles would remain open to all vehicles. About 0.2 mile 

of existing NFS roads would be designated for decommission. The 85.4 miles of NFS roads designated as 

open would reduce estimated annual maintenance costs by 5 percent (Table 52).

Alternative 4

Road miles and costs

Alternative 4 proposes construction of 15.9 miles of NFS road, 10.3 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 4 miles of existing NFS roads (Table 51).

Future harvest along these roads is a possibility, as well as future road extensions. Future opportunities for 

economical road construction will be limited due to this alternative’s high proportion of helicopter 

logging and STS since the remaining volume would likely not support future road development. About 

1,439 acres, or 48 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, are proposed for helicopter. This is the 

second lowest number of acres proposed for helicopter and is comparable to Alternative 3 with the lowest

proportion of the total acres.

Of the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the second-greatest amount of new road 

construction (Table 51). This alternative also ranks the second-highest in transportation development costs

and at $98.20/net MBF, this alternative ranked as the least-efficient in road costs (table 53).The road 

development proposed in this alternative is the minimum amount of road required to harvest the units in 

accordance with the objectives of this alternative.

Access and Travel Management

To address the access and travel management issue while meeting the overall alternative objectives, this 

alternative was designed to incorporate the road designation recommendations identified by the 

interdisciplinary team of resource specialists.

Of the 15.9 miles of new NFS roads, 5.0 miles would be closed to all vehicles, 5.5 miles would be closed 

yet dual-designated as motorized trails, and 5.3 miles would remain open to all vehicles. About 0.2 mile 

of existing NFS roads would be designated for decommission. The 85.7 miles of NFS roads designated as

open would reduce the estimated annual maintenance costs by 5 percent (Table 52).

Alternative 5

Road miles and costs

Alternative 5 proposes construction of 12.7 miles of NFS road, 6.6 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 2.9 miles of existing NFS roads (Table 51).

Future harvest along these roads is a possibility, as well as future road extensions. Future opportunities for 

economical road construction would be limited due to this alternative’s high proportion of helicopter 

logging and STS since the remaining volume would likely not support future road development. 

Approximately 2,521 acres, or 73 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, is proposed for helicopter. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 160

This is the second greatest number of acres proposed as helicopter and the greatest in proportion to the 

total acres.

Of the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the least amount of new road construction (Table 

51). This alternative ranks the lowest in transportation development costs; however, at $85.40/net MBF, 

this alternative ranked the second most-efficient in road costs (table 53). The road development proposed 

in this alternative is the minimum amount of road required to harvest the units in accordance with the 

objectives of this alternative.

Access and Travel Management

To address the access and travel management issue while meeting the overall alternative objectives, this 

alternative was designed to be consistent with the existing ATM decision within the project area.

All new and reconditioned NFS roads would be closed and 0 miles would be dual-designated as 

motorized trails. About 2.5 miles of existing NFS roads would be designated for decommission. The 

remaining 72.9 miles of NFS roads designated as open would reduce the estimated annual maintenance 

costs by 19 percent (Table 52). This would be at the levels set by the ATM objective maintenance levels.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area boundary for the transportation system is Wrangell Island. There are 

no roads extending from within the project area and terminating outside the project area.

Alternative 1

Cumulative effects of past timber harvests and other development activities have resulted in a total of 

97.1 miles of NFS roads and 50.6 miles of decommissioned roads (table 51).

The proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale near Earl West Cove would add approximately 4.4 

miles of roads and the 2014 Alaska Mental Health Trust timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile of 

roads. Since the State generally closes roads following timber harvests to control access, it is assumed 

they will do the same after the foreseeable timber sale near Earl West Cove. 

There is approximately 1 mile of decommissioned roads on the AMHT land exchange parcels which 

would remain closed after becoming part of the National Forest. Therefore, the State’s Earl West timber 

sale, and the AMHT land exchange would not affect public motorized access.

Alternative 2

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 116.3 miles of NFS 

roads and 57.2 miles of decommissioned roads within the Wrangell Island project area. This is the 

greatest cumulative amount of NFS and temporary road created by an alternative.

Additionally, the proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale would add approximately 4.4 miles of 

roads and the 2014 Alaska Mental Health Trust timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile of road.

Since the State generally closes roads following timber harvests to control access, it is assumed that they 

will do the same in the case of the foreseeable timber sale near Earl West Cove. There is approximately 1 

mile of decommissioned roads on the AMHT land exchange parcels which would remain closed after 

becoming part of the National Forest. Therefore, the State’s Earl West timber sale, and the AMHT land 

exchange would not affect public motorized access.

Alternative 3

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 114.9 miles of NFS 

roads and 57 miles of decommissioned roads within the Wrangell Island project area. This is the thirdgreatest cumulative amount of NFS and temporary road created by an alternative.

Additionally, the proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale would add approximately 4.4 miles of 

roads and the 2014 Alaska Mental Health Trust timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile of road.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 161

Since the State generally closes roads following timber harvests to control access, it is assumed that they 

will do the same in the case of the foreseeable timber sale near Earl West Cove. There is approximately 1 

mile of decommissioned roads on the AMHT land exchange parcels which would remain closed after 

becoming part of the National Forest. Therefore, the State’s Earl West timber sale, and the AMHT land 

exchange would not affect public motorized access.

Alternative 4

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 115.4 miles of NFS 

roads and 58.4 miles of decommissioned roads within the Wrangell Island project area. This is the 

second-greatest cumulative amount of NFS and temporary road created by an alternative.

Additionally, the proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale would add approximately 4.4 miles of 

roads and the 2014 Alaska Mental Health Trust timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile of road.

Since the State generally closes roads following timber harvests to control access, it is assumed that they 

will do the same in the case of the foreseeable timber sale near Earl West Cove. There is approximately 1 

mile of decommissioned roads on the AMHT land exchange parcels which would remain closed after 

becoming part of the National Forest. Therefore, the State’s Earl West timber sale, and the AMHT land 

exchange would not affect public motorized access.

Alternative 5

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 109.8 miles of NFS 

roads and 54.5 miles of decommissioned roads within the Wrangell Island project area. This is the lowest 

cumulative amount of NFS and temporary road created by an alternative.

Additionally, the proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale would add approximately 4.4 miles of 

roads and the 2014 Alaska Mental Health Trust timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile of road.

Since the State generally closes roads following timber harvests to control access, it is assumed that they 

will do the same in the case of the foreseeable timber sale near Earl West Cove. There is approximately 1 

mile of decommissioned roads on the AMHT land exchange parcels which would remain closed after 

becoming part of the National Forest. Therefore, the State’s Earl West timber sale, and the AMHT land 

exchange would not affect public motorized access.

Other Resources Concerns

Air Quality and Climate Change

Climate change and air pollution are related issues that have largely been separated in research and 

politics. Both were addressed at the Tongass National Forest level (USDA Forest Service 2016b). This 

section describes the air quality and climatic change conditions specific to the Wrangell Island project 

area. In terms of the spatial scale of analysis for climate and air quality, the Wrangell project area 

conditions would be considered similar to the Tongass National Forest. However, conclusions regarding 

carbon storage, carbon emissions, and ultimately sequestration can be strongly influenced by the temporal 

scale examined. These factors and how they related to the proposed alternatives are discussed in more 

detail below.

Affected Environment

Air Quality

Air quality in the project area is very good. The prevailing winds off the Pacific Ocean, the relatively low 

levels of industrial development, the small size of human population centers, and the low frequency of 

large-scale wildland fire smoke emissions all contribute to the maintenance of clean air in the region. 

However, localized air pollution from sources such as marine vessels and cruise ships, wood-burning 

stoves, vehicle exhaust, diesel power and asphalt plants, incinerators, and unpaved roads can contribute to 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 162

deterioration of air quality at various scales (temporal and spatial) that could impact sensitive receptors 

such as lichenized fungi (USDA Forest Service 2016b).

Under the Forest Plan, the goal of air resource management is to maintain the current excellent air 

resource condition to protect the Forest’s ecosystems. To help resource managers evaluate the level of 

impacts of on- and off-Forest air pollution on sensitive receptors, the Forest Service established a network 

of permanent biomonitoring plots in 1989. 

Additionally, the air quality objective under the current Forest Plan is to attain national and State ambient 

air quality standards forest-wide. To determine if national and State ambient air quality standards are 

being met in the region, an annual review of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Alaska 

Department of Environmental (ADEC) Quality reports is conducted at the Forest level. Currently there is 

no non-attainment area in the vicinity of the project area.

Climate Change

Climate fundamentally shapes our surroundings. Climate is extremely important to local ecosystems as 

well as human health and infrastructure since temperature, precipitation, winds, and meteorological 

events (e.g., the timing of the first and last frost, the beginning and end of a rainy season, or a severe 

storm causing flooding) all influence the distribution of water, soils, plants, and wildlife across the globe. 

Significant, lasting change to existing weather patterns is commonly called “climate change.” The 

impacts of climate change - including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, 

more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean 

acidification, and sea-level rise - are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, 

economies, and public health across the nation.

The term “greenhouse gasses” (GHGs) refers to a variety of gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that react 

with sunlight in a way that influence global air temperature. GHGs are a function of air quality and 

include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur 

hexafluoride (EO 13514). These GHGs are typically reported in units of carbon dioxide equivalent 

(CO2e).

Long-term climate trends and decadal climate cycles have always occurred in Southeast Alaska, 

influencing air temperature and precipitation (Neal et al. 2002). There is a growing body of literature on 

the topic of climate change and likely effects on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of the Tongass 

National Forest (see USDA Forest Service 2016b for detailed discussion).

Carbon Sequestration

Carbon, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide, is one of the major greenhouse gases being released into 

the atmosphere through both natural and anthropogenic (i.e., human-driven) influences (McPherson and 

Simpson 1999, IPCC 2007). This atmospheric carbon, as well as other gases (e.g., methane, nitrous oxide, 

and water molecules), traps the sun’s heat, thereby creating a natural “greenhouse effect” that makes life 

on earth possible (McPherson and Simpson 1999). The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 

regulated by complex interactions between the atmosphere, terrestrial environment, marine environment, 

and geologic processes. Recent changes to the global carbon cycle, driven in large part by human 

activities, have been cited as one of the leading causes for global climate change and the general warming 

trend that has been detected (IPCC 2007). Forest ecosystems represent the largest terrestrial carbon sink 

on Earth, such that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (see United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change website) has recognized their management as an effective 

strategy for offsetting GHG emissions (Wilson et al. 2013). For more on carbon sequestration, see the

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016b).

Yellow-cedar Decline in Alaska

As discussed by Haufler et al. (2010), forest temperature and precipitation changes have an impact on 

NFS lands. In Southeast Alaska, these changes have been associated with a declining yellow-cedar 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 163

(Callitropsis nootkatensis) distribution. Although distribution of yellow-cedar has been undergoing 

change over the last century, scientists are indicating that these distribution changes are increasing due to 

decreasing snow pack related to climate change (Hennon and Shaw 1997, Beier et al. 2008, Hennon et al. 

2016).

For more detail on yellow-cedar decline, see “Forest Health and Natural Disturbance” in the Silviculture 

section of this chapter.

Greenhouse Gasses

Climate change due to GHGs is a global phenomenon, so the spatial context for this discussion is the 

global climate.

The most important GHGs directly emitted by humans include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), and several other fluorine-containing halogenated substances. Naturally occurring 

GHGs include water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, and ozone (O3). Although these GHGs occur naturally in the 

atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. Atmospheric CO2

concentration has increased from a pre-industrial value of 280 ppm to more than 390 ppm today, mostly 

due to carbon emissions from fossil-fuel burning and deforestation. GHGs trap heat and make the planet 

warmer.

The primary sources of GHG emissions in the Wrangell Island project area are from transportation 

emissions (from seaplane flights, ferry/cruise ship activity, mechanized equipment use, and vehicle travel) 

and emissions from fuel combustion associated with the community of Wrangell. 

Environmental Consequences

Analysis of the effects of climate and air resources was qualitatively evaluated by comparing differences 

between alternatives. While quantification tools are widely available, they have vastly different levels of 

technical sophistication, data requirements, and GHG source profiles. No one analysis method has been 

vetted for use on the Tongass, or even the agency (USDA). A quantitative analysis of GHG emissions and 

carbon cycles is not always appropriate for every NEPA document. Most Forest Service projects are 

extremely small in the global CO2 context; therefore any changes from the proposed activities would 

likely not provide a practical or meaningful effects analysis for project decisions. A qualitative discussion 

of greenhouse gases sequestered and emitted is appropriate for disclosing climate change implications at 

this scale. This qualitative analysis includes an evaluation of how climate change is likely to modify 

conditions on the project area and how the proposed actions in each alternative may influence levels of 

greenhouse gases and thus climate change. 

Air Quality 

The expected direct effects on air quality from forest management activities would be temporary and 

limited in nature, resulting from dust and vehicular emissions from logging operations, administrative and 

harvest-related use of Forest roads. None of the alternatives considered would include broadcast burning 

of slash following harvest, which is seldom, if ever, used on the Tongass National Forest.

Alternatives 1, 3, 4, 5 and 2 would result in progressively more potential total harvest, road 

construction/reconstruction, harvest-related vehicle use and/or helicopter use, and wood processing 

comparatively, which could subsequently result in progressively more potential emissions by alternative 

(including emissions of green-house gases). However, due to the short-lived nature of these activities 

coupled with dynamic weather patterns throughout Southeast Alaska (consistent wind and rain throughout 

the year), no significant adverse effects on air quality are anticipated from these activities under any of the 

alternatives considered.

Indirect effects on air quality can result from the use of trees harvested from this timber sale, such as in 

the operation of industrial processing sites and firewood burning, as well as emissions from private 

vehicles using Forest unpaved roads. These indirect effects on air quality can be aesthetically displeasing 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 164

or have potential health risks to both humans and the Forest. EPA and ADEC have regulatory 

responsibility, under the Clean Air Act, for air quality related to these kinds of sources. The enforcement 

of the applicable regulations by these agencies is anticipated to keep any potential adverse effects within 

the standards for air quality; therefore, no significant indirect effects from the uses of the Wrangell Island 

Timber Sale should occur.

Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration

Each of the action alternatives considered for the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS would involve some 

harvesting of timber over a period of time (see Forest Plan FEIS, chapter 2). For the Wrangell Island 

Project, the no action alternative (Alternative 1) is the only one that does not propose timber harvest. As a 

result, each of the action alternatives would result in a net release of carbon to the atmosphere.

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would likely result in a similar rate of climate change as the current condition, and would 

therefore have little or no effect on the rate of climate change in the Wrangell Island project area. The rate 

of carbon sequestration would likely remain at current levels for several years. However, for the purpose 

of this analysis, it is assumed that in the short term, “that harvesting forests with high biomass and 

planting new forest reduces overall C stocks more in the near term than if the forest were retained, even 

counting the C storage in harvested wood products” (Vose et al. 2012).

Alternative 1 is not expected to affect the current rate of climate change or carbon sequestration and thus 

would not add to the past, present, or reasonably foreseeable factors related to climate change.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

For all action alternatives, road construction activities, timber harvest operations, and administration of all 

operations by use of service vehicles throughout the life of the project would result in emissions of 

greenhouse gases. These activities involve removing vegetation, grading and re-contouring the ground 

surface, hardening the road, potential extraction of materials such as gravel, soil, and rock from on-island 

material sources, and constructing bridges all of which require fuel-burning construction machinery, an 

increase in construction-related vehicle traffic for a 3 to 10 year period. These construction actions would 

increase CO2e emissions due to fuel combustion from construction equipment and the vehicles of 

construction crews.

The extent and scope of cumulative effects on climate change and carbon sequestration depends on the 

amount and condition of total forest land harvested (worldwide, as well as locally within Southeast 

Alaska); the use to which harvested wood is put; the use of the land post-harvest; how the lands of other 

ownership are managed (including private and State-managed lands within the U.S., as well as forests in 

other countries); the amount of carbon released during harvest, processing, and transporting wood 

products; decomposition rates of organic materials; factors such as the amount of new hydroelectric or 

other renewable energy power projects that are built (e.g., those that might replace diesel generated 

power); future community expansion and development; as well as, emissions from ongoing and future 

activities in the region. 

It is anticipated that communities in the region and worldwide will continue to increase in some areas and 

decrease in others depending on local population sizes, as well as site-specific socioeconomic and other 

anthropogenic factors. It is uncertain how forested lands that are located outside of the U.S. would be 

managed by their respective governments or landowners (and the Forest Service would have no 

jurisdiction over these foreign lands or entities), but it is likely that many of these areas will continue to 

be managed under their respective government’s current forest management practices, as well as 

responding to global markets including the influences of the Tongass forest products on those markets 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 165

leading to some level of market leakage (e.g., Jonsson et al. 2012). It is likely that most of the State and 

private commercial forest land in Southeast Alaska, except for State parks and some other State lands, 

would be managed for the production of forest products under any of the alternatives considered in this 

analysis. If the products resulting from harvest are primarily lumber and other building materials, there is 

a potential that the carbon in these products would be stored for the life of the buildings, longer if the 

wood is recycled or placed in landfills. If the wood is used for paper products or fuel, carbon storage 

would be short term (Harmon et al. 1990). Any temporary storage of carbon in lumber products may be 

offset by carbon released during and after harvest, transportation, and processing. Each of the action 

alternatives would cumulatively add to the global effects of climate change by contributing to the net 

release of carbon to the atmosphere. 

Climate change may also directly impact the resources currently managed by the Forest Service, as well 

as how the Forest Service manages the Tongass National Forest in the future. While there is general 

agreement among scientists that the climate of Southeast Alaska is warming, there is considerable 

uncertainty concerning the exact scope of the effects of climate change on the forests of Southeast Alaska 

and how best to deal with possible changes to the many resources managed on the Tongass. Shanley et al. 

(2015) predicted that the increased temperatures and precipitation events estimated to occur in the region 

as a result of climate change would have the following effects to coastal temperate rainforests like those 

found in the Tongass National Forest: increased frequency of flooding and rain-on-snow events; an 

elevated snowline and reduced snowpack; changes in the timing and magnitude of stream flow, 

freshwater thermal regimes, and riverine nutrient exports; changing non-forested habitats; altitudinal and 

latitudinal expansion of lowland and subalpine forest types; shifts in suitable habitat boundaries for 

vegetation and wildlife communities; adverse effects on dispersal-limited species or species with rare 

ecological niches; and shifts in anadromous salmon distribution and productivity (Shanley et al. 2015).

Other effects on forests in the Tongass National Forest could include increased blowdown; increased tree 

mortality from insects and disease; increased fire frequency and severity; adverse effects on air quality; 

and changes to subsistence use and recreation. If warmer winter weather results in higher insect 

populations and increased tree defoliation (as discussed above), there is a risk that increased dead material 

and warmer weather may spawn more fires than are normal for the area. However, as Berman et al. 

(1999) state, it is difficult to predict the magnitude of the area likely to be burned in a region without an 

historic fire record, but they estimate that most fires would be small and of low intensity, suggesting a 

scenario in which 5,000 acres might burn over a period of decades (an average of approximately 100 

acres/year). Juday et al. (1998) and Shanley et al. (2015) suggest that the effects of fires on resources are 

likely to be low in this region, but that the effects of insects and disease may increase. For example, 

Shanley et al. (2015) stated “[a]ssuming that seasonality of precipitation does not change significantly, 

fire will remain unimportant as a disturbance agent, but higher [mean annual temperature] is anticipated 

to increase the incidence and severity of insect and disease in lowland forests. 

Plant and animal species will respond to changing climates individually; and some species or individuals 

will be more sensitive and vulnerable than others (Millar et al. 2006). For example, forest losses (either 

from climate induced increases in insects, diseases, or fire) could harm wildlife habitat, which in turn 

could adversely affect subsistence resources; while conversely, Juday et al. (1998) suggested that warmer 

winters could result in sustained higher populations of Sitka black-tailed deer, one of the most important 

subsistence resources for residents of Southeast Alaska and a major prey species for wolves. 

Juday et al. (1998) also postulate that warmer, drier conditions could increase stream temperatures and 

cause seasonal low flows, both of which could adversely affect salmon (EcoAdapt 2014). Berman et al. 

(1999) estimated that a 25 percent decline in salmon stocks would result in a loss of $25 million a year 

(approximately $31 million in current dollars). However, Oswood et al. (1992) state that melting glaciers 

would result in more runoff entering streams. This could offset any decrease in summer flows due to 

reduced summer precipitation, at least in the short run. In time, glacial mass would be reduced and their 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 166

contribution to stream flow would decrease (EcoAdapt 2014). Oswood and others also believe that 

climate change would result in changes to the nutritional levels of leaf material entering streams, but 

could not predict whether this would have a positive or negative effect of fish. Some recent studies have 

postulated that watersheds currently fed by snow may transition to rain-fed systems, thereby altering 

water storage and flow dynamics that can affect salmon health (Wolken et al. 2011, Shanley and Albert 

2014).

Warmer temperatures are expected to result in a loss of carbon stored in leaf litter and soil organic matter, 

due to increased soil respiration (Bachelet et al. 2005). The clearing of forested areas during harvesting or 

other development actions could increase this effect, by increasing the amount of solar energy that is 

allowed to reach the ground. Shanley et al. (2015) hypothesized that climate change could also affect the 

quality of timber products that could be harvested from this region, e.g., increased annual temperature 

would accelerate growth rates and in turn decrease wood density and grain quality of forest products from 

young-growth forests, relative to those harvested from primarily forests during the 20th century. 

Furthermore, some studies have found reduced productivity of forests throughout Alaska as a result of 

recent changes to climatic conditions (Wolken et al. 2011). 

All of these factors and anticipated effects related to climate change can have both local and global 

implications to communities as well as associated social costs (Larsen et al. 2007; IPCC 2007; EcoAdapt 

2014). These include changes to subsistence and recreational resources, impacts to infrastructure and land 

use, changes to transportation routes and options, and potential impacts to public health as a result of 

climate change.

The Forest Service will continue to work with local stakeholders and Pacific Northwest scientists to 

develop measures to alert the Forest Service to trends that may affect the health of the Tongass and the 

species that depend on it, as well as measures that could be implemented to minimize or adapt to the 

effects of climate change on managed resources. One monitoring effort that the Forest Service currently 

uses to track changes in vegetation is the Forest Inventory and Analysis-Forest Health Monitoring (FIAFHM) program. Researchers have analyzed the existing FIA data from plots containing epiphytic lichen, 

and vascular plant data to develop air pollution and climate models (Root et al. 2014). Annual insect and 

disease surveys also provide information on how climate change may be affecting forests. Stream gauges, 

some of which provide long-term data on stream flow, are another tool used by the Forest Service to 

monitor the effects of climate change on the Tongass. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Overall, under the action alternatives, the rate of climate change and carbon sequestration would likely 

continue at the current rate for several years. Based on the literature review presented in the Forest Plan 

Amendment (2016), the rate of carbon sequestration would be higher under the no action alternative 

compared with the action alternatives. As Depro et al. (2007) found with longer periods of time (100 

years) with no harvest, there would be an annual increase in carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration 

levels for the action alternatives would be variable, but lower than Alternative 1, depending on the amount 

of harvest, regeneration rates, decomposition rates, etc. The net result of increased carbon sequestration 

from any of the action alternatives would not likely modify environmental conditions on the project area, 

in terms of either short-term or long-term ecological conditions or characteristics.

Yellow-cedar regeneration

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would likely result in the same rate of yellow-cedar decline and current rates of 

regeneration, or at least would not have an effect on the rates of regeneration and/or decline. Over time, 

the rate of decline and mortality of yellow-cedar in Southeast Alaska may increase as a result of climate 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 167

change (Hennon and Shaw 1997, Wolken et al. 2011, Hennon et al. 2016) and concomitant declines in 

snowpack in low-elevation areas that result in greater exposure of yellow-cedar’s fine roots to freezing, 

especially in the southern portion of the region. Since these factors are directly related to seasonal snow 

pack (loss of snow cover at lower elevations) and thawing cycles in late winter, the no action alternative 

would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on overall yellow-cedar decline and/or regeneration. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Since yellow-cedar decline is associated with declines in snowpack, all action alternatives would likely 

result in the comparable rate of yellow-cedar decline and current rates of regeneration, or at least would 

not have an effect on the rates of regeneration and/or decline. While warmer temperatures are expected, 

the increased temperatures would not be directly or indirectly caused by the proposed activities of any 

action alternatives.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 results in no project-related CO2e emissions because no Forest Service construction or 

harvest operations would take place. However, CO2e would continue to be produced in the Wrangell area 

annually as a result of existing vehicle, aviation, and ferry/cruise ship emissions. Therefore, GHGs 

emissions are likely to remain the same as current conditions under Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

During timber sale operations, fuel combustion associated with harvesting timber would result in CO2e 

emissions. Additionally, the distance vehicles travel to and from the harvest units, regardless of the 

location, would increase, during the life of the sale. Both of these changes would increase CO2e 

emissions through additional fuel consumption.

For all action alternatives, construction activities—removing vegetation; grading and re-contouring the 

ground surface; hardening the roads; potential extraction of materials such as gravel, soil, and rock from 

on-island material sources, constructing bridges and operation of timber harvest machinery (yarders, 

shovels, loaders, log trucks) would require fuel-burning construction machinery, an increase in 

construction-related vehicle traffic, and two to three seasons of construction in addition to a 3- to 10-year 

timber harvest operation over the life of the sale. These construction actions would increase CO2e 

emissions due to fuel combustion from construction equipment and the vehicles of construction crews.

The CO2e emissions from construction were assessed qualitatively for all alternatives based on the 

duration and type of construction activity that would occur. The relative amounts of GHGs for each action 

alternative is proportional to the amount of road construction and harvest operations. Therefore, 

Alternative 2 would have the highest anticipated GHGs, followed by Alternatives 4, 3 and 5 which would 

have slightly lower levels.

Conclusion

Overall, the effects of this project on climate change and air quality would be negligible.

Although important on a global scale, it is estimated that the forests of the Tongass represent 

approximately only one-quarter of one percent of the stored carbon in forests worldwide (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b, p. 3-19). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that small, if even measurable, changes in 

carbon sequestration, greenhouse gasses, and yellow-cedar decline under any of the action alternatives 

would not be a relevant factor for choosing among alternatives. Additionally, as described above and in 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 168

the Forest Plan, the task of understanding all the factors that influence climate change contains substantial 

uncertainty and for these reasons is not essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives.

None of the action alternatives are thought to measurably contribute to the cumulative effects on climate 

change.

Aquatics

This section focuses on sedimentation, streamflow, and stream temperature, as well as fish habitat. These 

are the principal areas of hydrology and fisheries that may be impacted by timber harvest and road

construction activities. Road construction and use, as well as stream crossings are primary sources of

sediment into streams. Timber harvest may adversely affect peak streamflows and therefore, fish habitat.

Water quality can be affected by timber harvest through sedimentation caused by increased traffic on the 

road system and harvest practices such as cable yarding and shovel logging. Increased water

temperatures can be caused by removal of trees (which shade streams). For more on aquatics analysis and 

fisheries please see the Aquatics Resources Report in the project record.

Methods of Analysis

Watersheds are identified, delineated, and characterized using a combination of field data and the Tongass 

GIS library. Stream channels are categorized according to the Tongass National Forest Channel Type User 

Guide (USDA Forest Service 1992), which is the foundation upon which aquatic habitat management 

prescriptions are developed. 

Climate conditions and precipitation values in project-area watersheds were determined using the Alaska 

Climate Research Center website (http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/). GIS was used to analyze location, 

climate, geology, hydrology, stream density, road density, harvest history, landslide inventory, and 

disturbance regimes including erosion and mass movement hazard. District-wide road condition surveys 

were used to determine number of stream crossings, number of red fish crossings, and streams requiring 

additional information or field verification. Field surveys were conducted to verify fish presence or 

absence, fish species, stream class and channel type, and to map streams in the proposed harvest units and 

surrounding areas within project area watersheds using Global Positioning System (GPS). Stream classes 

are determined using both fish presence and stream channel characteristics. Relative changes in stream 

gradient, flow, pool quality and frequency and barriers to upstream movement are used to determine 

extent of fish habitat upstream of the last fish detection. Fish presence or absence is verified using a 

backpack electrofisher or minnow traps, depending on site conditions. This information is combined with 

the limited available water quality and fish distribution data for an overall watershed characterization. 

Effects for the watersheds are estimated using quantifiable surrogates for actual effects (e.g., stream 

crossings are a measure for increased sediment) as supported by the literature cited. The following units 

of measure were used to evaluate current watershed condition, the effects of the proposal, and to compare 

alternatives:

• Changed streamflow: Percent increase of peak streamflow based on Grant et al. (2008)

• Increased sediment: Percentage of basin comprised of roads (from acres of existing and proposed 

new road construction) (mi2 road/mi2 watershed), and number of existing and new Class I and II 

stream crossings

In the past, the Tongass National Forest used an analytical threshold of 20 percent cumulative basin 

harvest in 30 years to predict potentially detectable peak flow increases. This harvest level was based on a 

review of relevant studies in the Pacific Northwest and was only used for effects analyses; it was not a 

management threshold or Forest Plan standard and guideline for limiting watershed harvest. The 

publication of Grant et al. (2008), a synthesis of relevant studies in western Washington and Oregon,
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 169

represents the state of the science on this topic and is now the primary citation supporting effects analysis 

in the Tongass National Forest.

Multiple harvest methods are proposed in this project. The two primary methods are clearcut and singletree selection (STS). The STS is an uneven-aged management prescription that removes up to 33 percent

of the basal area. Clearcut harvest removes all trees in a single harvest (clearcut), or nearly all the trees 

(clearcut with reserves, CCR15). Watershed acres for analysis via the Grant et al. (2008) method was 

calculated by using 100 percent of the clearcut and CCR15 acreage, and 33 percent of the STS acreage. 

The use of harvest numbers in this manner, using Grant’s method, produces a maximum effects prediction 

given that STS results in fewer impacts than clearcut harvest.

Forest harvest and watershed condition are an evolving condition. Past activity on a watershed can 

influence current conditions. Forest harvest is a particularly dynamic activity with harvest occurring since 

the 1950s in some watersheds. In order to quantify the effects, a conservative estimate of 30 years is used 

for the time necessary for hydrologic recovery, referring to the decreasing impact of forest practices 

through time as a result of vegetation regrowth (Moore and Wondzell 2005). Full hydrologic recovery in 

the absence of roads is expected to require between 10 and 30 years in the Pacific Northwest (Hicks et al. 

1991; Jones 2000; Moore and Wondzell 2005). For the cumulative effects analysis, forest harvest since 

1985 was used. 

Analysis Area

Watersheds

A watershed is an area of land that drains water, sediment, and dissolved materials to a common outlet at 

some point along a stream or channel, or frontal watersheds that drain to the ocean. The boundary of a 

watershed is based on the drainage divides, which take into account both hydrologic and geomorphic 

processes. Hydrologic unit codes (HUCs) are unique identifiers used in a standardized watershed 

classification system developed by Federal agencies (USGS and NRCS 2013). This resource analysis has 

been conducted using the 7th level, which is the smallest delineation in the HUC system. There are 62 7th

level watersheds on Wrangell Island. Twenty-one of them are affected by the proposed actions. The direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects analysis has been limited to these watersheds. Table 54 lists the 

watersheds considered in this analysis with the alternatives in which they are included, watershed size and 

ownership. Figure 29 shows the 7th level watersheds for Wrangell Island. 

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

7th Level HUC Watershed Alternative Acres Acres NFS Acres NonNFS

Percent

NFS

19010209010102 2,3,5 1,629 1,622 6 99.6

19010209010202 3,5 2,317 2,040 276 88.0

19010209010303 2,3,4,5 4,704 2,967 1,737 63.0

19010209010304 2,3,4,5 1,178 1,178 0 100

19010209010403 2,3,5 880 785 96 89.2

19010209020512 2,4 1,010 923 87 91.4

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest SoundA 2,4 1,970 1,970 0 100

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C 4,5 2,844 1,782 1,062 62.7

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 2,3,4,5 834 300 534 36.0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 2,3,4,5 1,991 1,919 72 96.4
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 170

7th Level HUC Watershed Alternative Acres Acres NFS Acres NonNFS

Percent

NFS

Long Lake 3,4 6,183 6,101 82 98.7

Lower Fools Creek-A 3,5 931 931 0 100

Lower Salamander Creek 2,3,4,5 4,141 4,113 28 99.3

McCormack Creek 2,3,4,5 2,885 2,589 296 89.7

Pat Creek 2,3,4,5 4,597 3,085 1,511 67.1

Upper Earl West Creek 2,3,4,5 2,950 2,937 12 99.6

Upper Fools Creek 2,3,4,5 4,919 4,910 8 99.8

Upper Salamander Creek 2,3,4,5 5,689 5,680 9 99.8

Wrangell Island-Frntl Eastern 

Passage-C 2,3,4,5 443 443 1 100

Wrangell Island-Frntl Eastern 

Passage-D 2,3,4,5 728 601 128 82.6

Lower Earl West Creek 3 4,741 3,425 1,316 72.2

Affected Environment

Current Conditions

Stream habitat is determined by mapping and classifying streams within the project area according to

process group and channel type. The abundant Class I and Class II habitat in the form of streams and lakes

indicates high fisheries value within the project area. Streams on the Tongass National Forest are also 

classified by habitat value classes from I to IV indicating levels of habitat use by fish populations and are 

delineated according to the criteria described in the Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (USDA 

Forest Service 2001a). See figure 29 for mapped Class I, II and III streams.

• Class I - Streams and lakes with anadromous or adfluvial fish or fish habitat; or high-quality 

resident fish waters, or habitat above fish migration barriers known to be reasonable enhancement 

opportunities for anadromous fish.

• Class II - Streams and lakes with resident fish or fish habitat and generally steep (6 to 25 percent 

or higher) gradient (can also include streams with a 0 to 6 percent gradient) where no anadromous 

fish occur, and otherwise not meeting Class I criteria.

• Class III – Streams are perennial and intermittent streams that have no fish populations or fish 

habitat, but have sufficient flow or sediment and debris transport to directly influence 

downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. For streams less than 30 percent gradient, 

special care is needed to determine if resident fish are present. 

• Class IV - Other intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels with insufficient flow or 

sediment transport capabilities to have immediate influence on downstream water quality or fish 

habitat capability. Class IV streams do not have the characteristics of Class I, II, or III streams, 

and have a bankfull width of at least 1 foot. 

• Non-streams: Rills and other watercourses, generally intermittent and less than 1 foot in bankfull 

width, little or no incision into the surrounding hillslope, and with little or no evidence of scour. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 171

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 173

Table 55 provides total stream miles, stream density, and stream miles by class for the watersheds within 

the project area where timber harvest activities are proposed. Five of the HUC 7 watersheds have more 

than 5 miles of Class I stream habitat. 

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

activities

7th Level Watershed

Total 

Stream 

Miles

Stream 

Density Class I Class II Class III Class IV

19010209010102 16.1 6.4 1.2 3.6 6.3 5

19010209010202 17.6 4.9 1.7 2.8 7.7 5.4

19010209010303 33.1 4.5 5.8 3.4 17 6.9

19010209010304 11.8 6.6 0 0 5.1 6.7

19010209010403 1.8 1.3 0 0 1.8 0

19010209020512 3.7 2.3 0.5 0.8 2.2 0.2

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 10 3.2 0 1.8 6.5 1.7

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-C 13.1 3.0 0.2 3.1 6.5 3.3

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-D 3.8 2.92 0.7 0.1 2.7 0.3

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 7.6 2.5 0.3 0.9 1.3 5.1

Long Lake 32.9 3.4 4.8 10.4 7.1 10.6

Lower Earl West Creek 15.8 2.1 4.6 2.6 6.6 2

Lower Fools Creek-A 4.3 2.9 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.3

Lower Salamander Creek 39.2 6.0 7.2 5.2 13.2 13.6

McCormack Creek 25 5.5 4.3 2.2 8.9 9.6

Pat Creek 24.4 3.4 5.1 1.9 12.7 4.7

Upper Earl West Creek 16.9 3.7 0.8 6 2.3 7.8

Upper Fools Creek 22.9 3.0 5.1 7.2 5.3 5.3

Upper Salamander Creek 19.5 2.2 8.2 3.2 5.3 2.8

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-C 2.8 4.0 0 0 2.8 0

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 9.2 8.4 0 0.1 3.4 5.7

Timber harvest can change streamflow by altering the collection and storage of water, thus altering the 

amount and timing of water delivery to the stream. Reductions in canopy interception and plant 

transpiration rates resulting from harvest can increase annual water yield as well as peak flows in small 

streams (Jones and Grant 1996). Rates of timber harvest in the project area have varied among watersheds 

since the 1950s, but were generally higher in the 1980s and 1990s when the Wrangell Island road system 

was expanded. Recent evidence supports the theory that increases in peak flows are only detectable in 

relatively frequent small flows in rain dominated and transitional snow zone (TSZ) watersheds, such as 

the watersheds analyzed in the project area (Grant et al. 2008). Table 56 groups watersheds by type and 

summarizes harvest acres from 1985 to present, of the watersheds which have had prior timber harvest 

within the project area. (See the Aquatics Resource Report for additional information on harvest outside 

of the analysis period.) HUC 19010209010304 has the highest cumulative harvest at 18 percent, followed 

by McCormack Creek at 15.5 percent.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 174

Grant et al. (2008) parses study results into hydrologic zones of rain-dominated, snow-dominated, and the 

transient snow zone that lies between them. The transient snow zone is likely the most sensitive to timber 

harvest effects because rain-on-snow events are common in this zone. Openings created by timber harvest 

increase snowpack exposure to rainfall that results in rapid snowmelt and increased peak flows. Stream 

discharge within Southeast Alaska is predominantly controlled by rainfall events, with peak discharges 

occurring during fall and winter storms (Jones and Fahl 1994). A U.S. Geological Survey stream gauge 

within the Earl West Creek watershed, located 0.1 mile upstream from the bridge over Earl West Creek on 

NFS road 6270, recorded measurements from 2004 to 2013. Evaluation of the data from this and nearby 

streamflow gauges suggest that project area streamflow is likely influenced by spring snowmelt and 

winter rain-on-snow events. For the Wrangell Island Project, an elevation of 1,000 feet was used to 

establish snow cover based on snow survey data. Each watershed over 1,000 feet was evaluated. If the 

watershed had harvest above 1,000 feet elevation, it was evaluated as a TSZ watershed. Watersheds with 

no harvest above 1,000 feet elevation were evaluated as rain dominated watersheds. The project area does 

not have any areas that met the designation of snow dominated. Table 56 lists the designation of each of 

the watersheds in the project area.

Analysis using Grant et al. (2008) predicts peak flow changes using a regression equation that results in 

percentage increases of streamflow. For the Wrangell Island Project, the method was applied to predict 

maximum peak flow increases. The use of historical acreage did not include any recovery of the 

watershed within the 30-year time period used. The TSZ acreage was applied to all harvest within the 

watershed, not acreage above 1,000 feet and STS acreages were modified and applied to clearcut 

acreages. In addition, analysis by sub-watershed (HUC7) mitigates the dilution of effects by inclusion of 

areas not affected by activity. Analysis using these modifications increases the prediction of change to the 

maximum for each sub-watershed.

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

affected by the proposed activities

7th level HUC watershed Watershed type

Watershed 

acres % past harvest Harvest acres since 1985

19010209010202 Rain 2,317 8.8 203

19010209020512 Rain 1,010 0.4 4

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest SoundA Rain 1,983 4.2 84

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C Rain 2,850 12.9 366

Long Lake Rain 6,184 7.9 488

Lower Earl West Creek Rain 4,744 1.6 75

Lower Fools Creek-A Rain 931 11.0 102

Upper Earl West Creek Rain 2,950 1.0 31

Upper Fools Creek Rain 4,919 7.8 383

19010209010102 TSZ 1,629 7.0 114

19010209010303 TSZ 4,705 6.4 302

19010209010304 TSZ 1,178 18.0 212

19010209020403 TSZ 3,237 1.3 41

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D TSZ 835 0.7 6

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E TSZ 1,996 12.5 250
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 175

7th level HUC watershed Watershed type

Watershed 

acres

% past harvest Harvest acres 

since 1985

Lower Salamander Creek TSZ 4,143 13.7 565

McCormack Creek TSZ 2,886 15.5 447

Pat Creek TSZ 4,598 3.8 175

Upper Salamander Creek TSZ 5,690 9.5 537

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-C TSZ 456 0 0

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D TSZ 733 7.3 53

Road construction has been shown to affect runoff generation; potentially altering the timing and volume 

of water delivery to streams (Wemple et al. 1996). There are currently approximately 184 miles of roads 

in project area watersheds (including stored and decommissioned roads). A statistical relationship 

between fine streambed sediment and watershed disturbance has been reported in Southeast Alaska 

studies (Ross 2013). Table 57 lists the existing road densities for each watershed. Three of the watersheds 

have existing road densities meeting or exceeding 2 mi/mi2 but only one exceeds the 2 percent basin area 

value used by Grant et al. (2008) for differentiating peak flow effects within the watershed.

Table 57. Existing roads1 within affected watersheds

7th level HUC watershed Total road miles % Basin area as roads Total road density

19010209010102 4.2 1.2 1.6

19010209010202 4.4 0.9 1.2

19010209010303 10.8 1.1 1.5

19010209010304 2.7 1.1 1.5

19010209010403 0 0 0

19010209020512 0.6 0.3 0.4

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 1.2 0.3 0.4

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitC 7.9 1.3 1.8

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitD 3.9 2.3 3.0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitE 4.8 1.2 1.5

Long Lake 9.8 0.8 1.0

Lower Earl West Creek 6.9 0.7 0.9

Lower Fools Creek-A 2.1 1.1 1.5

Lower Salamander Creek 11.8 1.4 1.8

McCormack Creek 9.1 1.5 2.0

Pat Creek 11.2 1.2 1.6

Upper Earl West Creek 2.5 0.4 0.6

Upper Fools Creek 5.8 0.6 0.8

Upper Salamander Creek 12.4 1.1 1.4
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 176

7th level HUC watershed Total road miles % Basin area as roads Total road density

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-C 0.1 0.1 0.1

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 2.4 1.6 2.1

1 – Existing roads included decommissioned, existing and temporary

Removal of riparian vegetation and the resultant increase in solar radiation can lead to increased stream 

temperatures (Beschta et al. 2000). The Alaska Water Quality Standards for “growth and propagation of 

fish...” are “may not exceed 20 degrees C at any time,” and are specifically 15 degrees Celsius for 

migration and rearing areas, and 13 degrees Celsius for spawning areas (ADEC 2008). See the Aquatics 

Resource Report for further discussion on stream temperature in managed and unmanaged watersheds. 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines provide for the protection of riparian buffers on all fish-bearing and 

Class III streams through designation of Riparian Management Areas (RMAs). RMAs are designed to 

protect riparian zone interactions between streams, floodplains, riparian wetlands and uplands including 

vegetation shading to maintaining cool stream temperatures (Paustian 2004). Vegetation and shade are 

provided and maintained by large wood in the riparian area. Murphy and Koski (1989) found that a 30-

meter wide buffer should maintain adequate large wood along the streambanks. This buffer is consistent 

with the RMA widths specified in the Tongass Forest Plan Amendment (2016). Prior to passage of the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) in 1990, timber harvest in RMAs occurred in all project area 

watersheds (Table 58). The largest existing harvest of riparian area is Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitD with 43.2 percent, followed by Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E with 23.6 percent. No timber 

harvest in RMAs are proposed for this project.

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

7th level HUC watershed Total RMA acres Harvested RMA acres Harvested RMA percent

19010209010102 199.8 21.3 10.7

19010209010202 190.8 22.9 12

19010209010303 438.8 66.3 15.1

19010209010304 43.7 7.1 16.2

19010209010403 16.6 0 0

19010209020512 59.7 1 1.7

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 102.1 7 6.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitC 153.5 19.8 12.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitD 55.6 24 43.2

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitE 47.8 11.3 23.6

Long Lake 548.7 6.3 1.1

Lower Earl West Creek 290.5 4.4 1.5

Lower Fools Creek-A 55.6 6.7 12.1

Lower Salamander Creek 545 45.3 8.3

McCormack Creek 269.8 61 22.6

Pat Creek 344.1 74 21.5

Upper Earl West Creek 185.8 1.1 0.6
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 177

7th level HUC watershed Total RMA acres Harvested RMA acres Harvested RMA percent

Upper Fools Creek 417 0.7 0.2

Upper Salamander Creek 398.8 11.5 2.9

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-C 28.6 0 0

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 34.8 6.1 17.5

Environmental Consequences

Comparison of Alternatives Effects

Analysis to determine probable percent changes in peak stream flow were conducted in all project 

watersheds by the method outlined in Grant et al. (2008). Nine of the watersheds were determined to be 

rain dominated and the analysis showed that none would result in a detectable change. In contrast, of the 

12 TSZ watersheds for Wrangell Island, 7 would exhibit measurable changes in peak flow (i.e., a 10 

percent increase from Alt 1 column). Table 59 shows the TSZ watersheds with the predicted peak flow 

change by alternative. Peak flows determine the structure and dimensions of streams. Increases or 

decreases change habitat values and usability of the stream by aquatic organisms. Increases in flow also 

affect infrastructure such as culverts, roads and bridges.

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

7th level HUC watershed Alt 1

% change

Alt 2

% change

Alt 3

% change

Alt 4

% change

Alt 5

% change

McCormack Creek 15.5 18.6 18.9 18.9 17.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 0.7 15.6 15.9 15.9 15.9

19010209010102 7.0 21.7 16.8 16.7 15.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 12.5 18.3 17.2 17.2 11.8

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 7.3 16.3 16.2 6.8 16.2

Pat Creek 3.8 16.3 16.0 16.1 8.0

Lower Salamander Creek 13.7 7.2 6.8 6.9 10.7

19010209010304 18.0 6.9 6.6 7.4 11.9

Upper Salamander Creek 9.4 6.7 6.6 6.6 9.4

19010209010303 6.4 6.5 6.1 6.2 8.1

19010209020403 18.0 6.5 7.0 7.1 6.4

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-C 0.00 10.3 7.1 6.8 7.1

All of the alternatives add to an altered landscape. In table 59, the Alt 1 column provides the current 

predicted peak flow change from existing actions with predicted increases up to 18 percent. Of the 

watersheds with current predictions of peak flow increases over 10 percent, only four have proposed 

changes under the action alternatives that would result in cumulative peak flow over 20 percent. Of the 

four McCormack Creek has the highest overall predicted cumulative change. McCormack Creek is a 

high-gradient confined channel with predominantly bedrock channel geology which will be resilient to 

channel changes. Lower Salamander Creek has less than 10 percent harvest under the proposed action, 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 178

but is a lower-gradient stream with unconsolidated substrate that could experience increase in sediment 

transport and channel modifications.

Each of the proposed action alternatives relies on the existing road system and expansions to the NFS 

roads, and all would require the construction of temporary roads. New NFS roads and temporary roads 

would be built in all proposed alternatives, resulting in increases in the percentage of each basin 

comprised of roads (table 60). 

All action alternatives would increase the number of crossings on Class I, Class II and Class III streams 

(table 61). Risk of sediment delivery to streams is higher at road crossings, reflecting the potential for 

culverts to become plugged with sediment and debris. All temporary roads would be decommissioned 

following harvest and firewood gathering activities, as described in Chapter 2. Decommissioning roads 

would decrease the potential for sediment delivery to streams from the failure of drainage structures. The 

risk of sediment introduction to streams can be reduced by limiting the number of stream crossings, 

storm-proofing roads closed to motor vehicles, maintaining open NFS roads, and implementing Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, and best management practices (BMPs). The project road cards describe 

road management objectives, construction timing restrictions, and the locations of all new stream 

crossings on new NFS roads.

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

7th level HUC watershed Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

19010209010102 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7

19010209010202 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1

19010209010303 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

19010209010304 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

19010209020403 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0

19010209020512 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest 

Sound-A 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6

Long Lake 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2

Lower Earl West Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lower Fools Creek-A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0

Lower Salamander Creek 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0

McCormack Creek 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.7

Pat Creek 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4

Upper Earl West Creek 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Upper Fools Creek 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Upper Salamander Creek 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 179

Table 61. New NFS and temporary road crossings by alternative

NFS roads Temporary 

roads

Class I Class II Class III Class I Class II Class III

Alt 2 2 8 29 0 2 11

Alt 3 2 5 25 0 1 7

Alt 4 1 6 21 0 1 4

Alt 5 1 3 21 0 1 8

Effects by Alternative

Watershed size, road density, road connectivity, drainage efficiency, wetlands, harvest patch size and 

location, silvicultural prescription, and riparian no-harvest buffers may all combine in complex ways to 

influence peak flows.

Past, current, and future activities can also influence the aquatics resource. Table 5 lists past, present and 

reasonably foreseeable activities. Projects that may contribute to cumulative impacts on watersheds 

within the Wrangell Island Project area are the Wrangell Ranger District Roadside project, Pat Creek 

Restoration and the State of Alaska Earl West Cove Area timber sale. In analyzing the cumulative effects 

of these projects concerning the aquatics resource, the Earl West Cove Area timber sale area was assumed 

to be clearcut. The other projects listed in Table 5 but not named here are not anticipated to impact the 

aquatics resource when considered cumulatively with the Wrangell Island Project.

The effects of the AMHT land exchange on aquatic resources would be negligible. The land to be 

acquired through the land exchange will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect aquatic 

resources. Timber sales would have impacts similar to those described in this section.

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, none of the timber harvest or road construction activities described would occur. 

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the aquatic or fisheries resources, which are discussed in 

the Aquatics Resource Report.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 may have peak flow changes in 7 watersheds based on the transient snow zone evaluation in 

Grant et al. (2008). The predicted peak flow changes are between 10 to 22 percent based on road and 

harvest percentages (table 62). The largest predicted change would be in 19010209010102 at 21.7

percent. Table 63 gives the proposed roads and stream crossings in each watershed. This alternative adds 

36 stream crossings on NFS roads. Streams in the affected area respond differently. The difference in 

channel response is accounted for in the variation in the RMA applied to each stream. The effects of 

activities should be reduced or resolved with the application of BMP and buffers along the streams.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 180

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

Alternative 2

7th level HUC watershed Watershed 

area (acres)

Total 

harvest

(acres)

Clearcut

harvest

(acres)

STS harvest

(acres)

Predicted

peak flow 

change %

McCormack Creek 2,886 477 276 201 19

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 835 52 0.00 52 16

19010209010102 1,629 460 316 144 22

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 1,996 274 195 79 18

Wrangell Island-Frontal 

Eastern Passage-D 733 64 14 49 16

Pat Creek 4,598 345 129 216 16

Wrangell Island-Frontal 

Eastern Passage-C 456 77 61 16 10

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

7th level HUC watershed NFS miles Temp miles NFS stream 

crossings

Temp stream 

crossings

19010209010102 0.8 1.0 1 3

19010209010202 1.3 1.2 5 1

19010209010303 0.0 0.2 0 1

19010209010304 1.0 0.0 4 0

19010209010506 0.6 0.0 1 0

19010209020512 0.7 0.0 2 0

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest 

Sound-A

0.2 0.6 0 0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C

0.5 0.8 3 5

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E

1.8 0.9 0 0

Long Lake 1.1 1.4 0 2

Lower Fools Creek-A 0.5 0.1 0 0

McCormack Creek 5.4 1.5 10 1

Pat Creek 3.2 0.3 7 5

Upper Fools Creek 0.2 0.5 1 0

Upper Salamander Creek 1.7 0.5 2 0

Cumulative Effects 

Table 64 summarizes cumulative harvest, road and peak flow predictions for Alternative 2. Cumulative 

effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in four watersheds over 20 percent cumulative 

harvest area with the largest at 29 percent for 19010209010102 followed by McCormack Creek at 27 

percent. Road densities would be over 2 mi/mi2 for six watersheds with three watersheds over 3 mi/mi2

. 

The largest road density would be McCormack Creek at 3.2 mi/mi2

. Peak flow increases would be over 10 

percent in eight watersheds with the largest at 24 percent for 19010209010102 followed by McCormack 

Creek at 23 percent. Streams in the affected area respond differently based on topography, channel type 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 181

and geology. The difference in channel response is accounted for in the variation in the RMA applied to 

each stream. The effects of activities should be reduced or resolved with the application of BMP and 

buffers along the streams.

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

7th level HUC watershed Cumulative harvest 

area %

Cumulative road

density (mi/mi2)

% change in peak 

flow predicted from 

cumulative effects

McCormack Creek 27.4 3.2 23.2

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 2.7 3.0 15.8

19010209010102 29.3 2.3 23.8

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 23.6 2.3 22.1

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 11.4 2.1 18.4

Pat Creek 8.2 2.1 17.5

Lower Salamander Creek 17.5 1.9 11.3

19010209010304 20.8 1.8 12.3

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 may have peak flow changes in six watersheds based on the transient snow zone evaluation 

in Grant et al. (2008). The predicted peak flow changes are between 16 to 19 percent based on road and 

harvest percentages. The largest predicted change would be McCormack Creek at 18.9 percent (table 65).

Alternative 3 will add 29.9 miles of road. Table 66 gives the proposed roads and stream crossings in each 

watershed. Table 67 gives cumulative harvest, road and peak flow predictions. Streams in the affected 

area respond differently based on topography, channel type and geology. The difference in channel 

response is accounted for in the variation in the RMA applied to each stream. The effects of activities 

should be reduced or resolved with the application of BMP and buffers along the streams.

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

Alternative 3

7th level HUC watershed Watershed 

area (acres)

Total 

harvest

(acres)

Clearcut 

harvest

(acres)

STS 

harvest

(acres)

Predicted 

peak flow 

change %

McCormack Creek 2,886 528 299 228 19

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 835 75 0 75 16

19010209010102 1,629 115 87 29 17

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 1,996 206 116 90 17

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 733 85 0 85 16

Pat Creek 4,598 224 112 112 16
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 182

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

7th level HUC watershed NFS miles Temp miles NFS stream 

crossings

Temp stream 

crossings

19010209010102 0.8 1.0 1 3

19010209010202 1.3 1.2 5 1

19010209010303 0 0.2 0 1

19010209010304 1.0 0 4 0

19010209020403 0 0 0 0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 1.8 0.9 0 0

Long Lake 1.1 1.4 0 2

Lower Fools Creek-A 0.5 0.1 0 0

Lower Salamander Creek 0.4 0.4 2 0

McCormack Creek 5.4 1.5 10 1

Pat Creek 3.0 0.2 5 0

Upper Earl West Creek 0 0.5 0 0

Upper Fools Creek 0.5 0.6 2 0

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 0.7 0 3 0

Upper Salamander Creek 1.7 0.5 0 1

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would result in McCormack Creek at 26.8 percent. Alternative 3 would result in six

watersheds over the 2 mi/mi2 road density with the highest at 3.2 mi/mi2 for McCormack Creek. Table 67

summarizes cumulative harvest, road and peak flow predictions for Alternative 3.

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

7th level HUC watershed Cumulative harvest 

area %

Cumulative road

density (mi/mi2)

% change in peak 

flow predicted from 

cumulative effects

McCormack Creek 26.8 3.2 23.0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 3.7 3.0 16.1

19010209010102 12.9 2.3 18.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 19.8 2.3 12.0

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 11.1 2.1 18.3

Pat Creek 7.0 2.0 17.1

Lower Salamander Creek 17.6 1.9 11.3

19010209010304 19.8 1.8 11.9
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 183

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 may have peak flow changes in five watersheds based on the transient snow zone evaluation 

in Grant et al. (2008). The predicted peak flow changes are between 16 to 19 percent based on road and 

harvest percentages with the largest being McCormack Creek at 19 percent (table 68). Table 69 gives the 

proposed roads and stream crossings in each watershed. Streams in the affected area respond differently 

based on topography, channel type and geology. The difference in channel response is accounted for in the 

variation in the RMA applied to each stream. The effects of activities should be reduced or resolved with 

the application of BMP and buffers along the streams.

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

Alternative 4

7th level HUC watershed Watershed 

area (acres)

Total 

harvest

(acres)

Clearcut 

harvest

(acres)

STS 

harvest

(acres)

Predicted 

peak flow 

change %

McCormack Creek 2,886 540 294 246 19

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 835 75 0 75 16

19010209010102 1,629 107 87 21 17

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 1,996 206 116 90 17

Pat Creek 4,598 241 139 102 16

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

7th level HUC watershed NFS miles Temp miles NFS stream 

crossings

Temp stream 

crossings

19010209010303 0 0.2 0 1

19010209010304 1.0 0 4 0

19010209020512 0.7 0 2 0

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest 

Sound-A

0.2 0.6 0 0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C

0.5 0 3 0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E

1.8 0.9 0 0

Long Lake 1.1 1.61 0 3

Lower Salamander Creek 0 0.4 0 0

McCormack Creek 5.1 1.9 10 1

Pat Creek 3.2 0.2 7 0

Upper Earl West Creek 0 0.5 0 0

Upper Fools Creek 0.1 0.9 0 0

Upper Salamander Creek 1.7 0.0 0 0

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 0.7 0 2 0
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 184

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in two watersheds over 20 percent 

cumulative harvest area with the largest at 28 percent for McCormack Creek. Road densities would be 

over 2 mi/mi2 for five watersheds with two watersheds over 3 mi/mi2

. The highest road density would be 

McCormack Creek at 3.2 mi/mi2

. Peak flow increases would be over 10 percent in eight watersheds with 

the largest at 24 percent for McCormack Creek. Table 70 summarizes cumulative harvest, road and peak 

flow predictions for Alternative 4. 

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

7th level HUC watershed Cumulative harvest 

area %

Cumulative road

density (mi/mi2)

% change in peak flow

predicted from 

cumulative effects

McCormack Creek 28.5 3.2 23.6

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 3.7 3.0 16.1

19010209010102 12.8 2.3 18.8

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 19.8 2.2 21.0

Pat Creek 7.6 2.0 17.3

Lower Salamander Creek 16.7 1.9 11.0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C 13.6 1.9 10.1

19010209010304 22.8 1.8 12.8

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 may have peak flow changes in seven watersheds based on the transient snow zone 

evaluation in Grant et al. (2008). The predicted peak flow changes are between 11 to 18 percent based on 

road and harvest percentages with the largest at 18 percent for McCormack Creek (table 71). Table 72

gives the proposed roads and stream crossings in each watershed. Streams in the affected area respond 

differently based on topography, channel type and geology. The difference in channel response is 

accounted for in the variation in the RMA applied to each stream. The effects of activities should be 

reduced or resolved with the application of BMP and buffers along the streams.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 185

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

Alternative 5

7th level HUC watershed Watershed 

area (acres)

Total harvest

(acres)

Clearcut 

harvest

(acres)

STS harvest

(acres)

Predicted 

peak flow 

change %

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitD 835 75 0.00 75 16

McCormack Creek 2,886 496 165 331 18

19010209010102 1,629 115 67 49 17

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 733 85 0.00 85 16

Lower Salamander Creek 4,143 216 28 188 11

19010209010304 1,178 65 0.00 65 12

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia StraitE 1,996 206 100 106 12

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

7th level HUC watershed NFS miles Temp miles NFS stream 

crossings

Temp stream 

crossings

19010209010102 0.8 0.9 1 3

19010209010202 0 0.3 0 0

19010209010303 0 0.2 4 1

19010209010304 1.0 0 0 0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C

0.5 0.8 3 5

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E

1.8 0.5 0 0

McCormack Creek 3.2 0.8 6 1

Pat Creek 2.8 0.1 4 0

Upper Earl West Creek 0 0.5 0 0

Upper Fools Creek 0.1 0.6 0 0

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 0.7 0 2 0

Lower Salamander Creek 0.4 0 2 0

Upper Salamander Creek 1.6 0.4 0 0

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in five watersheds over 20 percent 

cumulative harvest area with the largest at 25 percent for McCormack Creek. Road densities would be 

over 2 mi/mi2 for five watersheds. Peak flow increases would be over 10 percent in seven watersheds with 

the largest at McCormack Creek with 22.5 percent. Table 73 summarizes cumulative harvest, road and 

peak flow predictions for Alternative 5.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 186

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

7th level HUC watershed Cumulative harvest 

area %

Cumulative road

density (mi/mi2)

% change in peak 

flow predicted from 

cumulative effects

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C 2.1 24.4 10.6

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 3.6 3.7 16.1

McCormack Creek 2.7 25.0 22.5

19010209010102 2.3 12.1 18.6

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern 

Passage-D 2.1 11.1 18.3

Lower Salamander Creek 1.8 15.8 10.7

19010209010304 1.8 19.8 11.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 1.8 19.3 11.8

Essential Fish Habitat

Essential fish habitat (EFH) is the water and substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity. Freshwater EFH includes streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, wetlands and other bodies of 

water currently and historically accessible to salmon. Marine EFH in Alaska includes estuarine and 

marine areas from tidally submerged habitat to the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. 

All watersheds in the project area contain chum, coho and pink salmon; steelhead and cutthroat trout; and 

Dolly Varden char. Sockeye salmon is not found in any of the watersheds within the project area. Each 

watershed contains small- and medium-sized drainages which contribute to a marine sport and 

commercial fishery and support a limited freshwater fishery. Both the recreational and commercial 

fisheries are important to the local economy of the area, and these fish populations contribute to the 

subsistence needs of the local communities.

The Tongass National Forest developed a juvenile fish passage evaluation criteria matrix with an 

interagency group of professionals (Flanders and Cariello 2000). The condition of existing roads, culverts, 

and drainage features was assessed using road condition surveys conducted between 1995 and 2005. As 

part of these surveys, each road crossing structure in a fish stream is assessed for its ability to provide 

unimpeded fish passage (USDA Forest Service 2001a). The evaluation matrix stratifies culverts by type, 

and establishes thresholds for culvert gradient, stream channel constriction, debris blockages, and vertical 

barriers (or perch) at culvert outlet. Fish crossings are categorized red, gray, or green according to passage 

conditions. Fish crossing categories are as follows (USDA Forest Service 2012):

• Green Category: conditions have a high certainty of meeting adult and juvenile fish passage

requirements at all desired stream flows;

• Gray Category: conditions are such that additional and more detailed analysis is required to

determine their juvenile fish passage ability. This additional analysis includes use of the FishXing

analytical software; and

• Red Category: conditions that have a high certainty of not providing juvenile fish passage at all

desired stream flows (also called red pipes).

According to the most current road condition survey data (collected from 1995 to 2015), there are 38 red 

and gray Class I and Class II stream crossings within the project watersheds. A complete listing of 

culverts may be found in the Aquatic Resources Report and additional information in Issue 4 of this 

document.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 187

Marine Environment

Watersheds within the project area include shoreline along Zimovia Straight and the Eastern Passage and 

contain diverse estuarine and tidal habitats, areas vital for some commercially important species such as 

Dungeness crab, king crab, and juvenile salmon.

These areas are part of a complex and diverse ecosystem that includes shrimp, flatfish, marine worms, 

starfish, sponges, anemones, sea cucumbers, urchins, shellfish, plankton, marine algae, and other 

organisms. Marine access facilities and log staging areas are planned points of concentrated activity along 

these shoreline environments, with the remaining shoreline protected by a 1,000-foot buffer (USDA

Forest Service 2016b). The Pat Creek or Earl West marine access facility could be used to barge or raft 

the logs for this project. 

Water quality effects include increased risk in fuel spills from equipment used for barge loading, increases 

in sediment levels from increased road use, and bark leachates and shading beneath log rafts and 

equipment floats. The effects are likely to be limited in both quantity and distribution as most activities 

and spills would be on-shore having only localized effects to near-shore fish and fish food resources from 

runoff to the marine environment. Barging logs instead of rafting them would have fewer effects on 

marine species.

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act states that all 

Federal agencies must consult the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for actions and proposed 

actions that may adversely affect EFH for federally managed marine and anadromous fish species. The 

Act promotes the protection of essential fish habitat through review, assessment, and mitigation of 

activities that may adversely affect these habitats. Essential fish habitat consultation has been combined 

with the Forest Service NEPA process. Consultation procedures have been documented in an attachment 

to a June 26, 2007 NMFS letter to the Regional Forester.

Although this consultation procedures document expired as of June 28, 2012, consultation is still required 

under the Act and the 2007 procedures remain applicable and have been followed for this EFH 

assessment.

The four main steps in the consultation process are the following:

• The Forest Service determines if the proposed action would have “no adverse effect” or if it “may 

adversely affect” EFH. Only the “may adversely affect” determination triggers consultation.

• An EFH Assessment is prepared by the Forest Service as a component of the NEPA and 

forwarded to the NMFS to initiate formal consultation.

• The NMFS will respond in writing as to whether it concurs with the conclusion in the EFH 

Assessment and may provide conservation recommendations to further minimize effects of the 

action on EFH.

• The Forest Service must provide a written response to NMFS within 30 days explaining its 

evaluation of the conservation recommendations. The response may include reasons for not 

following the recommendation.

The formal consultation begins when NMFS receives a copy of the draft environmental impact statement 

with the EFH Assessment. Documentation of the consultation process, including a summary of how EFH 

may or may not be adversely affected and the consultation requirements have been satisfied will be 

included in the FEIS. The Record of Decision will contain a summary of the EFH consultation 

conclusions.

This EFH assessment satisfies the requirements by providing: (1) a description of the proposed action; (2) 

an analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the managed species; (3) the Forest 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 188

Service’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH; (4) a discussion of proposed mitigation, 

if applicable.

Floodplains

Executive Order 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts 

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. This project does not propose floodplain 

occupancy. Roads crossing floodplains have been designed to pass floods in accordance with the BMPs. 

Major floodplains are mapped as soil units and small stream flood plains are mapped by process group. 

Both entities are used to define the riparian management areas (RMA) for this project. All activities were 

designed to avoid all RMAs. Some past historical harvest of approximately 3,000 feet of stream classified 

as floodplain may have been affected from 1965 to 1996.

No mapped 100-year floodplains were found within any of the proposed activity areas for any action 

alternative. Further, none of the action alternatives propose new road construction or timber harvest on 

floodplains in the analysis area. Because there would be no actions taken within mapped floodplains, 

there would be no direct or indirect effects. Because there are no direct or indirect effects to mapped 

floodplains from any of the action alternatives, there would be no cumulative effects. Smaller floodplains 

may be present within RMAs and may be crossed by new road construction. Roads crossing these areas 

would be designed to pass floods and minimize effects in accordance with the BMPs.

Essential Fish Habitat Effects Determination

The Forest Service determines that the Wrangell Island Project may adversely affect freshwater and 

marine EFH for the following reasons:

• The project entails ground-disturbing actions (i.e., timber harvest and road construction, including 

fish bearing stream crossings) in watersheds that contain anadromous species.

• Log hauling would occur on existing roads that cross anadromous fish streams.

• Log transfer would occur at facilities in the proximity of marine waters and inter-tidal habitats.

• Unforeseen events such as landslides, debris blockages of culverts, fuel spills, and road failures

could occur. Some of these events may occur even if this project is not approved and 

implemented.

The Forest Service would ensure that adverse effects to EFH would be minimized through 

implementation of the following measures:

• All Class I and II streams within the project area would be protected by a no-harvest buffer 

(RMA) of 100 feet or more.

• All Class III streams would be protected by no-harvest buffers to the top of the side slope (vnotch) according to the Forest Plan. This minimizes the potential impact to downstream EFH. 

• Additional precautionary measures would be prescribed to minimize windthrow in RMA buffers 

where the risk of windthrow is high or where extensive windthrow has occurred. These measures 

include retaining additional trees adjacent to the RMA to help ensure resistance to windthrow.

• Temporal restrictions would be made to limit in-water work to protect critical fish life stages.

• All proposed road crossing structures and installations would adhere to fish standards and 

guidelines for passage in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2016b).

• Standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan and best management practices (BMPs) would be 

implemented during road construction and maintenance, and other project activities, to protect 

water quality and aquatic habitat protection for all freshwater streams and for the marine access 

facilities within the project area. See unit cards for specific applications of BMPs in the vicinity 

of freshwater streams.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 189

• Annual marine dive surveys around the marine access facilities would ensure Alaska pollutant 

discharge elimination system (APDES) requirements are met for bark accumulation when 

production values are met during use.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Unavoidable adverse impacts to EFH associated with this project include short-term increases in sediment 

delivery and subsequent turbidity in streams from road construction and maintenance activities. Other 

short-term impacts include bark accumulation, leachate, and shading impacts to the marine environment 

near the marine access facility.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

This project does not propose any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of aquatic resources.

Conclusion

This project proposes timber harvest and road construction, which may affect aquatic resources. The 

application of BMPs and Guidelines would mitigate the effects. The effects increase as acres of harvest 

and miles of road increase. In order of magnitude, from least to most, effects of the alternatives rank 1, 5, 

3, 4, and 2. Many of the effects would be compounded by the existing timber harvest and roads. 

The summary of effects and mitigation are:

• Sedimentation: Number of road crossings and road miles near streams, mitigated by BMPs and 

RMAs (detailed information can be found in the Aquatics Resource Report)

• Peak Flow: Harvest acres and road miles, mitigated by BMPs and RMAs

• Stream Temperature: Harvest acres, mitigated by RMAs

Peak flow increases would be the most prevalent effect. All of the proposed actions build on an altered 

landscape. For the Wrangell Island Project, the analysis was applied to predict maximum peak flow 

increases. Of the watersheds with current predictions, most are high-gradient confined channels with 

predominantly bedrock channel geology which will be resilient to channel changes. Some watersheds 

have lower-gradient streams with unconsolidated substrates that could see increases in sediment transport 

and channel modifications.

Cultural Resources

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) sets forth government policy and procedures regarding 

"historic properties"; districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in, or eligible for, the 

National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that Federal agencies consider the 

effects of their actions on such properties, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP). 

The Section 106 review process seeks to consider historic preservation concerns with the needs of Federal 

actions. Review occurs through consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), 

the ACHP, Indian Tribes, and other parties with an interest in the effects of the undertaking on historic 

properties, commencing at the early stages of project planning. One of the goals of consultation is to 

identify historic properties that potentially may be affected by the undertaking and assess potential effects 

and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires Federal agencies to consider effects of their actions on 

cultural resources which include historic and prehistoric sites regardless of eligibility status to the NRHP.

Tribal Consultation

The Forest Service consulted with the Wrangell Cooperative Association (WCA), the tribal group which 

is culturally affiliated with the project area. Forest Service archaeologists and other members of the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 190

interdisciplinary team met with WCA concerning the planned project and supplied them with a copy of 

the Cultural Resource Report entitled Cultural Resource Investigations in the Wrangell Island Project 

Area, Southeast Alaska for review and comment (Smith 2014). Copies of the report were also sent to the 

Tlingit and Haida Central Council, Sealaska Corporation and Sealaska Heritage Institute. 

To ensure that the procedural requirements of 36 CFR §800 were met, a cultural resource investigation of 

the Wrangell Island project area was conducted. In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (2010) 

among the Forest Service Alaska Region, the ACHP, and the SHPO, a resource report was submitted to 

SHPO under 36 CFR §800 regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA. The SHPO concurred 

with the Forest Service finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” for this project. 

Methods

The cultural resource evaluation of the Wrangell Island Project began with a literature search of past 

cultural resource surveys in and around the project area. The Forest Service consulted with the local tribal 

group (WCA), and reviewed various historical and ethnographic accounts, including Alaska Heritage 

Resource Survey (AHRS) listings, Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA), 

Petersburg/Wrangell Heritage files and atlases, special use files, GIS archaeological site and survey data, 

and the Tongass Site Database. 

Over the past four decades Forest Service archaeologists have conducted 44 literature and survey 

investigations covering over 1,083 acres in the area of potential effect, which resulted, in part, in the 

discovery of 27 sites. 

In addition to the background research and previous survey, the Forest Service and SWCA Environmental 

Consultants conducted a pedestrian survey of 383 acres of various types of terrain in search of 

undiscovered sites and other cultural resources. Six additional sites were discovered and recorded. The 

Forest Service conducted their field inventory to comply with the NHPA and the NEPA and designed an 

analysis method that reduces the likelihood that an unanticipated discovery would occur during 

development. 

Survey methods are based on a probability model developed over the past several decades. The model 

recognizes two sensitivity zones in the Alaska Region: high and low. Briefly, the high-sensitivity zone 

includes all land between mean lower low water and 98.5 feet of elevation above mean high water. It also 

includes certain landscape features like karst and rock shelter areas, streams and lakes, mineral locations, 

and places described ethnographically or in myths and legends. The low-sensitivity zone is all land not 

relegated to the high-sensitivity zone. The model is further described in the Programmatic Agreement 

(2010). The process of updating the model to include a paleoshoreline model that aids in the prediction of 

site locations is ongoing (Carlson and Baichtal 2015).

Cumulatively, cultural resource surveys in the area of potential effect (APE) have included inventory of 

both high and low-sensitivity areas. A total of 33 sites have been documented, 30 of which are in the highsensitivity zone. The location of the sites were plotted with respect to proposed activities to determine if 

known sites could potentially be impacted with project implementation. The Forest Service evaluated the 

6 sites discovered while surveying for this project to determine their eligibility status to the National 

Register of Historic Places. Evaluations are based on a set of criteria described in the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Intensive cultural resource surveys and site monitoring have been implemented across the Tongass 

National Forest beginning in the late 1970s. The current archaeological research and survey designs are 

based on the results of this work, as well as on the more modern analysis methods and technology. These 

methods are designed to preserve and protect significant sites and provide information that will help guide 

future research and resource management. In addition, continued public education by the Forest Service 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 191

to increase awareness concerning cultural resources and site stewardship assists the agency in effectively 

managing the region’s heritage sites. 

Analysis Area

The Wrangell Island project area includes all of Wrangell Island. The APE is the analysis area used for 

this project. It is defined by the Wrangell Island Project boundaries with the exception of that part of 

Wrangell Island that lies north of the east-west division line between Township 62 South and Township 

63 South. The island’s northern extreme was excluded from the APE because no project activities are 

proposed for the area. The APE includes all project harvest units, access roads, and associated actions that 

require ground-disturbing activities. Most of the activities are planned for terrain in the low-sensitivity 

zone for cultural resources (USDA Forest Service 2010b).

Affected Environment 

According to oral tradition and various historical accounts, the Tlingit are the dominant native group of 

Southeast Alaska. The Wrangell Island project area lies within the traditional territory of the Stikine 

Tlingit, who occupied a large territory, extending up the Stikine River as far as Telegraph Creek in what is 

now British Columbia, and encompassing the mainland Alaska shore from Union Bay on the Cleveland 

Peninsula north to Cape Fanshaw. The territory reaches west to include portions of Kupreanof and Prince 

of Wales islands, and all of Etolin, Mitkof, Wrangell and Zarembo islands. 

The prehistory of Southeast Alaska can be traced through the archaeological record for thousands of 

years. Geologic processes that shaped Southeast Alaska created a diverse landscape that would have been 

open for human exploitation by the end of the last ice age, some 14,000 years ago. The present-day 

archipelago hosts dramatic fjords, thousands of bays and inlets, and elevated marine beaches and deltas 

along the coastline. Some of these features indicate uplift of the land relative to the sea since the glacial 

maxima; all provide ecological niches that supported a thriving human population for thousands of years. 

Pollen records and radiocarbon dates from nearby Mitkof Island characterize the Holocene vegetation 

history (Ager et al. 2010). Following deglaciation, pine woodland with abundant alders, sedges, 

sphagnum mosses and ferns colonized Southeast Alaska. By about 11,460 calendar years before present 

(cal yr BP), Sitka spruce and mountain hemlock replaced pines over much of the landscape. Sometime 

around 10,200 cal yr BP, western hemlock arrived and expanded to be one of the most common species. 

A peat bog habitat advanced after about 7,100 cal yr BP, indicating a regional climate shift to cooler and 

wetter conditions. During the late Holocene, about 2,200 cal yr BP, cedar was well established. The 

present-day archipelago is a dense rainforest of spruce, hemlock and cedar with intermittent muskeg 

environments. 

A study of fossil vertebrates in the Alexander Archipelago, primarily at cave sites on Prince of Wales and 

surrounding islands, has helped interpret the Ice Age history of vertebrates. Radiocarbon-dated vertebrate 

remains support a glacial maximum refugium theory with specimens dating to as early as 40,000 years BP 

and continuing through the Middle Wisconsin, Glacial Maximum and the Post Glacial (Heaton and Grady 

2003). 

Archaeological evidence indicates that humans were living off the rich marine environment at least as 

early as about 10,000 years ago. The archaeological record and ethnographic information were used to 

formulate a regional northern Northwest Coast cultural sequence divided into stages or periods (Ames and 

Maschner 1999, Davis 1990, Moss 1998, Moss 2004, Moss 2011). Most of the proposed divisions are 

consistent but with some time sequence variations (Moss 2004, Moss 2011). Recognizing the sequence 

was based on a relatively small data set; the divisions were coarsely formulated to include the Early 

Period (10,000 to 5,000 BP), the Middle Period (5,000 to 1,500 BP), and the Late Period (1,500 BP to AD 

1741) (Moss 1998, Moss 2004). Briefly, the Early Period is associated with chipped stone assemblages, 

often taking the form of a microblade tool tradition. The Middle Period is defined by an increase in the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 192

number and size of archaeological sites, more diversified bone tool assemblages and wood stake fish traps 

and weirs. A continuation of these site types, an increase in fort sites, and written history accounts help 

define the Late Period. 

The Tlingit Indians call Southeast Alaska their traditional homeland and were well established by the time 

Europeans began plying the waters of the inside passage between Dixon Entrance to the south and 

Yakutat Bay to the north. Developed social organization, custom and tradition suggest ancient ties to the 

landscape and early European explorers found signs of Tlingit influence and occupation across the entire 

region (Niblack 1970 [1888]).

Tlingit lifestyle is based on an annual subsistence cycle where activities were naturally based upon 

seasonal influences. Spring was the time for halibut fishing and gathering foods like herring eggs, beach 

greens, seaweed and roots; summer activities centered on salmon and berry harvesting; fall was the 

occasion for deer and water fowl hunting; and winter was when gray cod were harvested and shellfish 

were gathered (Newton and Moss 1984). 

The Tlingit social organization is an effective means of designating territorial rights and stratifying social 

levels. Tlingit territory is geographically divided into some 14 or so tribes or kwans, each consisting of 

two parties called Raven and Eagle (sometimes Wolf instead of Eagle). The party or moiety serves to 

arrange marriages and are matrilineal in decent. Each moiety is made up of a number of clans that 

function as the active principle of life, law and religion (Emmons 1991, Olson 1967). The clan is a blood 

relationship that binds its members in close union and is made up of households of closely related 

families living together under one roof (Emmons 1991). Although clans owned larger territorial rights, 

households had their own salmon streams, fishing, hunting and berrying grounds. 

Wrangell Island lies within the traditional territory of the Stikine or Wrangell Tlingit (Goldschmidt and 

Haas 1998 [1946], Chart 4). The Stikine Tlingit are referred to as the Shtax’heen Kwaan or the Bitter 

Water People. The name is said to refer to one of two things: the Stikine River’s silty glacial waters or the 

chattering of teeth caused by its cold fresh water (Emmons in Rabich-Campbell 1988). Either way, the 

name’s association with the Stikine River seems clear. The Stikine Tlingit territory is large, extending up 

the Stikine River as far as Telegraph Creek and encompassing the mainland shore from Union Bay on the 

Cleveland Peninsula north to Cape Fanshaw. The territory reaches west to include portions of Kupreanof 

and Prince of Wales islands, and all of Etolin, Mitkof, Wrangell and Zarembo islands (Olson 1967). 

Travel to distant reaches of the Stikine’s territory for resources was common and created a need for 

seasonally occupied villages and camps. The Kiks.àdi clan primarily inhabited the island’s western and 

south/southeast shores, and ventured as far inland as Thoms Creek. A large village (known as Old Town) 

was situated on the west edge of the island, which was inhabited by both the Kiks.àdi and the 

Naanyaa.aayi (Goldschmidt and Hass 1998 [1946]). It was abandoned after the Russians left the area and 

American interests arrived.

Russian, European, and American interest in Southeast Alaska began in the early 1700s fueled by the 

desire to obtain territory and valuable resources. The Russians were some of the first explorers in 

Southeast Alaska. In 1741, Vitus Bering made his second voyage east of the Russian Pacific coast and 

reached Southeast Alaska, claiming it as a Russian territory. By 1787, the Russians had established small 

fur-trading outposts in “Russian America,” and unified their efforts under the United American Company 

(changed to the Russian American Company [RAC] in 1799). They established trade relations in 

Southeast Alaska with the Tlingit to obtain more furs for less effort—a business deal that initially worked 

well for both sides (Arndt et al. 1987).

In 1834 the Russians heard the Hudson Bay Company (HBC) was interested in trade up the Stikine River. 

The Russians acted swiftly and built Redoubt St. Dionysius on the northern end of Wrangell Island. The 

island was named for Ferdinand Von Wrangel, manager of the RAC around 1830. Stikine Tlingit Chief 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 193

Shakes V recognized some advantages of cooperation with the Russians, and moved the Tlingit village 

from its former site at "old town" on Wrangell’s west coast, to Shakes Island in the heart of the current 

City of Wrangell to be near the Russian Redoubt.

Under the terms of an 1839 lease agreement with the HBC, the RAC withdrew from the post in 1840 

(Arndt et al. 1987). The HBC renamed the post Fort Stikine and traded with the Stikine Tlingit until the 

post was abandoned in 1849 (ADCCED 2016). The fort remained under the British flag until Alaska's 

purchase by the U.S. in 1867.

The discovery of gold in 1861 on the Stikine River fueled community growth as an outfitter for gold 

prospectors. In 1868, Fort Wrangell was built by the U.S. Army, after the United States officially 

purchased Alaska from Russia. Gold continued to draw prospectors who staged in Wrangell and traveled 

up the Stikine River to the Cassiar gold fields during 1874 and again in 1897, when hundreds of miners 

traveled north during the Klondike Gold Rush (ADCCED 2016).

Presbyterian and Catholic churches and schools were established in Wrangell by missionaries during the 

early 1870s and Alaska’s first Protestant church and American school were established in 1877 (CBWA 

2014).

The fishing industry got its start after the purchase of Alaska. Fish traps and canneries were built around 

the region mainly seeking the harvest of salmon. In 1889 the Glacier Packing Company opened as a fish 

packing facility in Wrangell and employed more Chinese laborers than American or native (Brady 1897).

During this time period, famed lawman Wyatt Earp traveled through Wrangell and filled in as marshal of 

Wrangell for 10 days; he declined to become a full-time town marshal (CBWA 2014). In 1903, the City of 

Wrangell was incorporated, at which point the U.S. Postal Service altered the official name from 

“Wrangel” to “Wrangell,” (AlaskaWeb 2016).

The Forest Reserve Act of 1891 allowed for forested public lands to be placed into reserves, from which 

timber could be harvested and lands could be managed (USDA Forest Service 2009b). In 1902, the 

Alexander Archipelago Forest Reserve was established, and shortly thereafter, changed to the Tongass 

National Forest. The Forest Service brought timber management to Southeast Alaska, from which small 

mills and communities sprang. The agency provided employment, public access opportunities, and 

economic development in the form of lumber and wood products. The first sawmill in Alaska was located 

in Wrangell; it shipped airplane lumber to Great Britain. Japanese interests in the saw and pulp mills 

created another foreign interest in Wrangell (CBWA 2014).

As the wood and fiber industry took hold, it and fishing became Wrangell’s primary economic base. 

Along with the mill, there were two salmon canneries, two shrimp and two crab canneries within 

Wrangell city limits. In 1929 the canneries employed more than 150 people. 

Fur farming was also very important in the Wrangell area with farms of fox, mink, beaver, marten, and 

muskrat on Wrangell and the surrounding islands (CBWA 2014). 

The Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native Sisterhood lobbied to have the first native boarding 

school, the Wrangell Institute, opened in 1932. Native children were brought in from throughout Alaska 

for education of grades kindergarten through high school (CBWA 2014). 

Although abundant spruce and hemlock resources helped expand the lumber and wood products industry 

on Wrangell Island (AlaskaWeb 2016), falling lumber prices and an industry-wide decline in lumber 

production caused the Alaska Pulp Corporation sawmill, Wrangell’s largest employer, to close in late 

1994. The residual effects are still felt today, with the Wrangell Sawmill closing in 2009.

According to the Tongass Sites Database and Office of History and Archaeology Integrated Business 

Suite and the work completed for this project, there are 33 prehistoric and historic period archaeology 

sites in the APE. Prehistoric period sites include eight shell middens, five petroglyphs, two pictographs, a 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 194

wood stake fish trap, and two lithic scatters. Historic period sites include a boat, a burial, a building, four

cabins, a cedar bark source area, two gardens, a fur farm, an outpost, a wood platform, a trail and two

wolf traps.

Environmental Consequences 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

There are 33 sites within the APE. Six of these sites were discovered during pedestrian surveys for this 

project. All but three of the archaeology sites are located within a 1,000-foot protected buffer established 

along the beach and estuary fringe and defined in the Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest 

Service 2016b). All of the alternatives propose to harvest timber from inland locations, and none would 

encroach on the buffer zone. None of the sites outside the buffer zone are in areas proposed for project 

activities.

None of the proposed alternatives would have a direct or indirect effect upon known or newly discovered 

cultural sites in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area coincides with the APE. 

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may result from natural erosion, weathering, decay, 

sedimentation, wind events and cultural processes such as public use and commercial development. 

Commercial, recreational and subsistence uses are the primary activities that occur within the Wrangell 

Island project area. Most of the recorded cultural sites are concentrated near the marine shore where 

visitor access is generally by boat. Increased visitation and expanded use of the beach and estuary fringe 

could have a cumulative effect on cultural resources. Vandalism and looting, or inadvertent damage, such 

as ground compaction from trampling, erosion along trails or minor excavation associated with camping 

may occur with increased use. 

Activities associated with this project include road building and maintenance and timber harvest. 

Additional foreseeable activities that may take place in the project area are listed in table 5 and include 

timber and salvage harvest projects, pre-commercial tree thinning, State entitlement land selections, 

utility corridor work, Alaska Mental Health Trust land sale. Depending on the location and scope of these 

projects, cultural resources could be affected. The land to be acquired through the AMHT land exchange 

will be managed in a natural condition, which will protect cultural resources on those lands.

The cumulative effects of the project alternatives are not likely to result in adverse impacts on the cultural 

resources regardless of whether the sites are in the 1,000-foot protected buffer established along the beach 

and estuary fringe. The project does not increase access to those sites located outside the buffer zone and 

activities associated with the project are not occurring near the sites.

Mitigation and Monitoring 

The Forest Plan addresses the desired condition of cultural resources through a monitoring and evaluation 

plan. As specified in the Programmatic Agreement (2010), the Forest Service monitors selected areas of 

direct impact during and/or after the actual ground disturbance. If inadvertent discoveries of human 

remains or unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources are made during project implementation, all 

work in the area shall cease and the District Ranger and Forest Service archaeologist will be contacted 

immediately. The Forest Service shall fulfill its consultation requirements in accordance with 36 CFR 

§800.13. Mitigation measures developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer to 

stratify implementing regulations of the NHPA would be agreed upon and effected before project 

activities would begin or continue.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 195

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations in the United States. Environmental justice analysis considers 

whether there is a disproportionately high and adverse effect from any of the alternatives on low-income 

and minority populations in communities near the project area, and incorporates by reference the analyses 

presented in the Wildlife and Subsistence Resource Reports. The Wrangell Island Project is a Federal

action that has potential environmental effects. The analysis area for environmental justice includes the 

communities of Wrangell and Thoms Place.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued guidance on analyzing effects on environmental 

justice under NEPA in December 1997. This guidance clarified that such analyses should recognize the 

interrelationships between cultural, social, occupational, historical, and economic factors that may 

amplify the environmental impacts. Impacts on subsistence resource use also impact the social and 

cultural lives of residents. The CEQ guidance clarified that the identification of disproportionate effects 

does not preclude the agency from going forward with the proposed action, but should heighten attention 

to project alternatives, mitigation and monitoring needs, and the preferences of the affected communities 

(CEQ 1997, p. 10).

Effects

The effects of the actions are indiscriminate and not expected to have a disproportionately high and 

adverse effect on the health or well-being of the minority or low-income populations who use the project 

area. There are no cumulative or foreseeable projects within the area of analysis that would cause a 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effect on any minority or low-income 

population.

Plants: Sensitive and Rare

Introduction

This section summarizes the effects of the proposed Wrangell Island Project in relation to threatened, 

endangered, sensitive, and rare plants. The plant species evaluated include those sensitive plant species 

known or suspected to occur on Wrangell Island, according to the 2009 Forest Service R10 Sensitive 

Plant List, and plants currently tracked by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program and identified by the

Forest Service as rare on the Tongass National Forest. The effects analysis for sensitive and rare plants is 

documented in the project Sensitive Plant Biological Evaluation and Rare Plant Resource Report, 

respectively. These documents are included in the project record.

Forest Service policy requires that an effects analysis be conducted for activities that could affect species 

listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The only plant in 

Alaska that is federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS is Aleutian holly 

fern (Polystichum aleuticum), which is listed as endangered. It is known only from Adak in the Aleutian 

Islands chain and is not expected to occur on the Tongass National Forest; therefore, it will not be 

addressed further in this document.

Methods

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants is the project area, which 

consists of Wrangell Island in its entirety. The analysis area for cumulative effects was also constrained to 

Wrangell Island because of its geographic isolation from nearby lands by sea passages, which could 

restrict biological interactions with other sensitive or rare plant occurrences on the Forest. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 196

Units of Measure

The unit of measure for the analysis of project effects on sensitive and rare plants is the number of 

occurrences of each species known to occur in the project area that would be either directly or indirectly 

impacted by timber harvest and/or road construction.

Review of Existing Information

A review of existing information was conducted to document the sensitive or rare plants that occur in the 

project area and to identify habitats likely to contain sensitive plant species that are known or suspected to 

occur in the project area. The Forest Service Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) database for 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (TESP) was searched for known sensitive or rare plant 

occurrences in the project area. Additionally, the University of Alaska Fairbanks Museum Arctos 

Herbarium database and the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria database were searched for other 

possible locations of sensitive or rare plants in the project area (UAMH 2015, University of Washington 

2015). 

Suitable habitat characteristics for sensitive species that are known or suspected to occur in the project 

area were identified based on Stensvold (2013). Depending on the habitat requirements of each species, 

landscape information selected to assess potential habitat in the project area included landform, elevation, 

slope position, soil type, surface geology, proximity to shoreline, and vegetation cover type. Relevant 

geographic information system (GIS) map layers were then reviewed to help determine possible locations 

for sensitive plant field surveys. Map overlays provide approximate locations and will overestimate the 

potential habitat because they are based on the limited habitat information currently available in GIS. 

However, they do help discern the highest priority survey areas for field reconnaissance.

Field Surveys

Botanical field surveys were focused primarily in habitats of sensitive plants known or suspected to occur 

in the project area. Areas where impacts to sensitive plants could most likely occur under the action 

alternatives but had not been previously surveyed were considered for survey, such as within potential 

harvest units and road corridors. Suitable habitat outside of but near areas of potential activity were also 

surveyed, in order to locate additional plant occurrences within the project area, if possible.

Focused (intuitive controlled) surveys were conducted to search for any undocumented occurrences of 

sensitive plants. In focused surveys, suitable habitat is identified for each species of interest and the 

survey is focused on that habitat. The field surveys were conducted from 2010 to 2012 during the 

appropriate time of year to locate and identify sensitive plants, which in Southeast Alaska occurs 

approximately mid-June to mid-August. For each survey, a Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants 

(TESP) Daily Plant Survey form was completed, and a complete list of plant species encountered on the 

survey route was compiled. Any sensitive plant occurrence identified in the survey was documented on a 

TESP Element Occurrence (EO) form. Survey routes were mapped using a hand-held global positioning 

system (GPS) unit. Plant identifications were based on Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), Hultén (1968), 

Tande and Lipkin (2003), and Douglas et al. (1998). Taxonomic nomenclature followed the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service PLANTS database (NRCS 2013).

Seventy-three surveys were completed within the project area, covering a total of 448 acres. Fifty surveys 

included portions of the available timber harvest unit pool, with approximately 128 acres of potential 

sensitive plant habitat was surveyed within the unit pool. The remaining acreage surveyed was located 

outside potential harvest units but in potential sensitive plant habitat. Field survey and sensitive plant 

occurrence data, including survey routes and sensitive plant occurrences, were entered into the NRISTESP database.

Analysis

All project alternatives were analyzed to determine the direct and indirect impacts to sensitive or rare 

plant species known and sensitive plant species suspected to occur in the project area. The cumulative 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 197

effects of other past, present, and foreseeable future activities were also considered in determining the 

effects of the Wrangell Island project on these species. Using this information, the overall risk (likelihood 

and consequences) of effects were then assessed for each proposed alternative using a standardized risk 

assessment (Dillman and Krosse 2009).

Direct effects mainly occur through physical damage to or destruction of individual plants. Crushing can 

cause physical injury or death to individual plants, and burying is also likely to result in death. When a 

plant is injured, its ability to optimally produce and store food, reproduce, compete for nutrients, and 

resist pests and herbivores may be compromised, which can negatively affect its growth and survival in a 

particular location. Some plants are more vulnerable to injury than others, depending upon the growth 

form of the plant and the habitat in which it occurs. Quantifying direct or indirect effects on suitable 

sensitive plant habitat in the project area is currently not possible due to the scale of available map 

products and level of inventory data used to delineate rare plant habitat.

The direct effects of proposed timber harvest were analyzed by overlaying proposed timber harvest unit 

boundaries for each project alternative over known sensitive or rare plant occurrences in the project area. 

Occurrences located either wholly or partially within a harvest unit was assumed to be directly impacted 

by the activity. Direct effects of proposed new road construction were analyzed by overlaying proposed 

road segment lines over known sensitive or rare plant occurrences. A 42.6-foot buffer on either side of the 

road segment line was used to represent an average road corridor width of 85 feet for forest logging roads 

(J. Powell, personal communication, October 28, 2013). Occurrences located either wholly or partially 

within proposed road corridor, were assumed to be directly impacted by road construction, including 

vegetation clearing and road bed preparation. 

A 164-foot buffer was chosen for this analysis to account for potential indirect effects such as windthrow 

or hydrologic changes that may occur over the long term in undisturbed areas due to activities in adjacent 

areas. Some effects may occur beyond 164 feet, but the likelihood and consequences usually become 

more limited as distance increases. Indirect effects of proposed timber harvest were analyzed by buffering 

timber harvest unit boundaries for each project alternative by 164 feet and then overlaying this buffer on 

known sensitive plant occurrences in the project area. Indirect effects of proposed road construction were 

analyzed by buffering the 85-foot width of the road corridor by 164 feet and overlaying the buffered area 

over known sensitive plant occurrences in the project area. Occurrences located outside road corridor but 

either wholly or partially located within the 164-foot buffer were assumed to be indirectly impacted by 

road construction.

Cumulative effects result from incremental impacts of proposed actions, when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions are those that are currently planned or scheduled to occur. The 

accumulation of direct and indirect effects on sensitive plants can affect overall viability of the species by

reducing the numbers of individuals and the distribution of occurrences, which in turn adversely impact 

reproduction success, genetic variability, and resilience to future disturbances. The direct and indirect 

impacts of past actions were analyzed by overlaying a GIS map layer of previously harvested stands and 

existing roads on known locations of sensitive plant occurrences in the project area. Impacts of present 

and reasonably foreseeable actions were assessed by summarizing the effects of actions that are likely to 

occur in the project area within the next 5 years and evaluating their risk of impact to sensitive plants.

Affected Environment

Sensitive Plants

Lesser round-leaved orchid is the only sensitive plant species that is known to occur within the project 

area. Eleven occurrences of lesser round-leaved orchid have been documented in the project area. 

Mapping conducted by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program indicates that the known occurrences of the 

lesser round-leaved orchid occupy two distinct populations within the project area (Dillman et al. 2015). 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 198

This represents about 3 percent of the known populations within the Tongass National Forest. None of

these occurrences are located in or near any proposed timber harvest unit or new road corridor. 

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

Island project area

Common name Scientific name Habitat Presence in project area

Alaska rein orchid Piperia 

unalascensis

Open forest, streamside, riverbank, 

bog, heath, ultramafic.

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Calder’s loveage Ligusticum calderi

Forest edge, dry meadow, wet 

meadow, alpine and subalpine, 

calcareous.

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

edible thistle Cirsium edule var. 

macounii

Dry meadow, alpine and subalpine, 

talus slopes.

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Henderson’s 

checkermallow

Sidalcea 

hendersonii

Upper beach meadows, 

beach/forest ecotone.

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

lesser round-leaved 

orchid

Platanthera 

orbiculata

Forest edge, forest, open forest, 

bog.

Known. Documented 

occurrences in the project 

area.

lung lichen Lobaria 

amplissima Beach/forest ecotone.

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

mountain lady’s 

slipper

Cypripedium 

montanum

Upper beach meadow, beach 

forest ecotone, open forest, wet 

meadow, calcareous.

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Due to the presence of suitable habitat, five sensitive plant and one sensitive lichen species are suspected 

to occur in the project area: edible thistle, mountain lady’s slipper, Calder’s lovage, lung lichen, Alaska 

rein orchid, and Henderson’s checkermallow. Eleven other Alaska Region sensitive plant species are not 

known to occur within the project area and they are not suspected to occur, either because suitable habitat 

for these species does not exist in the project area or because the project area is located outside of their 

known or suspected geographic range of distribution. These species will not be addressed further in this 

document.

Rare Plants

The criteria for rare plants on the Tongass National Forest is described in Dillman and Krosse (2009). 

These plants generally are included in the Alaska Natural Heritage Program Rare Plant Tracking List 

(ANHP 2015). The list of Tongass rare plants is dynamic, and species may be added or dropped according

to changes in conservation or taxonomic status. Unlike listed sensitive plant species, where effects are 

analyzed for both known and suspected presence in the project area, effects are analyzed only for rare 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 199

plant species known to occur in the project area (USDA Forest Service 2016b; FSM 2670). Analysis of 

effects of this project on rare plants is documented in the rare plant resource report, which is included in 

the project record.

Two rare plant species are known to occur in the project area: inundated clubmoss (Lycopodiella 

inundata) and threeleaf foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata ssp. laciniata). These species are both ranked as 

S3 (rare within the State) by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP 2015). Although rare plants 

tracked on the Tongass are usually State-ranked as S1 (critically imperiled within the State) or S2 

(imperiled within the State), these two species are included in this analysis because their distribution in 

Alaska is restricted to the southern half of the Tongass, which means these populations occur within the 

most northern extent of their ranges. No other plant species that are currently considered rare were 

recorded in the project area.

Inundated clubmoss occurs in peat bogs, pools in peatlands, and lake margins in lowland and montane 

elevations (Douglas et al. 1998). Eleven occurrences of this species are known to occur within the project 

area. Threeleaf foamflower occurs in moist forests, meadows, and stream banks from lowland to 

subalpine elevations (Douglas et al. 1998). One occurrence of this species is known to occur within the 

project area.

Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct effects of the project would only occur within timber harvest units and proposed road corridors, 

and associated infrastructure such as log landings and rock quarries. Timber harvest has varying degrees 

of direct impacts on vegetation, depending on the harvest method used. An even-aged harvest method 

usually has the most intensive impacts. The timber yarding method can cause varying impacts, with the 

severity related to the amount of soil disturbance the yarding method creates. Even-aged harvest usually 

results in dense regeneration of conifer saplings, which can suppress understory vegetation due to 

insufficient light penetration under the canopy. Pre-commercial thinning can delay the period of 

understory suppression, but eventually the canopy can close again and suppress most understory plants. 

Uneven-aged harvests may have less severe and more temporary direct effects on vegetation, since a large 

portion of unharvested trees are left clumped or scattered across the harvest unit. However, some sensitive 

and rare plant species can also be vulnerable to impacts from less-intense harvest methods because they 

often have specific habitat requirements such as old-growth forest structure, and even a partial harvest 

could create conditions that inhibit the ability of these species to persist over the long term.

Road construction completely crushes or buries plants located in the road bed, and plants located along 

the road right-of-way can also be crushed, buried, or damaged as a result of vegetation clearing or road 

maintenance activities. Road construction usually affects vegetation more completely and permanently 

than timber harvest because it involves intense and sometimes permanent ground disturbance. Log 

landings and rock quarries are usually constructed adjacent to roads and are considered as part of the road 

corridor in this analysis. Excavation of rock material would crush, bury, or damage plants in the 

immediate location of the quarry. Since most soil is removed in the excavation process, quarries remain in 

a long-term unvegetated state. 

Indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants from project activities can occur both within and adjacent to 

harvest units and road construction areas. Indirect effects may include changes in soil physical and 

chemical properties, surface and groundwater flow, solar exposure, species composition, and risk of 

future disturbances such as windthrow or landslides. The magnitude of indirect effects from an action can 

depend on many variables, including the type and intensity of the action, the distance from the action, the 

time since the action occurred, and the physical and biological conditions of a site. Although it is possible 

that indirect effects on sensitive and rare plants could occur at long distances from an action, the 

probability and magnitude of effect generally decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the action. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 200

The indirect, long-term impact of actions such as timber harvest or road building to adjacent vegetation is 

uncertain. Past studies of microclimate of forests adjacent to harvests indicate that edge-related 

microclimate effects may occur up to and beyond 656 feet from the harvest edge but decline sharply 

inside adjacent unharvested forest, with most change occurring within 66 feet of the harvested edge; 

however, the magnitude of an effect can differ among the climatic variables of interest (Chen et al. 1993, 

1995; Concannon 1995; Russell et al. 2000). Because it is difficult to statistically test changes in rare or 

uncommon species, the actual duration and magnitude of edge effects on these species is uncertain. 

However, rare or uncommon species may be more susceptible than common species to disturbance or to 

other random effects that lead to extirpation of a population (Nelson and Halpern 2005; Heithecker and 

Halpern 2007). Furthermore, a lack of immediate declines in a population due to these effects does not 

preclude the possibility of future declines. Research on edge effects to forest vegetation adjacent to 

harvests indicates that changes in temperature and light availability are greatest at the edge but decline 

sharply inside adjacent unharvested forest. Declines among some groups of vascular and nonvascular 

plants is often greatest approximately 16 to 33 feet from the edge (Heithecker and Halpern 2007). 

However, the frequency and intensity of disturbances such as windthrow could further compromise the 

forest edge, resulting in changes in microclimate further into the adjacent vegetation than what resulted 

initially from the harvest. It is important to note the limitations of these studies, particularly the short 

duration of sampling following harvest. Species composition of affected areas would likely return to that 

of the original plant community, although it may take several decades.

Comparison of Alternatives

Sensitive Plants

Alternative 1 (No Action) would have no effect on any sensitive plant species known or suspected to 

occur in the project area, because timber harvest and road construction would not occur. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 would have no risk of adverse impact on lung lichen and Henderson’s 

checkermallow because no timber harvest or road construction would occur within 1,000 feet of the 

shoreline, and existing facilities would be utilized for shoreline transfer of harvested logs, thus avoiding 

impacts on undocumented occurrences in suitable habitat for these species. Therefore, implementation of 

this project would have no effect on these species. 

The overall risk of impact from Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 on Alaska rein orchid, Calder’s lovage, edible 

thistle, and mountain lady’s slipper is minor because most suitable habitat for these species in the project 

area would not be affected by timber harvest or road construction. Therefore, implementation these 

alternatives may affect these species.

The overall risk of impacts from Alternatives 2, 3, 4, or 5 on lesser round-leaved orchid is minor to 

moderate. Although no known occurrences of this species would be directly or indirectly affected by 

timber harvest or road construction, timber harvest would occur in relatively large areas of forested land 

and may impact undocumented occurrences of this species in suitable habitat; however, not all of forested 

areas are likely provide the specific habitat conditions required by this species. Therefore, implementation 

of these alternatives may affect this species.

Rare Plants

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the likelihood of impacts to rare plants is none because no timber 

harvest or road construction would occur. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would have no effect on threeleaf 

foamflower because the only known occurrence in the project area is located well outside of proposed 

harvest unit boundaries and road corridors and would not be either directly or indirectly impacted by these 

activities.

Some of the 11 known occurrences of inundated clubmoss could be impacted under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 

and 5. Alternative 5 would have the least risk of impact, with two occurrences affected by timber harvest 

and one affected by road construction. Alternative 3 would have the next-highest risk of impact, with two 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 201

occurrences each affected by timber harvest and road construction, respectively. Alternatives 2 and 4 

would both have the highest risk of impact, with three occurrences affected by timber harvest and two 

affected by road construction. However, relatively small portions of these occurrences would be impacted 

by these activities, such areas where log yarding occurs at the edge of a harvest unit, or where a road 

corridor is routed along the edge of a muskeg. The likelihood of impacts to this species is low because it 

occurs exclusively in muskeg habitat and only relatively small portions of known occurrences could be 

directly or indirectly affected by project activities. The consequence of impacts is moderate because road 

construction or timber harvest activities may damage or permanently destroy individuals in some 

occurrences and affect the long-term natural hydrology of their nearby habitat. The overall effect of all the 

action alternatives to known inundated clubmoss occurrences is expected to be minor because most 

occurrences would not be adversely impacted by project activities, and only relatively small portions of 

impacted occurrences would be affected.

Cumulative Effects 

On Wrangell Island, past and present activities causing disturbance to vegetation are largely a result of 

timber harvest, road construction, special uses, and dispersed recreation. Timber harvests and road 

construction have contributed most to the past alteration of habitat on Wrangell Island and the Forest. 

Timber harvest has occurred on approximately 6,800 acres of National Forest land beginning in the early 

1900s. These areas have regenerated into vigorous, predominately even-aged timber stands. Past harvest 

areas can be found over much of the island, including areas that are currently in areas with land-use 

designations (LUDs) where timber harvest is no longer allowed. Timber harvest can extensively alter 

habitat quality for plants such as lesser round-leaved orchid which are most commonly found in oldgrowth forests. The current effects on sensitive and rare plants may be dependent on the length of time 

since harvest, as well as the harvest method. Forest stands harvested by less-intensive methods (e.g., 

selective tree, helicopter yarding) may require fewer years to recover than those harvested by more 

intensive methods (e.g., clearcut, shovel yarding).

There are approximately of 99.5 miles of existing National Forest System (NFS) roads within the analysis 

area. Of these, approximately 73.0 miles are open to the public for motorized travel. There are an 

estimated 34 miles of road in other land ownerships within the analysis area. It is unknown if sensitive or 

rare plants have been lost or damaged due to past road construction. However, road construction involves 

intense ground disturbance, and any sensitive or rare plants in the road corridor would likely have been 

destroyed, with long-term impacts on habitat, especially from NFS roads. It is also uncertain what the 

effects of past recreation, or building construction activities may have had on sensitive or rare plants. 

These activities have been infrequent in the project area and are not likely to have contributed to 

substantial loss of sensitive plants or their habitat, and no substantial changes in the frequency of these 

activities are anticipated.

A recent assessment of lesser round-leaved orchid (Dillman et al. 2015) provides updated information 

regarding the known occurrences in federally managed public lands which are in areas managed for 

timber extraction. Of the total area occupied by the 61 known populations throughout the Tongass, 44 

percent are located within non-development LUDs where timber harvest in not planned and 56 percent 

are located within development LUDs. The Tongass old-growth conservation strategy provides for large 

reserves of old-growth habitat, in particular within the non-development LUDs; resulting in conservation 

of at least 40 percent of the known populations of lesser round-leaved orchid and their associated habitat 

across the Forest. On Wrangell Island, two populations of PLOR4 are known to exist, representing about 

3 percent of the populations within National Forest System lands on the Tongass National Forest.

Present activities that could impact sensitive or rare plant species in the project area include timber 

harvest, road construction, and other land development actions. At present, no such projects are being 

implemented on NFS lands in the project area, except for small roadside timber micro-sales. Although 

some timber harvest may currently be occurring on private or State-owned lands in the project area, the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 202

level of impact is unknown, because information on sensitive and rare plant occurrences or sensitive plant 

habitat on non-NFS lands is not available. 

The amount of future roadside timber harvested on NFS lands will likely vary annually but can be up to 

500 MBF/year. The location of harvests is also variable but is most likely to occur along existing roads on 

Wrangell Island. The location and extent of pre-commercial thinning on NFS lands is unknown at this 

time but will always occur in previously harvested stands that have a dense regrowth of young trees. 

Impacts to sensitive or rare plants are possible due to these activities, but the risk is relatively low, 

because these activities will be concentrated either along existing roads or in previously harvested areas, 

which have already been impacted by previous activities. However, undocumented occurrences that have 

already been indirectly affected by past activities could be further impacted. 

The Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHT) has recently completed timber harvest in the project area 

totaling 104 acres, with 0.6 mile of road construction. AMHT also conducts an annual land sale program 

which could impact lands in the project area. The locations and extent of future timber offerings have not 

yet been determined. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 was signed into law on May 5, 2017 

as Public Law 115-31, approving a land exchange between the USDA Forest Service and AMHT for 

multiple parcels across the Tongass National Forest. This land exchanges would ultimately transfer 

approximately 1,071 acres of AMHT land within the analysis area to the Forest Service. Newly acquired 

National Forest System lands would be managed under the same land use designation as adjacent 

National Forest System lands. In the case of this foreseeable land transfer, the newly acquired lands 

would be in the Scenic Viewshed Land Use Designation. Under this land use designation, the potential for 

future timber harvest or road construction would be limited, resulting in a low likelihood of impacts to 

sensitive or rare plants.

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources - Division of Forestry has published a 5-year Schedule of 

Timber Sales (2015 to 2019). The amount of annual offerings is not determined until the offering is 

publicized. The Earl West Cove area timber sale, planned for 2019, will potentially harvest 700 acres of 

timber and a construct 5.0 miles of roads. The State is still in the process of completing its Alaska 

Statehood Act of 1959 entitlement selections for the 16,683 acres of NFS land identified near Thoms 

Lake/Thoms Place on Wrangell Island. The State has assigned Priority “C” ranking or a very low priority 

for conveyance for this parcel but it continues to be State-selected lands for the foreseeable future. No 

timber harvest or road building is proposed within the Thoms Creek selection. 

The State of Alaska has identified corridors considered essential for future transportation and utility 

systems. Many of these corridors are only conceptual at this time. One of these conceptual corridors is 

within the analysis area and is an extension of the Zimovia Highway to a proposed ferry terminal in Fools 

Inlet. There is no recommendation for the route in either the near-term (10 year) or long-term (20 year) 

plan, according to the ADOT Draft 2014 Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. The potential impacts of 

future construction on sensitive plant occurrences and their habitat on non-NFS lands are unknown 

because the final locations and extent of activities is not currently known, and information on sensitive or 

rare plant occurrences and their habitat on non-NFS lands is generally lacking.

The City and Borough of Wrangell is in the initial stages of planning development of the currently 

undeveloped 140-acre Institute Property near the 5-mile marker on Zimovia Highway for housing, health 

care and educational facilities. This property abuts the National Forest. The City and Borough of 

Wrangell have expressed interest in pursuing ownership and development of the privately owned former 

sawmill site, for industrial purposes, possibly including a timber processing facility. There are no firm 

proposals at this time. Because suitable habitat for sensitive or rare plants is not likely to occur in these 

areas, the potential for future impacts is low.

None of the 11 occurrences of lesser round-leaved orchid documented in the project area have been 

directly affected by past actions. Two occurrences could have been indirectly affected by past timber 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 203

harvest. No known occurrences have been directly or indirectly affected by past road construction on NFS 

lands. It is important to note that quantifying the magnitude of actual effects from past activities requires 

monitoring the changes to affected occurrences over time; this information is not available from past 

activities in the project area. Some locations where activities such as timber harvest occurred many 

decades ago may have recovered some or all of their undisturbed habitat characteristics. Areas with more 

recent harvests may not recover their previous habitat characteristics for decades into the future. Some 

highly modified areas, such as NFS roads and rock quarries, may never recover from the original 

disturbance.

No known occurrences of threeleaf foamflower on Wrangell Island have been directly or indirectly 

affected by past actions. Two known occurrences of inundated clubmoss have been indirectly affected by 

past timber harvest on Wrangell Island. Impacts due to the future timber harvest are possible, but the 

likelihood is low because the activities will be concentrated either along existing roads or in previously 

harvested forest not in the non-forested muskeg habitat of this species, and reasonably foreseeable road 

construction on NFS lands is not expected to affect the known occurrences of inundated clubmoss. All 

known occurrences of this species in the project area are located on NFS lands, so future actions by other 

entities such as the Alaska Mental Health Trust, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and Alaska 

Department of Transportation are not expected to impact this species.

Mitigation and Monitoring

Since no known sensitive plant occurrences will be directly or indirectly affected under any alternative, 

mitigation measures to protect sensitive plant occurrences are not necessary. If any previously 

undiscovered sensitive plants are encountered in timber harvest units or road construction areas at any 

time prior to or during implementation of this project, Forest Plan standards and guidelines designed to 

protect sensitive plants shall be implemented. The implementation and effectiveness of any such 

mitigations should be monitored during and after the commencement of related project activities.

Specific direction from Forest Plan standards and guidelines for rare plants, such as using directional 

felling and yarding away from rare plants, is included in the management prescriptions for harvest units 

that may affect known rare plant occurrences. Where possible, and while meeting required road design 

specifications, similar mitigation measures are included in road layout and construction specifications. If 

any previously undiscovered rare plants are encountered in timber harvest units or road construction areas 

at any time prior to or during implementation of this project, Forest Plan standards and guidelines

designed to protect rare plants shall be implemented at those sites. The implementation and effectiveness 

of these mitigations should be monitored during and after the commencement of related project activities.

Invasive Plants

Introduction

Invasive plants directly compete with, and can displace native plants by site occupancy. In addition, these 

species can have a number of indirect effects including changes to biological diversity. Potential impacts 

include changes in the food base for wildlife and possible changes in the natural soil erosion and sediment 

accumulation dynamics. Some invasive plant infestations on NFS lands can also negatively affect 

recreation quality.

Executive Order 13112 directs all Federal agencies to address the impact their actions may have on 

invasive plants. The Forest Plan and Forest Service policy (FSM 2900) provides direction to determine 

the risk of the introduction and spread of invasive species for proposed activities, and to address the 

impacts the actions may have on invasive species. 

In deciding what plants qualify as “invasive”, the Alaska Natural Heritage Program’s (ANHP) Weed 

Ranking Project results were used (Carlson et al. 2008). The ranking is based on climate (the climatic 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 204

conditions where the plant is known to thrive), biological characteristics and dispersal ability of the plant, 

the plant's distribution, and feasibility of control. Plants are ranked on a scale of 0 to 100, with a high 

ranking being the most invasive. Not all non-native plant species have been ranked.

This section provides a summary of the potential effects of the proposed alternatives on the introduction 

and spread of invasive plants. The effects of implementing the action alternatives would increase the 

current risk for introduction, spread, and establishment of invasive plants. Implementation of mitigation 

measure would minimize these risks. A complete analysis of risk is available in the Invasive Plants

Resource Report in the project record.

Methods Used to Analyze Effects

The analysis is based on the following assumptions: 

• Proposed harvest areas are expected to regenerate rapidly which results in a low susceptibility to 

invasive plant invasion.

• Eradication of all invasive plant species in the project area is not feasible at this time due to their 

extensive distribution. Control strategies, such as containment and tolerance, will be implemented 

for many of the ubiquitous invasive plant species.

• Existing sort yards and marine access facilities, outside the National Forest, will be used. These 

areas may have invasive plant infestations. This will decrease the amount of additional 

disturbance on NFS lands, but may increase the risk of spreading new infestations on to the 

National Forest. 

• Implementation of design measures reduce the likelihood of the introduction and spread of 

invasive plants.

A risk assessment was conducted for invasive plant species in the project area based on project impacts 

that would affect known and potential invasive plant infestations. Factors considered included current 

inventory of invasive plants, habitat alteration or ground disturbance, habitat vulnerability, increased 

vectors as a result of project implementation, and design features (See Invasive Plant Resource Report in 

the project record).

Habitat alteration or ground disturbance is evaluated based on the amount of exposed mineral soil, which 

is a function of the amount of potential ground disturbance caused by the proposed action. Habitat 

vulnerability takes into account proximity of the habitat to an existing infestation.

Habitats characterized by a lack of disturbance and environmental extremes such as the high degree of 

shading found on closed-canopy forest floors, the extremely low pH of sphagnum bogs, or undisturbed 

road-less areas are considered at low risk of invasive plant infestations. Areas with high disturbance, 

moderate soil moisture and pH, and lack of shading are considered to be at high risk and are more 

vulnerable to infestations by invasive plant species. A habitat is at high risk to becoming infested if it is 

disturbed by activities; it is at moderate risk if it is within close proximity to ground-disturbing activities; 

and at low risk if it is far from ground-disturbing activities.

Effects Analysis Indicators

The risk of invasive plant introduction or spread is assessed by considering a combination of the extent of 

known and potential ground-disturbing activities, the proximity to a source population and potential 

vectors. Vectors are agents that transport seeds or plant material from one location to another thereby 

facilitating the continued spread of invasive plant populations. Ground-disturbing activities take into 

account the two elements which typically promote the spread of invasive plants: open sunlight and 

exposed mineral soil. Exposed mineral soil is a function of the degree of disturbance. Sunlight is a 

function of overall canopy cover and vegetative density.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 205

The following measures were used to assess potential effects of project activities on invasive plant 

species:

• Miles of newly constructed road

• Miles of National Forest System (NFS) roads to remain open for motorized traffic

Incomplete and Unavailable information 

A comprehensive survey of all NFS lands for invasive plant species has not been conducted for the entire 

project area. Additionally, surveys may be somewhat outdated due to the amount of time that has passed 

since they were conducted. 

The lack of complete survey information is not critical for the analysis of the potential affects from this 

project because the impacts are assumed to be associated with new disturbance from the proposed road 

activity. 

Analysis Area

The analysis area is Wrangell Island which encompasses lands under multiple ownerships with invasive 

plant populations that may expand in size or infest new areas as a direct, indirect or cumulative effect of 

any action alternative. The island is a suitable geographic area to assess impacts as the extent of the 

project area allows for an assessment of risk at a landscape and local scale. 

Activities associated with the project will take place on National Forest System lands as well as 

surrounding State and private lands facilitating the movement of invasive plants across jurisdictional 

ownership. The focus of the analysis is the introduction and spread of invasive plants on NFS lands over 

the next 5 to 10 years. 

Affected Environment

Undeveloped areas on Wrangell Island are relatively free of invasive plants. Infestations are primarily 

associated with roads and areas that receive a high amount of human use. Wrangell Island has a welldeveloped road network connecting the community of Wrangell to the National Forest road system. The 

road and trail system consist of approximately 100 miles of road, including a 12-mile recreation driving 

loop road, 2 marine access facilities, 58 active rock quarries, 7 hiking trails including a high-country trail 

system, and 17 developed recreation sites. The town of Wrangell and the marine access facilities at Pat

Creek and Earl West are expected to be the primary sources for introduction of new invasive plants.

In 2013 the District completed an environmental analysis for an integrated weed management plan that 

allows for multiple treatment methods (including manual, mechanical and chemical) to eradicate, contain 

or control existing and new weed infestations (USDA Forest Service 2013b). In 2015, District employees

began controlling invasive plants along roads and rock quarries that may be used for constructing new 

roads in the project area.

Existing Condition

Information pertaining to invasive plants within the Wrangell Island project area is based on surveys 

conducted in 2006 and 2010, as well as existing information contained in the Natural Resource 

Information System Invasive Species database (NRIS-TESP/IS), a national database maintained by the 

Forest Service.

In 2006, the road system on Wrangell Island was surveyed, sampling points every 1⁄4 mile. In 2010, 

contractors conducted invasive plant surveys in rock quarries, Class I stream crossings, and road segments 

identified by the Forest Service within the analysis area. Additionally, invasive plants identified in natural 

areas away from roads and rock quarries during the 2010 season were reported. 

A total of 58 non-native plant species were documented on Wrangell Island in 2006 (Arhangelsky 2006). 

Of these, 6 are considered highly invasive species on the Wrangell Ranger District: Bohemian knotweed

(Polygonum x bohemica), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), orange hawkweed (Hieracium 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 206

aurantiacum), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), meadow hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum) and 

common hawkweed (Hieracium lachenalii). Table 75 summarizes the invasive plants on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands, their invasive ranking and general locations in the project area.

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

Scientific name Common name Rank 0 (low) to 100 (high)1 General locations

Polygonum x bohemica Bohemian knotweed 87 Roadside where dumped on NFS; 

roadside, beach fringe, golf course pond

Phalaris arundinacea reed canary grass 83 Widespread along roadsides; some 

riparian and beach meadows

Hieracium aurantiacum orange hawkweed 45-79 Common in the City of Wrangell; 

scattered, small population on NFS land

Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy 61 Scattered, small populations along 6259 

road

Hieracium caespitosum meadow hawkweed 79 Scattered, small populations along 6265 

road

Hieracium lachenalii common hawkweed 57 Common in City of Wrangell; scattered, 

small populations on NFS land

Lotus pedunculus bird’s-foot trefoil 652

Along 6265 road near Earl West; limited 

to areas where planted for erosion 

control

Trifolium repens white clover 59 Widespread along roadsides

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion 58 Along 6267 road, scattered with low 

population

Holcus lanatus common velvetgrass 56 Roads near town, small populations on 

NFS land

Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup 54

Roads near town; lower Salamander 

recreation site; scattered along 

roadsides

Dactylis glomerata tall fescue 53 Scattered, small population

Trifolium pratense red clover 53 Widespread along roadsides

Hypochaeris radicata hairy catsear 44 Along roads 50055, 50022 and 6260

Plantago major common plantain 44 High use recreation sites

1 – Ranking designated by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program

2 – Ranking for Lotus corniculatus

During 2010 surveys, 46 infestations of highly invasive plant infestations were documented on NFS lands

on Wrangell Island. Forty-five of these infestations were reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinaceae) found 

along road sides, stream crossings, and rock quarries. This species was also identified in 2006 over much 

of the island. One infestation of oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) was located in a rock quarry close 

to the City of Wrangell. No invasive plant populations were identified near known rare or sensitive plant 

populations. Other species commonly found during the 2006 and 2010 surveys include orange hawkweed 

(Hieracium aurantiacum), meadow hawkweed (H. caespitosum), and narrowleaf hawkweed (H. 

umbellatum), most of which occurred along existing road corridors on lands of other ownership.

Several invasive plants are known to exist within the city limits of Wrangell but have not been 

documented elsewhere on Wrangell Island. These species include common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), 

Canada thistle (C. arvense), and yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis). These species could be 

transported onto NFS lands by humans or vehicles travelling from within the City of Wrangell to NFS 

lands and could have direct or indirect impacts on native habitats.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 207

Other invasive plant species documented within the analysis area in 2006 and 2010, but not considered

highly invasive for the Wrangell District include wall hawkweed (Hieracium murorum), white clover 

(Trifolium repens), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix), hairy catsear (Hypochaeris radicata), orchardgrass 

(Dactylis glomerata), red clover (Trifolium pratense), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), bird’s-foot trefoil 

(Lotus corniculatus), common dandelion, and common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus).

Past Treatment Activities

Invasive plant treatments have focused on small populations having a high invasive rank. In 2015, road 

corridors with low infestations and rock quarries that would be used for source rock for this project were 

targeted for treatment. Approximately 18 miles of road (NFS roads 50050, 50060, 50054 and 6271) and 5 

rock quarries were spot-treated using herbicide. Target species included a newly found Bohemian 

knotweed infestation, reed canary grass, oxeye daisy, velvet grass, orange hawkweed, and yellow 

hawkweed. In 2016 these areas were inspected and retreated.

Prior invasive plant management activities include eradication of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) at the 

Anita Bay overlook campsite, bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) on NFS road 6272, dandelion at the Earl West 

recreation site, and orange hawkweed at the Thoms Creek recreation site. 

Environmental Consequences

All of the alternatives would result in an increased risk for introduction and spread of invasive plants on 

NFS lands due to disturbance, habitat alteration and increased vectors associated with road use. Primary 

long-term habitat alterations expected as a result of this project include soil disturbance from road 

reconditioning, construction, and maintenance over time, and removal of native vegetation.

Road construction and road maintenance would result in increased disturbance on the current road 

system, as well as creating extensive disturbance where new roads are constructed and rock quarries are 

developed. Roadside areas are at a high risk of establishment of invasive plants due to constant ground 

disturbance and proximity to vectors. Areas immediately adjacent to the road have bare soil, a prime 

habitat for invasive plant species establishment; excavation of ditches can create additional bare mineral 

soil.

The other primary long-term habitat change in a timber sale area are disturbances associated with field 

camps, sort yards and marine access facilities built or repaired to support timber harvest operations. These 

types of sites already exist in the project area from previous timber sales and are not expected to expand 

substantially with the proposed timber sale. These areas are large, open, disturbed sites ideally suited for 

many invasive species.

The ground disturbance and open habitat created by timber harvest creates an opportunity for invasive 

plants to invade previously forested habitat, particularly with higher levels of soil disturbance caused by 

high lead and shovel logging systems. However, none of the known invasive plants currently in the 

project area have been found in managed stands, nor are they expected to thrive inside a unit once the 

forest regenerates. Harvested areas are considered to have an extremely low risk for establishment of 

invasive plants due to the rapid regrowth of understory vegetation and the development of a dense forest 

stand.

Secondary long-term alterations (indirect effects) in habitat, as a result of this project are changes in light 

availability and wind patterns on the ground. The additional light, wind speed (especially along roads), 

and increased water runoff along roads can all favor the spread of invasive plants.

Increased Vectors

The increased vectors that may occur as a result of this project are primarily associated with the miles of 

new roads constructed and increased traffic on existing roads, thus miles of road construction and open 

road miles are the primary unit of measure to analyze and compare the effects of each alternative. Other 

potential vectors include spreading rock from infested rock quarries, unclean equipment brought from 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 208

other locations, and new stream crossings. Barges or ships used to transport logs may be a vector for 

aquatic plants, primarily through ballast water.

Seed sources used to revegetate road side clearings and rock quarries for erosion control would not be a 

vector if a certified weed-free seed is used. An increase in traffic of NFS and temporary roads as a result 

of this project would increase potential vectors. An increase in vectors may result from recreationists 

using the increased network of open roads and trails for a variety of purposes including hunting, fishing, 

camping, hiking, wildlife viewing, and subsistence activities if roads remain open. New roads may also 

result in increased vehicle and foot traffic in areas previously less accessible.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

This project proposes to construct between 22 and 31 miles of new road using existing rock quarries in 

addition to a creating a number of new rock quarries. Potential existing rock quarries and possible 

locations of new rock quarries have not been identified, nor have rock sources for the project been 

finalized. Furthermore, modification to the existing Wrangell Ranger District Access and Travel 

Management Plan (ATM) is a component in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4; the modification would result in 

more roads maintained for motorized access which increases the risk of introduction and spread of 

invasive plants. Collectively, the proposed activities would result in low to moderate alterations to the 

current conditions if project design features are implemented. Without implementation of the design 

features, the risk is moderate to high.

The overall risk of invasive plant introduction is low or moderate depending on the level of activity 

proposed for each alternative (table 76). While project design features would limit the potential for 

additional infestation, new roads would offer increased access to recreational users, who may transport 

seed or plant material into the area. All roads constructed for this project that are left open after harvest

activities, provide a conduit for the introduction and spread of invasive plants.

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

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

Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Total proposed road construction and 

reconditioning 0.0 31.1 28.6 30.1 22.2

Miles of open road (including motorized 

trails) after project is complete 74.0 100 99 99 73

Risk of introduction & spread 

(implementing project design measures) -- Moderate Moderate Moderate Low

Risk of introduction & spread (without 

implementing project design measures) -- High High High Moderate

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are those that occur when the effects of an action are added to, or interact with, the 

effects of past, present and or foreseeable actions. The summary of past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable management activities table was reviewed for activities that may cumulatively contribute to 

invasive plant introduction and spread of invasive plant species (Table 5). Projects that could contribute to 

the introduction and spread of invasive species include the Earl West Cove area timber sale and AMHT 

timber sales. The effects of these projects are largely dependent on the implementation and effectiveness 

of preventative practices and control efforts. Considering the combination of past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable projects with the Wrangell Island Project, Alternatives 1 and 5 would have a the lowest 

cumulative road miles and would cumulatively have the lowest risk of introduction or spread; Alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 would have a higher risk due to the increased amount of road that would be kept open and 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 209

drivable for the foreseeable future. The 1,071 acres to be acquired through the AMHT land exchange will 

be managed in a natural condition, and will have negligible effect on invasive species.

Design Features

The effects analysis is based on implementation of the following design features:

• Clean ground-based equipment (road building equipment, yarders, shovels, skidders, forwarders, 

harvesters, processors or feller bunchers, etc.) prior to mobilization to the project area to avoid the 

introduction of new invasive plants into the project area,

• Coordinate invasive plant control with the land owners of existing facilities such as marine access 

facilities, sort yards, or camp sites used for the project to reduce the spread of invasive plants into 

the project area.

• Require contractors to access rock material that is free of any highly invasive species from 

existing quarries for construction of new roads. This will require an invasive species specialist to 

inventory all rock sources prior to use and certify in writing that it is acceptable. If any rock 

sources become contaminated with highly invasive species and certification cannot be attained 

without treatment methods, consider the use of contaminated rock for re-constructing existing 

roads with known infestations. 

• Required erosion control materials, such as hay or straw bales, jute matting, or other synthetic 

sediment fence shall all be from certified weed-free materials. 

• If possible, plan road maintenance activities (brushing and ditching) when invasive plants are at 

early flowering stage (such as early spring and summer) and prior to seed set to help eliminate 

spread of seeds.

• Maintain crushed rock stockpiles and active quarries in a condition free of invasive plants. 

Monitoring Recommendations

Monitor newly constructed roads prior to closure for highly invasive plants to determine the effectiveness 

of design features and implement control measures prior to road closure.

Recreation 

Introduction

This section discusses the potential effects of the Wrangell Island Project on the recreation resource. More 

information is available in the recreation resource report located in the project record. 

The “Issue 4: Access Management” section also provides information on road access management which 

is an important component of recreation use.

Methods Used to Analyze Effects

The analysis of existing recreation settings is based on the Forest Service recreation opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) system. The ROS system maps landscapes based on the physical setting (from pristine to highly 

developed); and the recreation experience expectations of people using the area (from zero/low to very 

high social encounters with other users). Key ROS setting characteristics considered in the analysis 

include remoteness, size of the area, evidence of humans and human activity, user density, and land 

management objectives. Potential effects to ROS settings are estimated based on the harvest method, 

harvest units, roads, and include a 0.5 mile zone of influence around each harvest unit and road. The 

analysis is conducted using GIS software. 

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the recreation resource is Wrangell Island.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 210

Units of Measure

Acres of change to the ROS system classification was used as an indicator to measure potential effects on 

of project activities on recreation and its settings.

In addition, a qualitative assessment was completed to look at the likely impacts from proposed timber 

harvest and road construction/reconditioning on recreation places, sites and current recreation uses.

Affected Environment

Recreation Places

Wrangell Island offers a variety of recreation opportunities and Forest Service recreation developments 

for the public. Although different people have different expectations of and reasons for using areas of the 

island, most of the recreation use involves recreation sites. The Recreation and Lands Resource Report 

provides more information on recreation sites and use, and can be found in the project record.

Developments such as cabins, campsites and trails are included in inventoried recreation places, along 

with roads and the recreation opportunities provided by those roads. The majority of the recreation is 

dispersed across the island. Dispersed recreation areas that may or may not have highly developed 

facilities, but are regularly used for recreation activities by the public, are also included in the inventory.

For the purposes of this discussion, the analysis area is divided into six geographical areas, described 

below. The six areas are illustrated in figure 30.

North Wrangell

Recreation use is high in the North Wrangell area because of its interface with the City of Wrangell. The 

combination of recreation facilities in this area are managed by a combination of Federal, State, and local 

agencies. In this analysis, only those facilities on NFS lands are discussed. Inventoried recreation places 

in this area include the Rainbow Falls, Institute, and North Wrangell Trails (including trailheads on 

Zimovia Highway and out the Spur Road); the lower and upper Rainbow Falls viewing decks; and the 

Shoemaker Overlook, North Wrangell High Country, and Pond Shelters. Just south of the trail system is a 

large area of undeveloped and isolated land before the island is bisected by the Pat Valley. Some 

alternatives propose timber harvest and road construction within this area, which would provide 

additional access to dispersed recreational opportunities close to town.

Pat Lake, Old Hermit and Midpoint

Because this area is also close to town and is roaded, it is popular for many types of recreational 

activities. Inventoried recreation places in this area include the Pat Valley Road System, Midpoint Road 

System, Midpoint dispersed recreation area, and the Middle Ridge Public Recreation Cabin. Recreation 

activities include firewood gathering, hunting, fishing, berry picking and recreational driving. Pat Lake

provides winter activities such as ice skating, snowmobiling, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and ice 

fishing. Timber roads have provided two dispersed recreation areas: the Hermit area, adjacent to the road 

system, and the Midpoint area. Midpoint is popular for winter recreation use because it is close to town 

and provides easy access to good snow. The Middle Ridge Cabin is the only public recreation cabin on 

Wrangell Island. It is the Wrangell District’s highest use cabin and is used year-round.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 211

Figure 30. Recreation areas on Wrangell Island

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 213

Nemo-Skip Loop Road

The Nemo-Skip Loop Road and its associated recreation facilities are popular with both residents and 

tourists. Inventoried recreation places in this area include the Nemo-Skip Road System; Nemo 

Information/Host site; Yunshookuh, Three Sisters, Anita Bay, and Highline Campsites; the Saltwater Trail 

and Turn Island Beach Campsite; and the Thom’s Lake trailhead. The area is popular for recreational 

driving and provides outstanding views overlooking Zimovia Strait. There are a variety of recreational 

opportunities including tent and RV camping, picnicking, a boardwalk trail to the beach campsite to the 

beach campsite at Turn Island, and the three site Yunshookuh campground with a fully accessible 

campsite.

Salamander, Earl West and Highbush Lake

This area provides for dispersed recreation opportunities along the road, along with several developed 

sites that are especially popular with local residents. Campsites along Salamander Creek provide for 

single-family use at Upper Salamander or group use at Lower Salamander. Both have swimming 

opportunities that make them ideal for families with small children. The Salamander Ridge Trail provides 

high country access to outstanding views of the Back Channel and Salamander drainage. Highbush Lake 

provides dispersed recreation opportunities including a skiff for public use. The Earl West Marsh is 

popular for dispersed recreation activities, and the marine access facility at Earl West provides a boat 

ramp for saltwater access to Berg Bay, Anan Wildlife Observatory, and other popular areas to the south 

and east of Wrangell Island. Inventoried recreation places in this area include: Upper and Lower 

Salamander Campsites, Salamander Ridge Trail, Highbush Lake Recreation Area, Earl West Recreation 

Site, Earl West Marsh and the NFS roads in this area.

Long Lake

Inventoried recreation places in this area include the Long Lake Roadside Recreation Area and Long Lake 

Trailhead, the boardwalk around the pond area near the site, and the Long Lake Trail and the Long Lake 

Shelter.

The Long Lake roadside facilities provide accessible opportunities for day use with a picnic table, fire 

ring, and outhouse, and a trailhead for the three-fifths mile boardwalk Long Lake Trail. Nearby, there are 

remnants of an old boardwalk trail with paths around a pond area providing exploration opportunities. 

There is a three-sided shelter with a table, fire ring and outhouse at Long Lake. A skiff is provided for 

public use. 

On the Long Lake Trail, visitors enter a more remote and undeveloped setting with the boardwalk and 

recreation facilities being the only obvious human developments. Once on the lake, visitors can expect 

solitude from others and a setting with undisturbed natural scenery.

Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek

Recreation use in this area is dispersed with most activities being associated with recreational driving. 

Thom’s Lake and Creek provides for fishing opportunities, with the Thom’s Lake trail providing access to 

the lake, and the Thom’s Creek Crossing Campsite on Road 6299 providing good access to the creek for 

stream fishing. The Fool’s Inlet estuary is popular for waterfowl hunting, with hunters accessing the area 

from both the saltwater and overland from the road system as there are no trails in this area.

The only developed inventoried recreation place in this area is the Thoms Creek Crossing Recreation Site, 

but other inventoried, but undeveloped recreation places, include the road system, Thoms Lake, Little 

Thoms Lake and saltwater use areas at Blake Island Bay, Southeast Cove and Fools Inlet.

Thoms Lake Trailhead is located on the Nemo-Skip Loop Road area, but the trail and lake are within the 

Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek area. The Thoms Lake Trail is gravel-surfaced. It crosses State land near the 

lake. There is a public recreation cabin on State land at the lake. Little Thoms Lake is a popular dispersed 

recreation site and is usually accessed by foot from Road 6599.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 214

Recreation Setting

The existing recreation settings of NFS lands on Wrangell Island are a result of past timber harvest and 

road construction in recent decades. The roads are the primary contributor for recreation access and 

existing recreation opportunities on Wrangell Island. Historically, following the completion of harvest 

activities, new recreation opportunities were identified and recreation facilities were developed to provide 

the desired experiences. 

The recreation setting was analyzed using GIS mapping tools and the ROS inventory system. Table 77

displays the existing ROS for Wrangell Island, and figure 31 displays the existing ROS categories within 

the analysis area.

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

ROS class Acres

Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized 40,987

Semi-Primitive, Motorized 28,113

Roaded Natural 2,858

Roaded Modified 59,681

Rural 1,433

Urban 1,234

Total acres 134,306

Environmental Consequences

The effects of the alternatives are displayed on how the proposal would change recreation opportunities 

overall. Many factors are taken into consideration including the long-term effects of harvest on scenery as 

seen from recreation use areas, disturbance associated with harvest activities near popular recreation sites, 

and long-term changes to recreation opportunities for an area.

Recreation Setting

The recreation settings in the analysis area are determined by a variety of factors including the natural 

setting of the area where people go to recreate, the ease of access to facilities, and the level of recreation 

development provided. As describe earlier, one method the Forest Service uses to describe and map 

recreation settings is the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. This method divides landscapes into classes, 

factoring in proximity to roads and development, access, level of development, and level of expected 

social interactions. These ROS classes are then mapped.

Timber harvest and road construction can have an effect on ROS class. The effects of each alternative are 

measured by the change in acres of the undeveloped Semi-Primitive Non-motorized and Semi-Primitive 

Motorized ROS to the Roaded Modified ROS class. While timber harvest changes the ROS class in 

absolute terms, the use of partial-harvest methods can mitigate that overall effect. Partial harvest by 

helicopter yarding (single-tree or group-selection), which leaves at least two-thirds of the stand and 

requires no road construction, would have less effect on the ROS than a clearcut harvest using cable or 

ground-based yarding, and some would not consider this type of harvest to warrant a change in ROS to 

the Roaded Modified Class. Therefore, in this analysis, the ROS changes from both scenarios are 

considered.

Figure 31 displays the ROS Inventory Mapping for Alternative 1, showing the existing ROS inventory. To 

illustrate the highest degree of impact proposed, figure 32 displays all harvest units proposed in 

Alternative 2 and included in the Roaded Modified ROS class. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 215

Table 78 displays the number of acres changed from Semi-Primitive Non-motorized and Semi-Primitive 

Motorized ROS to Roaded Modified for each alternative, based on both scenarios. These changes in ROS 

class can be viewed as positive or negative depending on an individual’s expectation for a recreation 

experience.

Table 78. Change in ROS class

Acres changed to 

Roaded Modified

All harvest methods

Percentage of NFS 

land changed to 

Roaded Modified

All harvest methods

Acres changed to 

Roaded Modified

Clearcut harvest

Percentage of NFS 

land changed to 

Roaded Modified 

Clearcut harvest

Alt 1 0 0 0 0

Alt 2 9,334 6.9% 4,061 3.0%

Alt 3 4,545 3.4% 2,890 2.2%

Alt 4 5,774 4.3% 4,140 3.1%

Alt 5 7,368 5.5% 3,113 2.3%

Recreation Places

The design of each action alternative would cause different effects on the recreation places. Following is a 

description of the impacts from each alternative to recreation places in each of six recreation areas.

North Wrangell

None of the inventoried recreation facilities north of Pat Valley would be affected by any of the 

alternatives since there is no harvest proposed within the sight or sound of these facilities. Alternatives 2, 

4, and 5 all propose harvest in a parcel of previously undeveloped area north of Pat Valley and south of 

the trail systems. Implementing any of these alternatives would result in development of a new dispersed 

recreation area due to the public motorized access these alternatives would provide. This new access 

would likely be used for hiking/exploring and as easier access to hunting areas that were previously more 

difficult to get into. Refer to the access management alternative maps in chapter 2 (figure 8 through figure 

12) and the “Issue 4: Access Management” section of this chapter for more information on public access.

Alternatives 1 and 3 propose no timber harvest or road construction in the North Wrangell Area, meaning 

there would be no change from the existing recreation condition. Alternatives 2 and 5 propose the same 

road systems and harvest units in the North Wrangell Area. In Alternative 2, the new NFS road 6251 into 

the mill basin road would be open to public motorized use, but it would be closed to public motorized use 

in Alternative 5. However, Alternative 5 would provide easier pedestrian access to the North Wrangell 

Area. Alternative 4 proposes significantly less timber harvest in this area; however, it would construct 

NFS road 6251, which would remain open to public access.

Pat Lake, Old Hermit and Midpoint

The harvest strategies proposed in this area are similar among the action alternatives. All of the action 

alternatives propose Road 50062/50058 (a new NFS road) to access timber. This road would also provide 

safer access to the Middle Ridge Cabin. However, the access management for this road varies among the 

alternatives, having varying effects on recreation opportunities. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 leave the road 

open to public motorized access and create a loop route for recreational travel. Alternative 5 would close 

the road to public access. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 also convert other newly constructed roads to OHV 

trails. 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 217

Figure 31. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum inventory on Wrangell Island - least impact (Alternative 1)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 219

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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 221

All action alternatives propose harvest activities that would result in log haul past the Middle Ridge Cabin 

which would have a negative effect on cabin users during logging operations. The level of effect is 

directly related to the amount of timber transported on this road in each alternative. Of the action 

alternatives, Alternative 5 would cause the least amount of disturbance. 

Nemo-Skip Loop Road

The campsites on the Nemo-Skip Loop Road overlooking Zimovia Strait are popular recreation sites. Due 

to this setting, most users of this area fully expect their experience to include obvious signs of 

development associated with timber harvest. 

All action alternatives propose similar harvest levels in the area surrounding the Nemo campsites with a 

few minor differences in unit boundaries and yarding methods. All alternatives would meet scenery 

integrity objectives around these recreation sites. The partial harvest with at least two-thirds of the stand 

remaining should not be noticeable to recreation users. There would be noticeable long-term scenic 

impacts from the clearcut units proposed in Alternative 2, 3, and 4. Alternative 5 proposes only partial 

harvest in this area. 

Salamander, Earl West and Highbush Lake

In the action alternatives, harvest is proposed in three areas: near the Salamander Ridge Trail, near Earl 

West Marsh, and near Highbush Lake.

Alternatives 2 and 4 would have greater effects than Alternative 3 due to harvest proposed in the 

Salamander Ridge area. Alternative 2 would have slightly more effect than Alternative 4 because it 

proposes a harvest unit near the Earl West Marsh area that is not included in Alternative 4. Alternative 5 

would have the least effect because it proposes partial harvest with no road building.

Long Lake

Although the area is initially accessed by the road system traversing a heavily harvested area, once 

visitors start down the Long Lake Trail, there are no visible impacts from resource development. All of 

the action alternatives propose some level of harvest in this area, which would be noticeable to regular 

users of the Long Lake area. Alternatives 3 and 5 propose the least harvest in the area around Long Lake. 

Any harvest proposed in these alternatives would be viewed at a distance. The sights and sounds of 

harvest would be easily observable from the lake, but with low harvest levels proposed, the disturbance 

would be short-term. Under Alternatives 3 or 5, people might be able to see impacts from light harvest in 

Unit 866 to the south, although the harvest would not dominate the landscape. 

Alternatives 2 and 4 propose partial harvest in the area surrounding Long Lake. Scenery objectives would 

be met but the overall character of the setting would change to one that had been altered by human 

activity and change the character of area. Harvest activities would require temporary closure of the site 

for safety, impacting public access. Alternatives 3 and 5 propose lower levels of harvest than alternatives 

2 and 4, and the activities proposed would not result in long-term, character-changing impacts to the Long 

Lake Area.

Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek

All of the action alternatives propose harvest to the west of Fools Inlet. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose 

road construction, clearcut and partial-harvest units. Alternative 5 proposes a relatively minor amount of 

helicopter harvest in the area. 

Because this area has been modified by previous timber harvest and road building, and recreation use is 

lower than elsewhere on the island, timber harvest in this area is expected to have negligible effects on 

recreation. 

The main difference in recreation effects is the public access management proposed between the 

alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 5 propose to close public motorized access in the Thoms Lake area. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would continue to allow public motorized access.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 222

Summary of Effects

Direct effects include long-term changes to scenic conditions, length of disturbance due to logging 

activities, access for public motorized use once harvest activities are complete and long-term changes in 

recreation opportunities.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the action alternatives, all timber harvest and road building activities would be located outside any 

existing 2001 inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). These IRAs would continue to provide opportunities for 

solitude and remote primitive and wild recreation opportunities for those who seek them. Road 

construction and timber harvest would change the ROS classes and reduce the amount of area in SemiPrimitive, Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive, Motorized classes while increasing the amount of area in 

the Roaded Modified class. The amount of area in the Roaded Natural, Rural and Urban classes would 

remain relatively unchanged. When all harvest methods are considered, Alternative 2 would bring the 

most change to existing ROS, as 9,334 acres would be converted to the Roaded Modified class, followed 

by Alternative 5 at 7,368 acres, Alternative 4 at 5,774 acres, and Alternative 3 at 4,546 acres. These 

changes represent a less than 7 percent change from the existing condition.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 have similar overall impacts to the recreation resource on Wrangell Island. The 

alternatives do vary in their effects to key recreation areas on the island. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would 

build a road into the mill basin which would provide access to an area of the National Forest that does not 

currently have access. This road would be open to the public for motorized access in Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Alternative 5 closes the road, but it could continue to provide non-motorized access. Alternatives 2 and 4 

propose helicopter harvest near Long Lake that would change the recreation setting, whereas Alternatives 

3 and 5 do not propose harvest near the lake.

Of the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would result in the greatest effect, followed in descending order, 

by Alternatives 4, 3, and 5.

The access management proposed by each alternative would have an effect on recreation by providing 

motorized public access on some roads. Alternative 2 would provide the most open roads at 86 miles, 

followed closely by Alternative 4 at 85.7 miles, and Alternative 3 at 85.4 miles. Alternatives 1 and 5 

would provide the fewest miles of open road with 73.7 and 72.9 miles, respectively. Alternative 2 also 

provides the most roads designated as OHV trails with 14.5 miles, followed by Alternative 3 with 13.2

miles, and Alternative 4 with 12.9 miles. Alternative 5 does not propose any OHV trails.

Overall, the direct and indirect effects of the timber harvest, road construction, and access management 

proposed under each alternative would have a short-term effect on recreation.

Cumulative Effects

Viewed in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the analysis area 

(Table 5), none of the alternatives are expected to contribute to cumulative effects on the recreation 

resource of Wrangell Island. This is because none would create or remove long-term or permanent 

opportunities for access to NFS land or lands of other ownership. Existing opportunities would continue 

to be available for those seeking remote and primitive recreation experiences, as well as access to fishing 

and hunting. The land to be acquired through the AMHT land exchange will be managed in a natural 

condition, which will have negligible effect on the existing recreation resource. Taken together with past, 

present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the analysis area, the recreation experience would not 

change. 

While the foreseeable State timber sale in the Earl West Cove area could construct approximately 5 miles 

of road, it is a standard practice for the Division of Forestry to close all roads following timber sale 

activities. Therefore, it is assumed the Division of Forestry will also close the roads constructed for the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 223

upcoming timber sale. As a result, the public would have the same access to Wrangell Island recreation 

opportunities as currently exists following any of the Wrangell Island Project action alternatives.

Silviculture

Introduction

This section discusses the rationale used in selecting silvicultural prescriptions for harvest units analyzed 

in the proposed Wrangell Island Project. The project proposes timber harvest resulting in a change of 

vegetation in portions of the project area. Proposed harvest units can be described as productive oldgrowth (POG) stands where tree growth is generally offset by decay resulting in mostly-decadent stands 

of timber. Vegetation modification may include changes to forest structure, species composition, and 

stand health and stability. Changes in vegetation are determined by a prescribed silvicultural system that 

meets project goals and objectives while adhering to Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Units of Measure

The following units of measure were used to measure potential effects of the project alternatives on 

vegetation from silvicultural treatments.

• Changes to stand productivity and forest health

• Changes to regeneration potential

• Changes to species composition

• Changes to stand structure and age classes

• Changes to stand stability from windthrow hazard

Resource Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects is National Forest land on Wrangell Island. The analysis 

area consists of value comparison units (VCUs) 4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 4800, 5040 and 5050.

Inventory and Analysis Methods

Initial project area information was obtained from the Tongass National Forest GIS library, aerial photos, 

and the Forest Service Activity Tracking System database (FACTS). About half of the inventory data of 

the project area was collected during the 2010 field season using the Common Stand Exam (CSE) 

protocol with the intensity of one plot/10 acres. Existing stand exam data for the other half of the unit 

pool acreage was available and some walk-through exams were also conducted to supplement the project 

inventory. The data was then summarized using the Natural Resource Information System: Field Sampled 

Vegetation program (FSVeg). This information is available in the project record. 

The information gathered by these inventories is used to diagnose existing stand condition, which 

includes stand characteristics, volume and species composition, stand structure, regeneration, windthrow 

potential and disease and decay severity. Logging system feasibility for each stand was also assessed.

Silvicultural Systems

Two silvicultural systems (even-aged and uneven-aged) are prescribed for the proposed harvest to best 

achieve management objectives. Management objectives identified by the interdisciplinary team (IDT)

include:

• Retention of old-growth structure for wildlife

• Favorable timber sale economics

• Protection of soils, watershed and aquatics, wildlife habitat, and scenery characteristics

• Maximizing wood-fiber production

• Achieving the Forest Plan LUD desired condition while adhering to Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 224

Silviculture treatments are proposed to meet management objectives. The following criteria were used to 

develop appropriate treatments:

• Forest Plan LUD desired condition and standards and guidelines

• Operational feasibility (logging system)

• Timber appraisal estimates

• Stand conditions (disease and decay)

• Windthrow hazard rating

Complete silvicultural prescriptions will be written for stands selected for harvest in the Record of 

Decision.

Affected Environment

Species composition

The project area consists of a mosaic of coniferous forests in managed and unmanaged conditions, 

interspersed with muskeg, scrubland, and alpine plant communities. A mixture of forest types and plant 

communities exists across the area as a function of drainage, aspect, and elevation. Soils are 

predominantly well-drained and support productive western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) and Sitka 

spruce (Picea sitchensis) forests. Soils that are not well-drained are less productive for tree growth and 

support mixed-conifer forests. Mixed-conifer forests have a higher cedar component: yellow-cedar

(Callitropsis nootkatensis) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Higher percentages of Sitka spruce are 

found along streams and other well-drained sites. The understory shrubs are primarily blueberry

(Vaccinium spp.), red huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea).

Many species of vascular plants, lichens, and mosses occur throughout all habitat types. Forested muskeg 

with a high percentage of yellow-cedar occurs throughout the project area, especially in the lower 

elevations. Muskeg areas also support shore pine (Pinus contorta) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga 

mertensiana). Mountain hemlock is also more prevalent at higher elevations. Red alder (Alnus rubra) is 

found on disturbed sites such as roadsides, certain harvested stands, and along stream banks.

Vegetation series are the hierarchy in a classification system that classifies the vegetation by dominant 

overstory species. All seven vegetation series contained within the Preliminary Forest Plant Associations 

developed by Pawuk and Kissinger (USDA Forest Service 1989) exist in the project area. The seven 

series include the western hemlock series, western hemlock- yellow-cedar series, Sitka spruce series, 

mixed-conifer series, mountain hemlock series, shore pine series and the western hemlock-western 

redcedar series. Western hemlock with a vaccinium understory is the most prevalent forest plant 

association in the project area.

Most of the proposed harvest areas are a mosaic of two or more vegetation series. The project area 

contains all seven forested conifer series commonly found throughout Southeast Alaska. These conifer 

species are grouped by the dominant overstory species and are as follows: Sitka spruce; western hemlock; 

mountain hemlock; western hemlock- yellow-cedar; western hemlock-western redcedar; mixed-conifer; 

and shore pine series. Western hemlock, western hemlock- yellow-cedar, western hemlock-western 

redcedar, and mixed-conifer are the major series. The Sitka spruce series, mountain hemlock series, and 

shore pine series are also represented, but on a smaller scale.

On the Tongass, yellow-cedar and western redcedar are found in mixed-conifer stands, usually as a 

component of the more shade-tolerant western hemlock type. These cedars are typically found in the 

lower volume class strata as they are out-competed by western hemlock on higher-productivity sites.

Plant associations are a type of vegetation classification system based on the climax plant community. 

Stands within a specified plant association are comprised of vegetation with similar species composition 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 225

and abundance. Plant associations can be used to predict site response to changes caused by management 

practices.

The project area tree species composition includes: western hemlock (56 percent), Sitka spruce (12

percent), yellow-cedar (17 percent), mountain hemlock (8 percent), western redcedar (7 percent), shore 

pine and red alder (each less than 1 percent). These percentages are based on percent of live tree basal 

area (BA) for all diameters, generated from stand exam data stored in the National Field Sampled 

Vegetation Database (FSVeg) for the project unit pool.

Stand Structure

Forest stand structure is defined as the horizontal and vertical distribution of components including the 

height, diameter, crown layers, and stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory, snags, and down woody 

debris (Helms 1998). All proposed harvest units in the project area have an old-growth stand structure.

Old-growth structure varies depending on habitat type but generally contains large trees over 150 years in 

age, multi-layered canopies, and moderate shrub understory. Coarse, woody debris typically is abundant 

on the forest floor as large, decaying logs. Some whole trees may lay horizontally – uprooted by 

windthrow. 

Forest Health and Natural Disturbance

Various natural phenomena affect the life cycle of forest trees, which experience damage, decay, and 

eventual mortality. Table 79 shows the occurrence and relative severity of current damage, and potential 

damage in the case of windthrow hazard, for each of the major damaging agents in the old-growth unit 

pool. A complete list of stand conditions by unit is included in appendix A of the silviculture resource 

report. All units in the unit pool received at least a moderate rating for one of the four damaging agents 

shown in table 79.

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

rating

Severity rating Dwarf mistletoe Decay fungi Windthrow hazard 

rating

Yellow-cedar 

decline

High 10 25 17 10

Moderate 38 52 80 26

Low 52 23 3 64

Primary Source: Common Stand Exams

Dwarf Mistletoe

The occurrence of dwarf mistletoe in late successional western hemlock stands is widespread throughout 

Southeast Alaska, and was recorded in many of the proposed harvest areas in the project area. Dwarf 

mistletoe is apparently limited by climate (elevation and latitude), becoming uncommon or absent above 

500 feet in elevation and 59o N latitude (Haines, AK) (USDA Forest Service 2008b). It often produces 

cankerous swellings at the point of infection of limbs or main stems. It reduces the vigor and growth rate 

of infected trees and reduces the quality of timber. Heavily infected western hemlock trees have branch 

proliferations (called “witches’ brooms”), bole deformities, reduced height and radial growth, less 

desirable wood characteristics, and a greater likelihood of heart decay, top kill, and death. These 

symptoms are all potential problems in stands managed for wood production. Growth loss in heavily 

infested stands can reach 40 percent or more (Holsten et al. 2008). The Wrangell Island Project proposes 

to partially harvest some stands with high mistletoe ratings to mitigate the effects of even-aged harvest on 

wildlife, scenery and watershed resources. Some wildlife species prefer mistletoe-infected trees for 

nesting.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 226

The majority of unit pool acres rated low for the occurrence of dwarf mistletoe. Fifty-two percent of acres 

in the unit pool were issued a “low” severity rating, 38 percent were given a “moderate” severity rating, 

and 10 percent of acres in the unit pool were issued a “high” severity rating. A “low” rating was given 

when mistletoe was absent or only seen occasionally, and where present, was rated less than 3, according 

to the Hawksworth mistletoe rating system (Hawksworth 1977). Units that rated low for dwarf mistletoe 

typically had a heavy cedar component. A “moderate” rating was given to units when about half of the 

western hemlock trees observed in the unit had mistletoe infestation ratings of 3 or less. A “high” rating 

was given when most hemlock trees were infected with a rating higher than 3.

Decay Fungi

Approximately one-third of the old-growth timber board foot volume in Southeast Alaska is defective, 

largely due to decay from heart-rot fungi (USDA Forest Service 2013a). Heart and root-rotting fungi in 

trees can weaken the support structures, thereby leading to breakage. As the broken portion of the tree 

falls to the forest floor, it may wound adjacent trees and lead to eventual infection of the damaged trees. 

This is a continual process in old-growth forests in Southeast Alaska and contributes to diversity in stand 

structure.

Decay-causing fungi are present in all stands within the project area. Twenty-three percent of the unit pool 

acres rated low for the occurrence of decay fungi (a low rating was given if less than 30 percent of the 

trees sampled recorded stem decay), 52 percent of the unit pool acres rated moderate (30 to 50 percent of 

the trees sampled recorded stem decay), and 25 percent of the unit pool acres rated high (more than 50 

percent of the trees sampled recorded stem decay).

Wind Disturbance

The major natural disturbance agent to timber stands in Southeast Alaska is wind, also referred to as 

windthrow. Wind influences stand structure and development, including beneficial effects, such as 

exposure of mineral soil and mixing of soil associated with uprooted trees, which favors the regeneration 

of Sitka spruce and cedar, and the creation of ecologically beneficial large woody material.

Wind disturbance occurs over a continuum dependent on topographic features (Nowacki and Kramer 

1998, pp. 1-8). Old-growth structure stands develop through a process called gap dynamics, whereby 

small openings in the forest canopy, created by trees falling or dying, are colonized by shrubs, and 

eventually conifers. Some gaps are created by wind disturbance, in the form of uprooted trees and stem 

breakage. Over time, a multi-layered stand develops via gap dynamics. In areas where wind disturbance 

promotes gap dynamics, stands may reach a certain degree of stability with respect to wind.

In the Wrangell Island project area, evidence of high wind disturbance was generally found in areas with 

topographical exposure, aspect to prevailing SE wind direction, or adjacent managed stands. The amount 

of existing windthrow in a stand is an important indicator of windthrow hazard. Certain characteristics are 

indicators of windthrow hazard for individual trees, as well as for the stand as a whole. These 

characteristics and the stand’s windthrow history were used to evaluate the windthrow hazard for each 

stand (Stathers et al. 1994, pp. 15 to 17). Seventeen percent of the unit pool acres rated high for 

windthrow. Units with a southeast exposure generally have a high windthrow risk. Eighty percent of the 

unit pool acres rated moderate. Stands that rated moderate have factors that contribute to poor tree 

anchorage with low wind force, moderate resistance to overturning and moderate wind force, or good 

resistance to overturning and high wind force. Three percent of the unit pool acres are well-sheltered with 

little evidence of past wind damage. These units rated low for windthrow. The Silviculture Resource 

Report, appendix A, table 1, identifies the windthrow risk rating for each unit.

Yellow-cedar Decline in Alaska

Yellow-cedar decline functions as a classic forest decline and has become a leading example of the impact 

of climate change on a forest ecosystem. The term forest decline refers to situations in which a complex 

of interacting abiotic and biotic factors leads to widespread tree death, usually over an extended period of
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 227

time. It can be difficult to determine the mechanism of decline, and the causes of many forest declines 

throughout the world remain unresolved (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

Yellow-cedar decline is linked to climate change. Yellow-cedar trees are killed by freezing injury to fine 

roots where there is insufficient snowpack to insulate them from lethal cold temperatures (less than 23

degrees F). Since yellow-cedar is a long-lived tree, many affected yellow-cedar forests established under 

the colder, more favorable climate of the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1850). An abnormal rate of yellow-cedar 

mortality began around 1900, spiked in the 1970s and 1980s, and continues today. On wet sites, where 

yellow-cedar faces less competition from western hemlock and Sitka spruce and is more abundant, 

yellow-cedar trees with shallow fine roots are particularly vulnerable to freezing injury. Research into 

root and foliar cold tolerance has shown that yellow-cedar roots are more vulnerable to this type of injury 

than associated conifers. Impacted forests tend to have mixtures of old dead, recently dead, dying, and 

living trees, indicating the progressive nature of tree death. From the time crown symptoms appear, it 

often takes 10 to 15 years for trees to die, making it difficult to associate observations from aerial surveys 

to weather events in particular years. Yellow-cedar is extraordinarily decay resistant and tree often remain 

standing for 80 to 100 years after death (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

Forest Health Protection and colleagues from the Forest Service Alaska Regional Office and National 

Forest System have developed a comprehensive conservation strategy for yellow-cedar in Southeast 

Alaska to account for yellow-cedar decline. In four sections and multiple appendices, this report focuses 

on what is known about: the ecology, cultural and commercial values, taxonomy, and silvics of the tree; 

the mechanism and risk factors of yellow-cedar decline; guidance and opportunities for the active 

management of yellow-cedar; the development of models to spatially display and estimate the distribution 

of yellow-cedar and the risk factors for decline now and into the future; and the current and projected 

future status of yellow-cedar in 33 management zones in Alaska. The report is available for download 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr917.pdf (Hennon et al. 2016).

Yellow-cedar decline has affected over a half million cumulative acres in Southeast Alaska. The large 

acreage of standing dead yellow-cedar trees (snags), the high-value of yellow-cedar wood, and its longterm retention of wood properties suggest promising opportunities for salvage. The Tongass National 

Forest has partnered with the Alaska Coastal Rainforest Center and the University of Alaska Southeast to 

conduct economic feasibility studies of yellow-cedar salvage. In some settings, salvage recovery of 

yellow-cedar snags may yield valuable wood products and economic, social and ecological benefits. 

Yellow-cedar snags could supply local mills with valuable timber and potentially offset harvests in 

healthy, old-growth yellow-cedar stands (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

Previous research has not placed yellow-cedar decline within the context of yellow-cedar overall (Barrett 

and Pattison 2017). The analysis conducted by Barrett and Pattison found that in unmanaged forests, 

yellow-cedar live tree basal area recently (1995-1998 to 2004-2013) increased from 0.3 percent to 3.3

percent/decade. The study results also indicated that little range contraction of yellow-cedar had occurred. 

The large numbers and wide geographic range of yellow-cedar trees in Alaska and the recent (1995-2013) 

stability in the monitored population serve as important contextual information for yellow-cedar decline 

(Barrett and Pattison 2016). The finding that little range contraction of yellow-cedar in recent decades is 

consistent with researcher’s observations from other studies that extirpation did not appear to be occurring 

(Oakes et al. 2014). Understanding the response of tree species, including yellow-cedar, to changing 

climate continues to evolve.

Forest Health Protection conducted aerial surveys and mapped 11,259 National Forest acres of yellowcedar decline and 1,697 acres of State and private acres of yellow-cedar decline on Wrangell Island.

Aerial mapping and stand exam data indicate that 10 percent of the unit pool acreage rated high for 

yellow-cedar decline. Twenty-six percent rated moderate and 64 percent rated low. Units were rated based 

on the percentage of the unit affected by yellow-cedar decline. Units with greater than 66 percent of the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 228

area affected were rated as high; units with 33 to 66 percent affected were rated as moderate, and units 

with some decline (but less than 33 percent) were rated as low.

Environmental Consequences

Desired Condition

The desired condition for stands within the Wrangell Island project area is determined by the LUDs 

established by the Forest Plan, and to some degree by the proposed project’s goals and objectives. The 

goals and objectives of the LUDs in the Wrangell Island project area are presented in chapter 3 of this 

document (See Land Use Designations). Also, see figure 2 in chapter 1.

Silvicultural Systems

A silviculture system is a planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting and regenerating a stand of 

trees. Silvicultural prescriptions for each silvicultural system have been developed to increase the volume 

of commercially valuable timber in less time, maintain or improve wildlife and fish habitat, and either 

maintain or enhance scenery values. No single silvicultural system for a forest stand can be used to 

achieve all the desired combinations of amenities and products. Instead, a variety of treatments applied 

over an area results in a mosaic of stands for different uses. Management actions, through timber harvest 

and/or other treatments such as thinning or pruning, alter the existing stand condition.

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines and USDA Forest Service Manual 2400 (Timber Management) 

provide detailed information about the silvicultural systems recommended for the Tongass. Uneven-aged 

management results in a stand of younger trees interspersed with older trees that are distributed either in 

clumps, or more evenly across the stand in three or more age classes. Even-aged management results in 

the conversion of mature stands to faster-growing stands of a single age. The post-harvest conditions of 

the forest stand for all systems are dependent upon the existing plant community, the site productivity, any 

retained canopy structure, and advanced regeneration. Post-harvest stocking surveys monitor the mix of 

species that regenerate. Species composition is monitored to ensure that the mix of species reflects that 

which would be expected at that site. 

For stands using an even-aged system, the detailed prescription will be for the length of the rotation. 

Uneven-aged stands have no final rotation age, but rather have multiple entries designed to maintain 

different age classes. These prescriptions provide guidance for treatments following the proposed timber 

harvest for this project, and may include subsequent entries, thinning, and pruning.

Even-aged Systems

The objectives of this system include growing the stand to maximize wood-fiber production in the 

shortest timeframe and to provide favorable timber sale economics and logging feasibility. Clearcutting is 

also used to regenerate desirable species and to remove decay and defect within the stand. Natural 

regeneration in these stands is expected to be abundant, and would represent the original species 

composition with trees of a single age. The treatment schedule would include a pre-commercial thinning 

when inter-tree competition begins to slow tree growth and crowns shade-out understory plants. Precommercial thinning concentrates growth on fewer stems. Tree growth improves and after several decades 

on a productive site, crowns again begin to close in. At this time, trees typically have reached 

merchantable size. An intermediate treatment such as a crown thinning could be commercially viable. 

Growth on residual trees would improve and conditions for maintaining understory vegetation for wildlife 

would be enhanced. The stand would be scheduled for a rotational harvest at Culmination of Mean 

Annual Increment (CMAI) which would be between 80 and 120 years stand age, depending on site 

productivity.

Clearcutting

This prescription removes all of the merchantable trees in a stand. The site becomes fully exposed for the 

development of a new age class.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 229

Clearcutting with Reserves

This prescription for this project involves retaining 15 percent of the stand’s live basal area, either in 

single trees or small groups. Reserve trees would be left inside unit boundaries. This method mimics the 

effects of natural windthrow events, and is generally used to meet scenery or wildlife needs in areas 

where timber production is the primary goal. There are visual priority routes (VPRs) in the project area 

and proposed harvest units adjacent to these VPRs. Some trees would be retained (reserves) to lessen the 

impact of clearcutting to the scenery resource. This prescription would be applied to two stands: Stand 

4770-564 (40 acres) and Stand 4770-567 (28 acres). These stands are visible from the visual priority 

travel route (VPR) #6265.

Another instance where reserve trees might occur inside the boundary of an even-aged clearcut harvest 

area is where wind-firming is prescribed by specialists during unit layout. Maintaining a reasonable 

assurance of windfirmness (wind-firming or RAW), would typically be applied to unit edges or stream 

and visual buffers determined to be at risk for wind damage after harvest due to high exposure to 

southeast storm winds. Specific locations where wind-firming is applied would vary depending on the 

topography (exposure) and aspect of the buffer within the unit.

Justification for Clearcutting

Clearcutting is prescribed for all units where there are no other conflicting resource issues to preclude or 

minimize the occurrence of potentially adverse impacts from hemlock dwarf mistletoe, other insect and 

disease infestations, logging system damage, and windthrow. This system will also minimize windthrow 

potential in the residual stands. Finally, clearcutting maximizes the use of conventional yarding systems 

(cable and shovel), which maintains the potential for an economic timber sale being offered.

Intermediate Treatments

Following timber harvest using even-aged regeneration methods, the managed stand goes through 

distinctive developmental stages. Removal of the forest overstory alters the site conditions that influence 

density and species composition of the understory vegetation. Natural regeneration restocks the harvested 

areas with conifer seedlings. The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) mandates that areas must be 

reforested within five full growing seasons following harvest. The minimum required trees per Region 10 

FSH 2409.17 is 300 trees/acre. This is monitored with regeneration stocking surveys and certification of 

successful reforestation. Different components dominate the stand at different stages, and the overall 

forest structure changes as the new stand develops. The level of change depends on the type of 

silvicultural treatment applied, as well as subsequent treatments applied during stand development.

Characteristics such as tree height, diameter, and overall stand productivity vary according to site 

productivity. However, young-growth stands typically show less variability in tree diameter and height 

than the old-growth stands they are replacing. Young-growth timber ranges in size from seedlings to 

saplings, to pole-timber and to the larger saw-timber.

Thinning

Thinning improves conditions for timber production. Pre-commercial thinning (PCT) removes excess 

trees from over-stocked stands. Thinning improves growing conditions for crop trees by reducing 

competition for resources, such as light, nutrients, water and space. The best growing, vigorous trees are 

selected as crop trees, along with species preference depending on specific stand objectives. Thinning can 

be used to promote species diversity, which benefits wildlife and increases the stand's resiliency to biotic 

and abiotic stressors. Yellow-cedar is often the first preferred crop-tree species in thinning prescriptions. 

This helps promote the slower-growing tree by removing faster-growing trees that compete for the 

growing space, nutrients, water and light. By selecting species other than hemlock as the crop trees, the 

timber value of a stand may be increased and the biodiversity is increased. PCT can be used to achieve 

various residual stand densities depending on the overall resource objectives. PCT is a treatment which 

not only redistributes stand growth on selected stems, but also delays canopy closure (stem exclusion) and 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 230

extends the time that forage is available for wildlife species. PCT is a common intermediate silvicultural 

treatment employed in young-growth stands on the Tongass.

Pruning

Pruning can benefit wildlife by improving growing conditions for understory vegetation. Pruning 

increases the amount of light reaching the forest floor, particularly side-lighting from the lower angle of 

sunlight found in northern latitudes. Pruning can increase the value of the first log in a tree by removing 

branches that create knots that lower log grade. Epicormic branching sometimes occurs on Sitka spruce 

stems following pruning. There appears to be genetic variation within the species in regards to epicormic 

branching on Sitka spruce following pruning. There may also be degrees of epicormic branching as it 

relates to amount of light reaching the stem. Hemlock and cedar species do not exhibit epicormic 

branching as spruce do. More study is needed to better understand the effects and benefits of pruning 

young growth on the Tongass. There are on-going studies, such as the Tongass-wide Young Growth Study 

(TWYGS), and other pruning treatments that should be monitored over time, that will offer more 

information. To date, only an incidental amount of pruning has been implemented in the project area, 

primarily to improve line of sight conditions around road curves.

Uneven-aged Systems

The long-term management goals for this project for stands harvested using uneven-aged silvicultural 

prescriptions are to maintain old-growth structure characteristics that benefit wildlife and maintain 

scenery while harvesting a portion of the stand’s timber on a sustainable basis. This system regenerates 

and maintains a multi-aged stand structure by removing a portion of the trees across age classes. The 

objective of uneven-aged silvicultural systems is to maintain or create a stand with trees of three or more 

distinct age classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups. Uneven-aged systems usually involve 

more intensive management than even-aged systems. The retained structure provides wildlife habitat and 

maintains scenery quality. Under the uneven-aged silvicultural system proposed for this project, at least 

67 percent of the stand’s pre-treatment live basal area would be retained. The next harvest entry into these 

stands would be in 40 to 60 years, when a portion of the basal area would again be removed as single 

trees scattered or in small groups.

Single-tree selection 

The single-tree selection (STS) method for uneven-aged prescriptions economically harvests a portion of 

the stand while retaining at least 67 percent of the stand’s live basal area to maintain the visual quality. 

This level of retention meets scenery objectives to be undetectable to casual observers. This also results in 

retained wildlife habitat structure and elevational corridors. The stand retention consists of trees that 

contribute to scenic integrity, trees with high wildlife habitat value, or trees that have future timber value. 

This is not a prescription for high grading, as the residual stand composition includes a mix of species and 

trees in good condition. New trees regenerate in harvest openings perpetuating multiple age and size 

classes, promoting species diversity, productivity and forest health. Most trees would be harvested singly, 

scattered across the stand. Harvest openings would be small, less than 2 acres in size. The resulting stand 

would maintain and promote variable densities of trees of different ages and crown classes, inter-mixed 

with large, older trees, intermediate trees and young trees.

Harvest trees are selected to meet management objectives. Healthy, young trees with future timber value

would be a priority for retention to promote economic future harvest entries. Older trees with high 

wildlife value would also be a priority for retention. The canopy gaps and disturbance created by 

harvesting trees would promote new tree regeneration to facilitate future harvest entries, as well as 

promote the growth of understory plants important for wildlife.

Stands proposed for this treatment would remove up to, but no more than, 33 percent of the basal area. 

Increased light reaching the forest floor would improve conditions for the less shade-tolerant species – the 

cedars and spruce. Hemlock would continue to be a dominant species but the diversity of species would 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 231

not be lost. Canopy openings would promote species diversity. An excerpt from Robert Deal’s dissertation 

The Effects of Partial Cutting on Stand Structure and Growth, and Forest Plant Communities of Western 

Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Stands in Southeast Alaska (1999) supports this assumption.

Sitka spruce was maintained over a wide range of cutting intensities, and conversion to hemlockdominated stands generally did not occur. It appears that silvicultural systems that use single tree 

selection or small openings can be successful for timber management purposes in southeast 

Alaska. Concerns about changing tree species composition, lack of spruce regeneration, greatly 

reduced stand growth and vigor, increased dwarf mistletoe infection in hemlock trees, and higher 

incidence of tree wounding, decay, and mortality with partial cuts were largely unsubstantiated. 

Stand structural diversity, species richness and understory plant abundance were all greater in 

partially cut stands than in young-growth stands developing after clearcutting.

Uneven-aged management would allow for selective timber harvest in stands where road construction is 

not feasible, where scenery restrictions apply, or where elevational corridors of old-growth structure are 

desired. The objective of the single-tree selection harvest method is to mitigate the resource concerns 

while economically harvesting a portion of the stand and retaining trees with future timber value for the 

next harvest entry. Uneven-aged prescriptions typically employ yarding trees by helicopter. This 

prescription and logging system are designed to minimize the potential for detrimental effects to soil and 

aquatic resources. Uneven-aged silvicultural systems usually involve more intensive management than 

even-aged systems. There is no final rotation age associated with this system, as periodic entries are 

designed to maintain multiple age and diameter classes.

Basal area is a common metric used in silviculture to meet forest management objectives. It is defined as 

the cross-sectional area of all stems of a species or all stems in a stand measured at breast height and 

expressed per unit of land area (Helms 1998). The use of basal area as a measurement tool is an efficient 

method to control stocking, harvests, growth, and yields to meet management objectives. Actual standspecific basal area removal amounts by species would be set in stand prescriptions during 

implementation, based on more intensive stand exam plots.

Table 80 shows the acres affected by alternative for this project and how these acres are proposed for 

treatment.

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

Silvicultural 

System

Harvest 

Method

Logging 

System Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Even-aged 

Management Clearcut Cable/Shovel 0 1,340 1,269 1,352 737

Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0

Clearcut 

with 

reserves

Cable/Shovel 0 68 68 68 68

Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0

Even-aged 

Total 0 1,408 1,337 1,420 805

Uneven-aged 

Management

STS (up to 

33% 

removal)

Shovel 0 118 43 133 114

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

Uneven-aged 

Total 0 3,359 1,311 1,572 2,635

Total acres 0 4,767 2,648 2,992 3,440
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 232

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

The effects on vegetation are the result of the silvicultural prescription. Even-aged prescriptions change 

stand structure by converting multiple age classes to a single age class and as a result increase stand 

productivity maximize regeneration potential, maintain or improve species composition, reduce wind 

hazard risk and maintain or improve forest health. Uneven-aged prescriptions are designed to maintain at 

least three age classes of trees, maintain or improve the wildlife habitat value, maintain or improve the 

aesthetic value, maintain or improve the conifer regeneration potential and understory vegetation and 

maintain or increase the diversity of the stand structure (multi-storied).

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, no timber harvest would occur for this project. There would be no direct effects to 

forest structure, forest health, stand age, productivity, regeneration and species composition, or risk of 

windthrow, which are discussed in the Silviculture Resource Report.

The indirect effects of the no action alternative include leaving the project area as a mixture of forest 

types and plant communities. The forested areas would be primarily dominated by western hemlock.

There would be no change in stand structure or conversion from multiple age classes to a single age class 

for stands included in this project, other than changes that would occur naturally. There would continue to 

be high levels of wood decay. Disease infection would continue at similar levels. The amount of younggrowth acreage would not increase. There would not be any new young-growth contribution to the 

Forest’s transition from an industry based on old-growth to an industry based primarily on young growth.

All stands included in this project would remain as old-growth structure. The species composition of the 

project stands would not be altered by any substantial measure. Western hemlock would continue to 

comprise about 60 percent of the species composition of the project stands. Forest health would continue 

on its current course and natural disturbances would be expected to occur at least as frequently as have 

occurred in the recent past. The common damage agents, including hemlock dwarf mistletoe, decay fungi, 

windthrow and yellow-cedar decline would persist at current levels. Effects of climate change could 

exacerbate current damage agent levels. Any yellow-cedar salvage recovery opportunities would not be 

realized with the no action alternative.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following section describes the direct and indirect effects to forest structure, forest health, stand age 

class and productivity, regeneration and species composition, and windthrow risk. 

Even-aged management removes all trees in a single harvest (clearcut), or nearly all the trees (clearcut 

with reserves). The direct effects include changing old-growth structure (multi-layered and multi-aged) to 

young-growth structure (single-layer and single-age). Forest health effects of even-aged management 

include reducing hemlock dwarf mistletoe, stem decay and wind hazard risk. Stands that have yellowcedar decline offer salvage opportunities. Harvesting stands with even-aged systems at different time 

intervals across the landscape creates a mosaic of different structures (age classes) at the landscape, or 

watershed level. Even-aged systems favor less shade-tolerant species, like Sitka spruce and yellow-cedar 

and PCT can further promote species other than western hemlock. The even-aged system directly creates 

relatively homogenous, single-aged stands.

Forest health would be improved and diseases like hemlock dwarf mistletoe and stem decay would be 

greatly reduced. Salvage of yellow-cedar in decline would get a valuable wood source to market. Timber 

productivity could be increased with even-aged management. Slow growing stands of decadent, mature 

trees beyond CMAI would be replaced by healthy, fast growing, vigorous young trees in even-aged 

managed stands. Conventional logging systems used with even-aged silvicultural systems can churn soils 

promoting Sitka spruce regeneration. Sitka spruce is considered a disturbance-driven species and favors 

soil mixing and mineral soils. The benefits associated with a mosaic of structures (age classes) across a 

watershed or landscape would be realized. Benefits include wildlife species diversity associated with 

plant species diversity.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 233

Uneven-aged management regenerates and maintains a multi-aged stand structure by removing a portion 

of the trees across age classes. The objective of uneven-aged silvicultural systems is to maintain a stand 

with trees of three or more distinct age classes, either intimately mixed or in small groups. Uneven-aged 

systems usually involve more intensive management than even-aged systems. The remaining structure 

provides wildlife habitat and minimizes the effect on the scenery resource. Under the uneven-aged 

silvicultural system proposed for this project, at least 67 percent of the stand’s pre-treatment live basal 

area would be retained. The next harvest entry into these stands would be planned for 40 to 60 years after 

the initial harvest, when additional basal area would again be removed from each stand in groups or as 

single trees.

Forest health conditions would be less improved with uneven-aged management than with even-aged 

management in the near-term; however, the retention of healthy trees in the intermediate size class, 

healthy advanced regeneration and new regeneration of vigorous, healthy trees would improve forest 

health in the long-term (40-60 years).

Single-tree selection harvest method regenerates and maintains a multi-aged stand structure by removing 

single trees or small groups of trees across age classes, either in clumps or scattered across the stand. The 

objective of STS is to maintain visual quality and provide wildlife habitat, as well as maintaining a multistoried stand structure and species diversity, while still achieving economic harvest of timber for multiple 

entries. Harvest trees are selected to meet the above objectives. The STS prescriptions are based on the 

concept of three basic tree types retained following harvest to meet management objectives. These 

retention-tree types are crop trees, wildlife/scenery trees and advanced or new regeneration trees. Trees 

that fit into these retention categories are a mix of species that make up the stand’s species composition.

Therefore, the resulting stand following the STS treatment would be composed of the species that were 

present prior to the treatment. Healthy, young trees in the intermediate crown class would be a priority for 

retention to promote economic future entries. Older trees with low timber value, but high wildlife value 

would also be a priority for retention. Canopy gaps and disturbance created by harvesting a portion of 

trees in the stand would promote new tree regeneration to facilitate future harvest entries, as well as 

promote the growth of understory plants important for wildlife.

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed growing space would be limited by the retention of 

overstory trees. Natural regeneration would occur in the stand in satisfactory amounts; however, the 

limited openings in the canopy combined with the low ground disturbance of helicopter yarding would 

favor hemlock regeneration and may limit the regeneration of the cedars and spruce. To offset this, the 

retention of spruce and cedar advanced regeneration would be required. Additionally, smaller diameter 

intermediate spruce and cedar trees with good vigor would be important to retain (Deal and Tappeiner, 

2002). Due to the good species mix and the flexibility of single-tree selection and group-selection in the 

stands proposed for uneven-age management, it is unlikely that a significant change in species 

composition would occur.

Stands proposed for this treatment would remove up to 33 percent of the pre-treatment live basal area.

Uneven-aged management would allow for selective timber harvest in stands where road construction is 

infeasible, where scenery restrictions apply, or where elevational corridors of old-growth structure are 

desired. The objective of this system is to economically harvest a portion of the stand while retaining trees 

that will be economical to harvest in the next entry, while mitigating other resource concerns. The 

silvicultural prescription would maximize the flexibility of helicopter yarding, while retaining a higher 

percentage of trees that have higher value for wildlife, or small diameter trees that would be more 

economically valuable in the future.

Uneven-aged silvicultural systems usually involve more intensive management than even-aged systems.

There is no final rotation age associated with this system, as periodic entries are designed to maintain 

multiple age and diameter classes.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 234

Cumulative Effects

The following are the activities expected to have cumulative effects to forest vegetation:

• Past timber harvest on NFS and non-NFS lands totaling approximately 10,520 acres

• Past tree planting on NFS lands totaling about 2,000 acres

• Continued micro-sales from the Roadside Decision Notice that will occur throughout the project 

area along existing roads 

• Continued PCT throughout the project area

• Planned pruning treatments on select stands within the project area

• Continued maintenance of the Tyee electrical transmission line within the project area

• About 700 acres of harvest for the 2015-2019 Division of Forestry, Five-year Schedule of Timber 

Sales on adjacent State lands in the Earl West Cove area are planned for 2019 

Timber harvest in the project area began in the early 1900s and was concentrated around the town of 

Wrangell and the sawmill. Early harvest was mostly single trees and small areas converted to some form 

of development. The Wrangell Island project area (including non-NFS lands) has approximately 10,840 

acres of young growth resulting from timber harvest and originating mostly from even-aged harvesting. 

Industrial-scale timber harvest in the project area that included road construction began in the 1960’s and 

peaked in the 1980s and 1990s. Timber harvest on Wrangell Island has continued to the present at a 

decreased level.

Past tree planting in the 1980s and 1990s on NFS lands in the project area total about 2,000 acres.

Planting trees following even-aged harvesting within the project area may occur but there is no 

reasonably foreseeable planting activities planned. The harvested area would have to be considered understocked, or a need to plant a particular species would have to be identified to warrant planting trees in the 

project area in the near future.

The State of Alaska plans to harvest approximately 700 acres of old-growth using even-aged management 

within the next couple years. Most of this harvest would result in the creation of even-aged forests in 

addition to the even-aged acres proposed in the Wrangell Island Project. Minor changes in species 

composition in the project area may occur as a result of harvest operations and follow up treatments such 

as pre-commercial thinning. It is expected that the less shade-tolerant species (spruce and cedars) would 

occur at slightly higher levels than in the former stand through natural regeneration under even-aged 

management and by favoring these species for crop trees during thinning operations. Conversely, the 

hemlock component would likely be reduced in proportion to the amount of spruce and cedars in the 

stand. Hemlock is not considered a favorable crop tree but is usually well represented due to its prolific 

regeneration. Both cedar species are expected to be represented in amounts slightly above or at least the 

same as their current levels. 

Scattered windthrow has occurred along exposed stand edges after past harvest. Where abrupt stand edges 

are created, some blowdown would likely occur. The desire to minimize blowdown is incorporated in the 

prescriptions but cannot completely eliminate it. Large-scale wind events that substantially modify large 

areas of old-growth stand structure in the project area may occur regardless of the alternative selected. If 

large-scale wind events do occur, it is unlikely that measures to assure reasonable windfirmness of stand 

edges or proposed stream buffers will be effective. 

Sawtimber removal from micro-sales will likely occur along existing and proposed roads. Any openings 

created by removal of these trees would be small and would likely have effects similar to uneven-aged 

management, single-tree selection timber harvests. 

Previously harvested areas adjacent to proposed Wrangell Island even-aged prescription areas meet 

NFMA adjacency requirements. NFMA maximum opening size would not be exceeded for this project. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 235

All previously harvested areas, with the exception of stands harvested within the last 3 years, have 

successfully regenerated. Since 1979, approximately 4,000 NFS acres of young-growth stands in the 

project area have been pre-commercially thinned to improve tree growth and vigor and promote species 

diversity. Future PCT would provide an opportunity to maintain stand growth and productivity, improve 

windfirmness, alter species composition, and promote or maintain understory vegetation growth. PCT of 

even-aged young-growth stands would occur across the Wrangell Island project area for the foreseeable 

future. There are approximately 1,250 acres of NFS land planned for PCT over the next 10 years. These 

future thinning treatments are within VCU’s 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790 and 4800. Thinning prescriptions 

would be developed to manage for multiple resource values with spacing of leave trees based on sitespecific objectives. Practices for retaining and promoting yellow-cedar would be incorporated into harvest 

and thinning prescriptions to maintain or improve the composition of that species. 

An incidental amount of pruning has occurred on Wrangell Island to improve line-of-sight driving 

conditions around curves. Other objectives of pruning include maintaining understory vegetation by 

increasing light that reaches the forest floor, improving log quality by increasing the amount of clear 

wood in a tree’s first and most valuable log, and enhancing scenic vistas along popular roadways. The 

District is planning pruning treatments to meet these objectives on approximately 300 acres over the next 

several years.

The 1,071 acres to be acquired through the AMHT land exchange will be managed in a natural condition.

These future actions, when combined with any of the action alternatives, would result in greater structural 

diversity of forest stands in the project area and should have negligible overall effects on species 

composition. These future actions combined with any of the action alternatives should have beneficial 

effects on forest health and productivity.

Soils

Introduction

Soil resource concerns are related to soil productivity or the potential loss of soil productivity, and off-site 

effects from soil erosion or landslides. The productivity of soils directly or indirectly affects the 

productivity of other forest resources. Tree growth, wildlife and fish habitat quality, and recreation uses 

depend in part on the quality of soils (USDA Forest Service 2016c). The Forest Service Manual 2550 

provides soil quality standards to maintain soil productivity and to sustain ecological processes and 

functions so that desired ecosystem services are provided in perpetuity. This section provides a summary

of the potential impacts of the proposed Wrangell Island Project on soil productivity, soil erosion, and 

mass wasting.

Units of Measure

The issues and concerns relevant to soils were developed based on internal review and external scoping 

comments from the public. Concerns pertinent to the soil resource from the implementation of the 

proposed action alternatives include: loss of soil productivity from road construction and logging 

disturbance in harvest units, and subsequent erosion due to management-induced mass wasting and 

logging disturbance.

The following indicators were used to measure the potential direct and indirect effects on soil resources 

resulting from the proposed activities: 

• Estimated acres of detrimental soil disturbance due to yarding disturbance, temporary road 

construction, and other management activities;

• Length of road construction on slopes greater than 67 percent, or unstable slopes; and

• Acres of harvest on slopes steeper than 72 percent gradient.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 236

Analysis Methods

Several data sources are used in the evaluation of effects on soil resources, including geologic maps, soil 

survey and mass wasting hazard data, a digital elevation model generated from light detection and ranging 

(LIDAR) and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (IfSAR) data, topographic data, stereo-pair aerial 

photographs and more recent digital orthophotography, and field reconnaissance.

Slope data (elevation, gradient, and aspect) are derived from Forest Service LIDAR and USGS digital 

elevation models (derived from IfSAR data), and are also used for the analysis. Interpretation of stereopair aerial photographs and digital orthophotography was used for mapping of surficial geology and mass 

wasting features, and for identifying downslope and downstream resources. For this analysis, field 

reconnaissance was performed in individual harvest units where slopes were anticipated to exceed 72

percent, and along National Forest System (NFS) road segments where slopes exceeded 67 percent. Field 

reconnaissance was also performed in areas with lesser slopes if a slope stability concern was identified 

that warranted a field visit. Slope stability interpretations are used to assess the risk of impact due to 

management activities.

Based on soil disturbance monitoring data and findings of Landwehr and Nowacki (1999), ground-based 

logging disturbances are estimated at 6 percent of the harvest area for shovel yarding and 4 percent of the 

harvest area for cable systems. To calculate the impact of temporary roads a 42-foot width was used to 

include pullouts (based on Landwehr 2011).

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Ability to predict impacts to soil conditions in response to the management activities is limited due to the 

natural range of variability in soils, their characteristics, and their response to a variety of factors. 

Nonetheless, there is sufficient information for the analysis area to provide a credible evaluation and 

comparison of the magnitude and extent of likely effects of the proposed action and the alternatives for 

the Wrangell Island Project based on the outcome other projects of a similar nature. The analysis is based 

on the premise that standard practices would be used that follow established best management practices. 

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects on soil resources encompasses the proposed harvest unit 

pool, proposed roads, and the adjacent areas that would potentially be subject to project-related impacts.

The analysis area for cumulative effects impacts analysis area is the NFS lands on Wrangell Island.

Affected Environment

Soils Description

Soils in the project area have been strongly influenced by high precipitation and cool temperatures. Under 

these conditions, organic matter decomposes slowly and tends to accumulate. A thick organic surface 

horizon composed of forest litter is commonly developed on mineral soils. Deep organic soils develop 

where movement of water is impeded by bedrock or other restrictive horizons. Organic soils derived 

solely from vegetative biomass accumulations vary greatly in depth depending on location. Organic soils 

vary in depth from less than 14 inches thick, to greater than 20 feet in thickness in low relief muskeg 

areas.

Spodosols are the dominant mineral soils developed beneath the forest cover. Podzolization, where 

organic material and iron and aluminum oxides are transported from the topsoil to the subsoil, is the 

primary soil process forming spodosols. Over time, podzolization can reduce site productivity by 

immobilizing important plant nutrients and forming cemented layers of iron and aluminum oxides that 

slow soil drainage. Bormann et al. (1995) posits that windthrow is a primary mechanism in disrupting the 

formation of podzol horizons, and is an important factor in maintaining long-term forest soil productivity.

Colluvial soils are formed by the gravity-driven downslope transport of eroded soil, rock, and organic 

material. During field reconnaissance, it was noted that soils situated on steep slopes are predominantly 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 237

colluvial. Field observations noted that many did not exhibit segregation of the soil profile due to 

podzolization, indicating that soil mixing on steep slopes in the analysis area is a significant 

pedoturbation mechanism.

Soil texture generally reflects the textural characteristics of the parent material. Table 81 provides a 

general summary of the texture and drainage characteristics of mineral soils developed from the bedrock 

and glacial units occurring on sloped areas in the project area. Soil drainage is inversely related to forest 

productivity, with very poorly-drained sites supporting scrub forests, while deep, well-drained mineral 

soils support the high-volume timber stands.

Table 81. Soil texture and drainage related to parent material

Parent Material Typical soil texture Soil drainage

Metasedimentary rocks

Silt loam derived from finegrained shale; sandy loam 

derived from coarse-grained 

sandstone

Poorly-drained when derived from finegrained shale; moderately well- to welldrained when derived from coarsegrained sandstone

Metamorphic rocks Sandy loam containing 

dispersed mica grains

Moderately well-drained to welldrained; locally poorly-drained

Granitic intrusive rocks Sandy loam Moderately well-drained to welldrained; locally poorly-drained

Late Pleistocene lodgement till Loam and silt loam Poorly-drained

Late Pleistocene ablation till Sandy loam Moderately well-drained to welldrained; locally poorly-drained

Soil Productivity

Soil productivity is defined as the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, 

plant communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Several factors contribute to the soil productivity 

in the analysis area including soil drainage, soil depth and nutrient cycling, windthrow and pedoturbation, 

mass wasting, and management activities. Soil disturbance associated with management activities can 

significantly impact soil productivity. Soil erosion resulting in sediment delivery to aquatic habitats can 

degrade the habitat for aquatic organisms.

The Forest Service has established soil quality standards for the Alaska Region. Soil quality standards are 

the allowable levels of change that provide reasonable assurance that no long-term losses in inherent 

productivity of the soil will result. The standards require that the 85 percent of the total acreage in the 

activity area be left in a condition of acceptable productivity following land management activities. It is

assumed that if this soil quality standard is satisfied then soil productivity will be maintained. Soil quality 

monitoring data on the Tongass indicates that shovel yarding utilized on slopes less than 35 percent 

gradient, and partial suspension (cable systems) utilized on steeper slopes will generally meet the soil 

quality standards (Landwehr and Nowacki 1999, Landwehr et al. 2012, and Landwehr 2014). Helicopter 

logging with an uneven-aged prescription, implemented using single-tree or group-selection, has a very

low potential for soil disturbance that would result in a loss of soil productivity.

Mass Wasting

Landslides are a dominant erosional process occurring on steep slopes in the analysis area. Site-specific 

conditions, including slope steepness, soil thickness and moisture, and bedrock structure are significant 

factors affecting the stability of a forest slope. The rate and form of precipitation, such as large rainstorm 

or rain-on-snow events, are key factors in triggering slope failures. Mass wasting, a general term that 

includes all forms of downhill soil and rock movement is a natural ecological process operating in the 

analysis area. Landslides clear large trees and open the forest canopy, allowing shade-intolerant seedlings 

to grow. However, landslides also can remove organic and mineral soil horizons and can significantly 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 238

decrease soil productivity. Management activities, including timber harvest and road construction, can 

increase the rate of landslide occurrence above the naturally occurring rate. 

Bedrock and glacial history can significantly impact slope stability in the project area. The metasedimentary and metamorphic rocks exposed on Wrangell Island are prone to rock fall or rock slides 

when bedding planes are oriented parallel to the slope. Shallow soil failures commonly occur on steep 

slopes underlain by granitic intrusive rocks, where exfoliation or tectonic jointing in this rock type can 

contribute to rock fall and landslides on steep slopes. Ground water perching on the impermeable 

lodgement till reduces the shear strength of the overlying saturated soil, resulting in destabilization of the 

soil layer. Debris flows, associated with high precipitation events, can be initiated by landslides that 

mobilize a highly saturated soil mass.

Swanston (1974) suggests that tree roots can increase the shear strength of the soil mass in the following 

ways: 1) roots anchoring the soil mass into seams and fractures in the parent material; 2) roots providing a 

continuous long fiber adhesive binder to the entire slope soil mass; 3) roots tying the slope together across 

zones of weakness and instability to more stable soil masses; and 4) roots providing downslope support to 

an unstable soil mass through buttressing. Wu’s (1979) results from a study on Prince of Wales Island 

indicate that strength contributed by tree roots is important to the stability of steeper slopes and that loss 

of tree rooting strength following clearcutting can seriously affect slope stability. Ziemer and Swanston 

(1977) indicate that smaller diameter roots lose strength within 2 years after a hemlock or Sitka spruce is 

cut, and the larger diameter roots of these species lose approximately 50 percent of their strength at 10 

years after cutting. Harvest prescriptions that leave a substantial amount of standing timber are expected 

to maintain a high degree of the rooting strength.

An examination of existing landslides on Wrangell Island (Soil Resource Report) found, as expected,

many landslides that initiated on steeper slopes. There was a higher than expected number on the 62 to 87 

percent slopes. These slopes also has the highest number of road related landslides, which partially 

explains the high number.

Harvest on Slopes Greater than 72 percent Gradient

The Forest Plan removed lands with slope gradients of 72 percent or greater from the tentatively suitable 

timber base due to high risk of soil mass movement. However, at the project level, the Forest Supervisor, 

may approve limited timber harvest on slopes steeper than 72 percent on a case-by-case basis based on 

the results of an on-site analysis of slope stability, and an assessment of potential impacts of accelerated 

erosion on downslope and downstream fish habitat, other beneficial uses of water, and other resources. As 

mentioned above, site-specific conditions, including soil thickness, texture, micro topography, and 

bedrock structure, are factors considered in evaluating suitability for harvest. 

Field reconnaissance and a digital elevation model were used to identify lands with a slope gradient 

greater than 72 percent. Based on a GIS evaluation of digital elevation data, there are approximately 

13,114 acres in the project area where the slopes equal or exceed 72 percent.

Road Construction on Slopes Greater than 67 percent Gradient

Forest Plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2016b) provide direction for locating and 

designing roads in a manner to minimize effects on soil and water. Both the Forest Plan and the Alaska 

Forest Practices Act (11ACC95.290) require avoidance of locating road on a slope greater than 67 percent 

or on an unstable slope. Best management practice (BMP) 14.7 identifies methods to minimize the chance 

and extent of road-related mass failures (USDA Forest Service 2006), including the need for a 

geotechnical investigation to generate design parameters. 

Landings 

During implementation of a timber sale offering, landing size, location, and construction specifications 

must be agreed upon by the Forest Service timber sale administrator, and the timber purchaser. Landings 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 239

would be located, designed, and constructed to minimize soil erosion and water quality degradation 

(Region 10 BMP 13.10; FSH 2509.22, 2006). Typical yarder landings vary in size from a wide spot in the 

road for small mobile yarders, to about 0.1 to 0.2 acre for a 90-foot tower yarder. In general, most yarder 

landings would likely be less than 0.1 acre in size. In shovel yarding harvest units, it is likely that those 

roads which access the harvest units would be used as continuous landings, thereby eliminating additional 

landing construction costs. Detrimental soil disturbance from landings is included in the temporary road 

width calculation.

Existing Soil Disturbance

Existing soil disturbances related to past management activities are summarized in table 82. An estimated 

total of 1,365 acres of productive NFS lands have been converted into nonproductive forest land. 

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

Type of disturbance Area of disturbance (acres)

Existing temporary roads 165

Pre-2001 timber harvest1 285

Landslides 102

Existing NFS roads2 680

Existing quarries3 132

Total area of disturbance 1,365

1 – Based on an estimated 5 percent disturbance in harvest units

2 – Not considered a detrimental soil disturbance

3 – Based on 2 acres per quarry

Environmental Consequences

Summary of Effects

Of the four action alternatives, Alternative 5 would have the least impact to the soil resource. Alternative 

4 would construct the most temporary road and has the potential for the greatest amount of logging 

disturbance, and therefore the potential to have the highest impact to the soil resource. The amount of 

detrimental soil disturbances for all alternatives, however, is expected to be within the Alaska Region soil 

quality standards and guidelines. Cumulatively, considering past and foreseeable actions in the project 

area, along with actions proposed by this project, a total of 560 to 740 acres would have detrimental soil 

conditions on NFS lands on Wrangell Island.

Direct and Indirect Effects

All of the action alternatives propose timber harvest and road construction which would result in soil 

disturbance (table 83 and table 84). Harvest units were modified to avoid areas with soil resources 

concerns, additionally harvest methods and prescriptions were planned to reduce the potential for soil 

impacts. Productive forest land lost due to conversion to roads or for rock quarry development is 

considered an irretrievable loss resulting from this project.

Cable yarding is likely to result in more soil disturbance than the helicopter yarding method due to the 

dragging of logs, unless full suspension can be achieved. The use of selective harvesting techniques and 

helicopter logging (with full suspension) is expected to reduce the amount and severity of disturbance. 

Selective logging also allows removal of fewer, or no, trees in areas with slope stability concerns, 

resulting in very little effect to natural conditions. In shovel units with slopes steeper than 35 percent, skid 

trails would be identified in the field, and a rehabilitation plan would be developed prior to harvest. 

Road construction and harvest units have been designed to minimize soil disturbance and avoid alteration 

of inherent slope stability. However, implementation of the project may result in increased landslide 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 240

occurrence. Roads and units with a high risk of slope failure have site-specific design features identified 

in the unit and road cards to reduce the risk of associated impacts. Implementation of these measures is 

expected to result in the amount of soil disturbances for all alternatives to be well within the Alaska 

Region soil quality standards and guidelines. Soil disturbance from logging activities may result in 

erosion and sedimentation of streams when these activities are in close proximity to stream courses, on 

ephemeral flow paths, or on steep slope gradients.

An on-site slope stability review was conducted for proposed harvest units having an area greater than 1 

acre in size, based on slope models, where slopes are greater than 72 percent. Reconnaissance reports 

summarizing on-site analysis have been completed and are filed in the project record. The investigation 

evaluates slope stability, as well as the potential impacts of accelerated erosion on downslope resources. 

Downslope resources included old-growth forest, young-growth forest, NFS road (units 512, 555, 556), 

the State Highway (units 965, 967), private land (unit 526), Long Lake (units 816, 866, 879) and riparian 

management areas (units 562, 569, 665, 658, 667, 804).

Proposed road construction on steep slopes ranges from 0.3 mile in Alternative 5 to 0.4 mile in the other 

action alternatives (Table 84). Landslides may result from blasting during road construction on steep 

slopes or loading slopes with fill material. On-site review of slope stability has been conducted along 

proposed NFS road alignment segments where slopes are greater than 67 percent. Summaries of these onsite reviews are filed in the project record. 

Road construction on fine-textured glacial deposits presents a high risk for slope failure. Two proposed 

roads (50076 and 50062) that are partially underlain by fine-textured soil are included in all action 

alternatives. These areas have a high risk of slope failure and potential for a high amount of sediment 

generation during construction.

Table 83. Estimated acres of detrimental soil disturbance

Disturbance type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Yarding 0 70 65 75 45

Temporary roads 0 54 48 56 36

Landings1 0 19 17 18 13

Rockpit2 0 27 24 26 19

Total acres 0 170 154 175 113

1 – Estimated at 0.6 acre per mile of road constructed or reconstructed

2 – Estimated at 1.0 acre per mile of road constructed

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

Slope description Harvest type Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of harvest on 

slopes >72% Cable/Shovel 45 42 45 39

Helicopter 154 90 108 138

Miles of road on 

slopes >67% n/a 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.26

Alternative 1 – No Action

This alternative is used as a measure to compare the action alternatives with the existing conditions in the 

project area. If selected, no new timber harvest or road construction would take place. The existing small 

timber sale program would continue as planned in the Roadside project. Road management decisions 

would be implemented as planned in the Wrangell Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 241

decision (USDA Forest Service 2007b). There would be no direct or indirect effects to the soil resource 

caused by new management activities. This alternative would not contribute to the cumulative impact to 

the soils resource from past and reasonably foreseeable road construction and logging. Natural 

disturbances, such as landslides, would continue to occur depending largely on rainstorm severity and 

duration.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5

All of action alternatives propose timber harvest and construction of infrastructure to remove timber 

which would result in soil disturbance. All construction of NFS roads, temporary roads and the proposed 

sort yard would require the use of rock quarries. Productive forest land is lost due to conversion to roads 

or for rock pit development; this is considered an irretrievable loss resulting from this project. 

Soil disturbance from logging activities may result in a loss of soil productivity and sedimentation of 

streams in some locations. The disturbances from the proposed harvest are expected to be minor and 

would be limited to the immediate harvest unit. However, erosion and sedimentation are a concern when 

soil disturbances are in close proximity to stream courses or ephemeral flow paths and on steep slopes.

Of the four action alternatives, Alternatives 5 would have the least impact to the soil resource. Alternative 

4 would construct the most temporary road (10.3 miles) thus it has the potential to have the highest 

impact to the soil resource. The amount of detrimental soil disturbances for all alternatives is expected to 

be within the Alaska Region soil quality standards and guidelines.

Increased landslide frequencies can occur when constructing roads and harvesting timber on steep slopes. 

Proposed road construction on steep slopes ranges from 0.26 to 0.47 mile; proposed harvest on steep 

slopes ranges from 132 to 199 acres for the action alternatives (Table 84). These areas have been field 

reviewed and are expected to meet soil quality standards with planned prescription, yarding method and 

site-specific design features as specified on the unit card. Road construction on slopes greater than 67 

percent would have a geotechnical investigation prior to construction.

Excavation for road construction on fine-textured glacial deposits on NFS road 50026 may contribute to 

landslides in the Pat Creek watershed in all action alternatives.

Even with implementation of BMPs and site-specific practices for soil protection on unit and road cards, 

it is expected that the implementation of any of the action alternatives would result in detrimental soil 

disturbance. Based on the analysis the amount of detrimental soil disturbance is expected to be within 

Region 10 Soil Quality Standards.

Soil disturbance 

Alternatives 2 and 4 are similar in the amount of detrimental soil disturbance they would create. 

Alternative 4 is slightly higher followed by Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 5 would result in the least 

amount of detrimental soil disturbance (table 83). Implementation of all alternatives would result in 

detrimental soil conditions within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards.

Harvest on slope gradients greater than 72 percent

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are similar in the amount timber harvest that would occur on steep slopes. 

Alternative 5 is less in part because it harvests fewer acres overall (Table 84). All harvest units with 

slopes over 72 percent gradient have received an on-site review for slope stability as required by the 

Forest Plan. 

Road construction on unstable slopes and slope gradients greater than 67 percent

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are nearly identical in the amount of road that would be constructed on steep 

slopes. Again, Alternative 5 would construct less road on steep slopes (Table 84). Road locations on 

slopes over 67 percent have been reviewed for slope stability, and a slope stability specialist would be 

involved in plan reviews during the design process.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 242

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis area for soils is National Forest System land on Wrangell Island.

Cumulative effects consider the proposed and past actions as described above with those considered 

reasonably foreseeable. Reasonably foreseeable activities expected to occur in the analysis area that may 

affect soil resources include small timber sale projects and future landslides.

It is anticipated that fewer than 10 acres of detrimental soil disturbance would result from these events.

The 1,071 acres to be acquired through the AMHT land exchange will be managed in a natural condition, 

which will protect the soils resource.

Based on the past and foreseeable actions considered in the project area (see Table 5), along with actions 

proposed by this project, a total of 560 to 740 acres would have detrimental soil conditions on NFS lands 

on Wrangell Island. Lands used for the development of infrastructure such as NFS roads are not included 

in this calculation. Detrimental soil disturbances is expected to be well within the Region 10 soil quality 

standards and guidelines.

Design Features

Site-specific practices to avoid soil disturbances are prescribed on unit and road cards. For units using a 

cable yarding method, these include suspension requirements or avoidance of specific locations. In units 

with shovel yarding method practices, include use of slash and cull logs to create a log mat to float the 

equipment; avoid shovel logging on saturated soils and on deep organic soils; restrict shovel operations to 

slope gradients less than 35 percent slopes unless specific travel corridors have been identified in the 

field. If excessive mineral soil disturbance occurs during logging operations (ruts deeper than 12 inches or 

aerial extent greater than 15 percent), yarding should discontinue until an appropriate yarding method is 

assigned.

All helicopter units propose a single-tree selection (STS) harvest method with removal of up to 33 percent 

of the basal area. For units having areas identified for minimal or no tree removal for resource purposes, 

more intensive harvesting may occur in other portions of the unit. 

Road construction on slope gradients greater than 67 percent would have a geotechnical investigation and 

appropriate erosion control measures identified prior to construction.

Monitoring 

The Alaska Region identifies 25 percent as the maximum slope gradient for shovel yarding and 

recommend interdisciplinary review prior to operating on steeper ground. With increasing slope gradient, 

there is typically more soil disturbance from rutting, pulling stumps, and soil displacement. Soil 

disturbance monitoring conducted by Landwehr (2014) has documented an increased amount of 

detrimental soil disturbance when equipment operates on ground exceeding 30 to 35 percent. It is 

recommended that harvest units using shovel yarding on slope gradients greater than 35 percent are

monitored to ensure soil quality standards are met, to provide a better sense of the disturbance that occurs 

with increasing gradient and to assess the effects on site productivity.

Road and units from this project may be included in the sampling pool for the annual Forest Plan 

monitoring. Activities would be reviewed to determine if standards and guidelines are being applied and if 

they are effective at meeting resource objectives. 

Subsistence

Introduction

Subsistence is a broad term applied to many natural resource uses by rural Alaskans. In the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), subsistence is defined (in part) as “the customary 

and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 243

consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation” (ANILCA Sec. 803). The 

continuation of these uses “consistent with sound management principles, and the conservation of healthy 

populations of fish and wildlife” are provided for by ANILCA (Sec. 802). 

Summary

The proposed project area encompasses all of Wrangell Island, within the Wrangell Ranger District of the 

Tongass National Forest. The rural communities most impacted by potential changes to subsistence 

resources would be the residents of Wrangell and Thom’s Place. 

The direct effects from the Wrangell Island Project could affect subsistence uses of deer, black bear, 

marten, wolves, and timber, as well as the collection of firewood, berries and other forest products. Other 

subsistence resources such as marine mammals, salmon, other finfish, otters, waterfowl, mushrooms, and 

marine invertebrates should not be impacted.

The potential foreseeable and cumulative effects from implementing of the proposed action, do not 

present a significant possibility of a significant restriction to subsistence uses of black bear, marten, wolf, 

otter, marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, other finfish, marine invertebrates, timber or the collection of 

firewood, mushrooms, berries and other foods themselves, but access to these resources would be 

affected. A possibility of a restriction may already exist for deer in the long-term, and for all alternatives 

(See the “Sitka Black-tailed Deer” section below). 

Subsistence hearings were held in Wrangell following the release of the DEIS on June 27 and July 27, 

2016.

Affected Environment

Salmon and other finfish, shellfish, marine plants and mammals, wood, terrestrial wildlife including deer 

and other mammals, berries, and timber are all subsistence resources harvested by rural communities in 

Southeast Alaska. From 1987 to 2001, interviews were conducted with 1,064 households in 24 Southeast 

Alaska communities as part of the Forest Plan subsistence administrative studies. Marine resources, 

including fish, mammals, and plants, comprise the majority of subsistence harvests in all communities. 

Over half of the total per capita harvest came from marine resources. 

Eighty-five percent of the households reported harvesting subsistence food [Kruse and Muth 1990 as cited 

in the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997a, p. 3-215)]. Almost one-third of rural 

households obtained at least half of their food from subsistence resources. In 1987, over half of all 

households harvested more than 80 pounds of edible subsistence foods per person. A quarter of 

households harvested more than 250 pounds per person. By weight, fish and marine invertebrates 

accounted for 61 percent of subsistence resource harvests. Deer, other land mammals, and marine 

mammals represented 21, 4, and 3 percent, respectively (USDA Forest Service 1997a, pp. 3-215 to 3-

221). The primary subsistence resource covered by this analysis is deer because it has the potential to be 

the most impacted through proposed project activities.

Analysis Area

Wrangell2

Wrangell is located on the north end of Wrangell Island, near the mouth of the Stikine River, an historic 

trade route to the Canadian interior. According to the 2010 Census, Wrangell had a population of 2,369, 

with Alaska Natives comprising approximately 16 percent of the total (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). 

Wrangell’s population increased between 1970 and 2000, and has fluctuated since 2000. The population 

reached its lowest level in 2006, with an estimated 2,232 residents. Total estimated population was 2,442 

in Wrangell in 2015 (ADOL 2016).

 2 Much of the information in this section is from the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-683 to 3-

687).
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 244

Wrangell began as an important Tlingit site primarily because of its proximity to the Stikine River. 

Wrangell clans held a monopoly of trading rights along the Stikine. In 1811, the Russians began fur 

trading with area Tlingits and built a stockade named Redoubt Saint Dionysius in 1834. In 1867, a 

military post named Fort Wrangell was established as part of the Alaska Territory. The community 

continued to grow because of its strategic location as a fur trading center, and as an outfitter for gold 

prospectors between 1861 and the 1930s (ADF&G 1994; ADCCED 2006).

Wrangell Island residents are known to use the project area more than residents of other communities 

within Southeast Alaska. This opportunity is due to easy access to areas of the Island through the road 

system and by boat. Local subsistence activities include hunting deer, bear, moose, and waterfowl; fishing 

for salmon, halibut, and other finfish; and gathering shellfish and berries and other forest products.

Resources most commonly used include Chinook salmon, halibut, Dungeness crab, deer, and berries, as 

well as firewood and timber.

Wrangell residents mainly harvest deer on Wrangell and the surrounding islands, with the majority of 

harvest occurring in Game Management Unit 3 (GMU 3). Lowell 2013 states in GMU 3, deer populations 

and estimated harvest steadily declined from regulation year 2004 to 2008 (RY04 to RY08). In RY05, the 

estimated unit-wide harvest began to decline annually before reaching a low of 333 deer in RY08. 

Although the unit-wide deer harvest rebounded to 547 in RY09 and 673 in RY10, it declined to 514 in 

RY11. The mean harvest during the past three seasons was 506 deer which is still about 125 deer below 

the previous 10-year mean (RY02 to RY11) (Lowell 2015b). With the possible exception of a few smaller 

islands, GMU 3 deer exist largely at levels well below carrying capacity. 

ADF&G believe declines in pellet group’s densities and estimated unit-wide harvest since RY04 reflect an 

actual decline in the GMU 3 deer populations. Research on forage availability, abundance and food habits 

of predators, and effects of a sympatric moose population on deer is needed to evaluate future 

management direction (Lowell 2015b). Another possible reason for decline is weather-related. Snow 

cover in the local area was well above average during the winters of 2006/2007, 2007/2008, and 

2008/2009, including record breaking snowfall in 2006/2007 (NOAA 2010). According to a 2007 

ADF&G harvest report, there was an increase in hunter days between 1997 and 2000, but the subsequent 

downward trend (between 2000 and 2007) indicates that hunter effort is decreasing and the decreased 

harvest is likely due to decreased effort. 

Deer harvest by Wrangell residents is spread over many wildlife analysis areas (WAAs), but six WAAs 

account for 76 percent of the total (WAAs 1905, 1903, 1901, 1003, 1530 and 1904). Zarembo Island 

(WAA 1905) alone accounted for 39 percent of the annual average deer harvest by Wrangell residents 

from 2004 to 2013 (USDA Forest Service 2016c). The ADF&G reports that in WAA 1903 (Wrangell 

Island), from 1996 to 2013, an average of 69 deer were harvested with the lowest number harvested in 

2002 (29 deer) and highest in 2006 (105 deer). The proposed project area is located within WAA 1903, 

which accounted for approximately 10 percent of the annual harvest of deer for Wrangell residents 

between 1996 and 2001. Deer populations within GMU 3 have historically fluctuated with high and low 

extremes.

Methods Used to Analyze Effects

Abundance and Distribution

Due to their association with old-growth forest habitat, which is the main terrestrial habitat type affected 

by the proposed alternatives, deer were chosen as the “indicator” for potential subsistence resource 

consequences concerning the abundance and distribution of the resources. The community-based 

subsistence analysis focuses largely on deer, which is the largest terrestrial component of subsistence food 

resources, and this is based on the Sitka black-tailed deer effects analysis in the Wrangell Island Project 

Wildlife Resources Report.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 245

For analyzing effects on abundance and distribution the following assumption was made:

• Reductions in deer habitat capability would result in decreased abundance and distribution of deer 

in WAA 1903. As habitat is removed, the land can support fewer deer, which in turn means fewer 

deer available to humans.

Competition and Access

Competition for subsistence resources is a result of factors such as fish and game regulations, mobility, 

the natural distribution of game species, decreases in resource populations as a result of habitat 

reductions, decreases in resource populations as a result of over-harvest, and access provided to rural 

communities in the form of roads, ferries, and commercial air carriers. Competition for the more abundant 

wildlife and fisheries resources near rural communities results from the combination of these factors.

For analyzing effects on competition, the following assumptions were made (USDA Forest Service

1997a, p. 3-226):

• New road construction adjacent to communities with ferry access would result in increased 

competition from outside communities.

• Habitat reductions would result in increased competition if regulations allow sport use to remain 

constant, with the same number of users seeking fewer huntable resources.

• The demand for resources will remain constant or increase slightly as the habitat capability 

remains the same or declines over time.

Environmental Consequences

ANILCA requires that any analysis of project-related effects be completed because changes in access to 

subsistence resources due to project-related activities can affect the level of effort required, time involved, 

and the effectiveness of harvesting these resources. Altered distributions and abundance of subsistence 

resources can effect competition between subsistence and non-subsistence user, as well as competition 

between individual subsistence users.

Sitka Black-tailed Deer

Abundance and Distribution

The abundance and distribution of deer is generally based on assessing the number and location of deer 

available for hunter harvest. The number of deer available to humans or deer habitat capability is 

presented in table 85. Deer habitat capability is modeled by estimating the current population with an 

estimate of high and medium quality foraging habitat which is then applied to a future population 

estimate. The deer habitat capability has decreased by 15 percent in WAA 1903, due to timber harvest 

between 1954 and the present (table 86).

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

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

Deer habitat 

capability (DHC)

Alt 1 - existing

(% remaining)

Alt 2

(% reduction)

Alt 3

(% reduction)

Alt 4

(% reduction)

Alt 5

(% reduction)

Historical (1954) 2,677 -- -- -- --

Current 2,254 -- -- -- --

1 year postimplementation 

2,246

(100)

2,154

(4)

2,193

(3)

2,182

(3)

2,183

(3)

Stem exclusion

(2042)

2,216

(98)

2,074

(8)

2,134

(5)

2,118

(6)

2,118

(6)
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 246

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

land ownerships in WAA 1903

Deer habitat capability 

(DHC)

Existing 

(Alt 1) Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

WAA 1903 (mi2) 210 -- -- -- --

Hunter demand1 (Avg/yr) 69 -- -- -- --

Historical DHC (1954) 2,677 -- -- -- --

Current DHC 2,264 -- -- -- --

DHC and percent of 

historical DHC 1 year

post-implementation

2,246

(84%)

2,154

(81%)

2,193

(82%)

2,182

(82%)

2,183

(82%)

DHC and percent of 

historical DHC at stem

exclusion (2042)

2,216

(83%)

2,074

(78%)

2,134

(80%)

2,118

(79%)

2,118

(79%)

1 – Hunter harvest data from 1991 to 2013 was used to estimate hunter demand (Lowell 2015b)

It is assumed that a deer population at carrying capacity should be able to support a sustainable hunter 

harvest (demand) of approximately 10 percent of the habitat capability while also providing a reasonably 

high level of hunter success in the WAA (USDA Forest Service 1997a, p. 3-674). Habitat capability 

output from the Interagency Deer Model (hereafter referred to as the deer model) has been used as an 

indicator of the ability of an area to support deer populations capable of maintaining human harvest 

demands. The deer model is a linear model and as such has limitations. Although the units of measure for 

the deer model output are in terms of total deer and deer/mi2

, these do not represent actual populations 

(USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-230 and 3-231). Person et al. (1997) clarified that habitat capability of 

at least 18 deer/mi2 is needed to support wolves and deer hunter demand on a sustainable basis where deer 

are the primary prey of wolves.

Table 87. Deer density (deer/mi2) from current condition on NFS lands in WAA 1903

Deer Density Existing/Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 15.3 -- -- -- --

Current 12.8 -- -- -- --

1 year post -

implementation 12.8 12.3 12.5 12.4 12.4

At stem exclusion 

(2042) 12.6 11.8 12.2 12.1 12.1

Table 88. Cumulative change in deer density (deer/mi2) from current condition on all land ownerships in WAA 

1903

Deer Density Existing/Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 12.9 -- -- -- --

Current 10.8 -- -- -- --

1 year postimplementation 10.8 10.4 10.5 10.5 10.5

At stem exclusion 

(2042) 10.6 10.0 10.3 10.2 10.2

Although there would be effects to habitat capability on Wrangell Island and deer density could be 

reduced by as much as 1.0 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion, deer habitat is expected to remain because National 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 247

Forest System lands on Wrangell Island would maintain approximately 96 to 97 percent of habitat 

capability 1 year post-project completion and 92 to 95 percent at stem exclusion.

Competition and Access

Competition for subsistence resources is a result of factors such as fish and game regulations, mobility, 

the natural distribution of game species, decreases in resource populations from habitat reductions, 

decreases in resource populations from over-harvest, and access provided to rural communities in the 

form of roads, ferries, and commercial air carriers. Competition for the more abundant wildlife and 

fisheries resources near rural communities results from the combination of these factors. Habitat 

alternations that reduce carrying capacity, which could in turn reduce deer densities, would also increase 

competition for deer if allowable levels of harvest remain the same. Alternatives resulting in the greatest 

reduction in deer carrying capacity and increase in the road system would be expected to result in the 

greatest likelihood of increasing competition for resources.

Subsistence users typically hunt in traditional areas surrounding their communities. Subsistence users 

access WAA 1903 via by road (motorized and/or on-foot) or by boat. Some hunters may access specific 

areas using more than one form of transportation, but others may favor one form of transportation over 

another, such as a boat over a vehicle (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-428). The primary mode of 

access for harvesting deer in WAA 1903 is by vehicle (e.g., passenger vehicle, ATV, motorcycle). 

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

Measure Existing roads Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles 111.5 94.9 109.9 107.9 108.0 94.9

Density2 (mi/mi2) 0.53 0.45 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.45

1 – Motorized trails are included in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

2 – Wrangell Island is 210 mi2

Roads can affect subsistence both positively and negatively by providing access, dispersing hunting 

pressure, and creating the potential for increased competition. Road systems tend to bring more people 

into an area and can cause an increase in completion. Alternatively, they may give subsistence hunters 

access to previously remote areas and provide a greater opportunity for subsistence harvest, dispersing 

hunting and fishing pressure (USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-418 and 3-419). Table 89 displays the 

current amount of open road in WAA 1903 and how it changes by alternative.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Abundance and Distribution – Current on-going management activities would continue; however, there 

would be indirect effects to deer habitat capability over time in the absence of young-growth management 

as existing harvested stands move into stem exclusion causing a reduction in the abundance of deer. Deer 

habitat capability would not change 1 year post-project completion, but it is expected to be reduced by 2

percent at stem exclusion (2042) (table 85). The ongoing and future pre-commercial thinning of managed 

stands would alleviate the number of acres entering stem exclusion and increase deer forage on Wrangell 

Island. There are 1,250 acres of thinning scheduled over the next 10 years.

Access – No new roads are proposed under Alternative 1, but approximately 23.5 miles of existing roads 

would be closed, leaving approximately 73.7 miles of open NFS road that allows the public to access 

subsistence resources (table 52). Therefore, Alternative 1 would affect access to existing subsistence 

resources on Wrangell Island, including firewood, timber and other forest products. Although there would 

be a decrease in road miles on Wrangell Island, subsistence gatherers would still have access to sufficient 

resources.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 248

Competition – Reduced access to subsistence resources could lead to increased competition. Therefore, 

Alternative 1 could affect competition for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Although there could 

an increase in competition, it is expected that Wrangell and nearby islands would maintain sufficient 

resources.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be an indirect effect to abundance and distribution from Alternative 1, there would 

be cumulative effects when combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. Stands 

entering stem exclusion would continue into the future but be alleviated through thinning. One possible 

benefit of a reasonably foreseeable action is the Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange. The Forest 

Service would gain approximately 1,071 acres. The majority of this land, however, has already been 

harvested and is of little value to this POG-associated species other than as foraging habitat.

Abundance and Distribution – Under Alternative 1, the abundance and distribution of subsistence 

resources would remain as they are; however, a small reduction of deer habitat capability is expected as 

stands move into stem exclusion. Although the no action alternative would create a reduction in deer 

habitat capability, the deer population on Wrangell Island would be sufficient for subsistence hunters.

Access – There would be cumulative effects to access of subsistence resources because 23.5 miles of NFS 

road are scheduled to be closed under this alternative (Table 52); leaving approximately 94.9 miles of 

open roads on all land ownerships on Wrangell Island (Table 89). Any other project that closes additional 

roads would cumulatively affect this project. At this time, no other projects are scheduled to cause 

additional closures. The AMHT land exchange would add approximately 1 mile to the NFS roads, 

however, it is expected to be managed as a decommissioned temporary road and would not increase 

public access to NFS lands for subsistence purposes. Although there would be a net decrease in road miles 

on Wrangell Island under Alternative 1, subsistence gatherers would still have sufficient access to 

resources. Another foreseeable action that would involve road building is the State’s Earl West Cove Area 

timber sale, but because the State closed all roads on the two most recent timber sales within the Wrangell 

Ranger District, it is assumed that these roads would also be closed to public access and provide no new 

access for subsistence uses.

Competition – No cumulative effects to the competition of subsistence resources are expected because

factors such as fish and game regulations, mobility, the natural distribution of game species, decreases in 

resource populations as a result of habitat reductions, and decreases in resource populations as a result of 

over-harvest are not expected to occur under the no action alternative. 

Alternative 2 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Abundance and Distribution - Treatments proposed under Alternative 2 would result in the reduction of 

deep snow deer habitat by 29 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 4 percent from the current 

condition (table 85). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be reduced to 8 percent of the 

existing condition (table 85). Alternative 2 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density of 0.5

deer/mi2 1 year post-project implementation and a 1.0 deer/mi2 reduction at stem exclusion (table 87).

Although there would be effects to deer density and habitat capability, deer habitat would be expected to 

remain because Wrangell Island would maintain approximately 96 percent of habitat capability 1 year 

post-project completion and 92 percent at stem exclusion; and 91 to 99 percent of the different habitat 

types would be maintained.

Access - The construction of approximately 16.8 miles of proposed new road and 4.4 miles of 

reconditioning of closed roads would affect how deer are accessed on the island (table 51). Upon project 

completion, the total mileage of open NFS roads accessible by motorized traffic would be approximately 

100.4, which includes motorized trails (table 52). Therefore, Alternative 2 would have a beneficial impact 

on subsistence users trying to access deer and other subsistence resources including timber and firewood. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 249

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

to harvest firewood from temporary roads, once timber harvest activities are complete.

Competition - Roads can affect subsistence users by providing access, dispersing hunting and fishing 

pressure, or creating the potential for increased competition through road closures. Alternative 2 would 

increase the amount of open roads across the island. Therefore, Alternative 2 is not expected to increase 

competition for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Any improved motorized access from 

temporary roads would be of short duration because all temporary roads would be closed at project 

completion. The removal of primary habitat for subsistence species can also affect competition, however, 

a sufficient amount of habitat is expected to be maintained with the implementation of Alternative 2

through protections provided by medium and small OGRs (31,000 acres), beach and stream buffers 

protected by the conservation strategy matrix (21,000 acres), and inventoried roadless areas (47,000 

acres).

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects from Alternative 2, there would be cumulative effects when 

combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions (Table 5). Activities on Wrangell Island 

that have cumulatively affected deer habitat include: past timber harvest (10,490 acres), road/trail 

construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on lands of 

other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal organizations. Activities 

that have improved habitat include pre-commercial thinning on approximately 4,000 acres since the 

1970s. There are an additional 1,250 acres of thinning planned over the next 10 years. With the AMHT

land exchange the USDA Forest Service is expected to gain approximately 1,071 acres of National Forest 

System lands. However, the majority of this land has been harvested and would provide little habitat 

value other than additional summer forage habitat for Sitka black-talked deer.

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 2 would maintain 81 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at 1 year post-project completion and 78 percent of the original at stem exclusion (table 86) 

Deer density would maintain 10.4 deer/mi2 1 year post-project implementation and 10.0 deer/mi2 at stem 

exclusion (table 88). Alternative 2 would also result in a cumulative reduction of deer habitat by 5 to 34 

percent, based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed project would increase habitat 

fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, when combined with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities. However, deer habitat would be improved in the future through precommercial thinning projects implemented under the Tongass Pre-commercial Thinning program. Despite 

cumulative effects, Wrangell Island would continue to provide habitat for deer, depending on which 

habitat type. Alternative 2 would maintain approximately 66 to 95 percent of historic habitat available to 

deer. Furthermore, Wrangell Island is approximately 134,306 acres in size, of which approximately 

113,000 acres are NFS land. Approximately 31,000 of the NFS acres are protected by medium and small 

OGRs. An additional 21,000 acres are protected by the conservation strategy matrix (beach and stream 

buffers). This equates to nearly half of the NFS acres on Wrangell Island being excluded from timber 

harvest activities, and does not include 47,000 inventoried roadless acres (see table 4 and figure 13).

Access – If Alternative 2 is implemented, cumulative open road miles for motorized use on WAA 1903 

(Wrangell Island) for all landownerships and at all elevations would be 109.9, which is an increase from 

existing operational condition (table 89). Therefore, Alternative 2 would increase access to subsistence 

resources on NFS lands, including timber and firewood. The AMHT land exchange would add 

approximately 1 mile of road to the NFS lands, however, that road is expected to be managed as a 

decommissioned temporary road, and it would not contribute to an increase of public access to NFS lands. 

Another foreseeable action that would involve road building is the State’s Earl West Cove Area timber 

sale, but because the State has closed all roads on its two most recent timber sales within the Wrangell 

Ranger District, it is assumed that roads constructed in the Earl West Cove area would also be closed to 

public access and would provide no new access for subsistence uses.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 250

Competition – Changes in deer abundance and distribution from timber harvest, increased road access to 

resources and the potential increase in hunter demand for deer would all affect competition for deer 

between users. Hunter harvest data from 1991 to 2013 was used to assess hunter demand and deer habitat 

capability was used to estimate the theoretical number of deer available. On Wrangell Island (WAA 

1903), the average hunter harvest is 69 deer/year, and under Alternative 2 hunter harvest of deer on 

Wrangell Island represents approximately 3.1 percent of the modeled deer habitat capability at stem 

exclusion. Hunter success can be expected to decline in areas where demand represents 10 to 20 percent 

of habitat capability. If demand exceeds 20 percent of habitat capability, harvest of deer by hunters may 

be directly (through restriction in seasons and bag limits) or indirectly (through reduced hunter efficiency 

and increased difficulty in obtaining deer relative to historical rates) affected (USDA Forest Service 

1997a, p. 3-537). Therefore, habitat capability in WAA 1903 would continue to be adequate to sustain the 

current levels of deer harvest. Furthermore, increased miles of open road should alleviate the competition 

for subsistence resources across the Island. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Abundance and Distribution - Treatments proposed under Alternative 3 would result in the reduction of 

deep snow deer habitat by 18 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 3 percent from current condition

(table 40). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be further reduced by 5 percent from existing 

condition (table 85). Alternative 3 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density by 0.3

deer/mi2 at project completion and 0.6 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (table 87). Although there would be 

effects to deer density and habitat capability, deer habitat is expected to remain because Wrangell Island 

would still maintain approximately 97 percent of its habitat capability 1 year post-project completion and 

95 percent at stem exclusion; and 95 to 99 percent of the different habitat types would be maintained.

Access - The construction of approximately 15.4 miles of new road and 4.4 miles of reconstruction would 

have an effect how deer are accessed on the island (table 51). At project completion, the amount of open 

National Forest System roads would increase to a total of 98.6 miles, which includes motorized trails

(table 52). Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a beneficial impact on subsistence users trying to access 

deer and other subsistence resources, including timber and firewood. Where there are no safety or 

resource concerns, this alternative would allow for short-term public access to harvest firewood from 

temporary roads, once timber harvest activities are complete.

Competition - Roads can affect subsistence users by providing access, dispersing hunting pressure, or

creating the potential for increased competition through road closures. Alternative 3 would increase the 

amount of open roads across the Island. Therefore, Alternative 3 is not expected to increase competition 

for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Any improved motorized access from temporary roads

would be of short duration because all temporary roads would be closed at project completion. The 

removal of primary habitat for subsistence species can also affect competition, however, Wrangell Island 

would maintain a sufficient amount of habitat if Alternative 3 is implemented.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects from Alternative 3, there would be cumulative effects when 

combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities (Table 5). Activities on Wrangell Island 

that have affected deer habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: past timber harvest (10,490

acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property 

development on lands of other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal 

organizations. Activities that have improved habitat include pre-commercial thinning on approximately 

4,000 acres since the 1970s with an additional 1,250 acres planned over the next 10 years. If the AMHT 

land exchange is approved, Wrangell Island would gain approximately 1,071 acres of National Forest 

System lands. However, the majority of this land has been harvested and would provide little value to this 

POG associated species (Sitka black-tailed deer) other than additional summer forage habitat.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 251

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 3 would maintain 82 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at 1year post-project completion and 80 percent of the original at stem exclusion (table 86). 

Deer density would be maintained at 10.5 deer/mi2 1 year post-project implementation and 10.3 deer/mi2

at stem exclusion (table 88). Alternative 3 would result in a cumulative reduction of deer habitat by 5 to 

33 percent from historical (1954) condition, based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed 

project would increase habitat fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat when 

combined with past present and reasonably foreseeable activities. However, deer habitat would be 

improved in the future through pre-commercial thinning projects implemented under the Tongass Precommercial Thinning program. Despite cumulative effects, Wrangell Island would continue to provide 

habitat for deer, depending on which habitat type. Alternative 3 would maintain approximately 67 to 95

percent of historic habitat available to deer. Furthermore, Wrangell Island is approximately 134,306 acres 

in size, of which 113,000 is NFS land. Approximately 31,000 of the NFS acres are protected by medium 

and small OGRs. An additional 21,000 acres are protected by the conservation strategy matrix (beach and 

stream buffers). This equates to nearly half of the NFS acres on Wrangell Island being excluded from 

timber harvest activities, and does not include 47,000 inventoried roadless acres (see table 4 and figure 

13). 

Access - Cumulative open road miles in WAA 1903 under Alternative 3, for all landownerships and at all 

elevations, would be 142.9, which is an increase from existing operational condition (table 89). Therefore, 

Alternative 3 would have a beneficial effect on subsistence hunters accessing subsistence resources. The 

AMHT land exchange would add approximately 1 mile of road to the NFS lands, however, that road is 

expected to be managed as a decommissioned temporary road, and it would not contribute to an increase 

of public access to NFS lands. Another foreseeable action that would involve road building is the State’s 

Earl West Cove Area timber sale, but because the State has closed all roads on its two most recent timber 

sales within the Wrangell Ranger District, it is assumed that roads constructed in the Earl West Cove area 

would also be closed to public access and would provide no new access for subsistence uses.

Competition - Hunter success would be expected to remain relatively high and deer numbers are not 

expected to significantly change at project completion or at stem exclusion. On Wrangell Island (WAA 

1903), the average hunter harvest is 69 deer/year and under Alternative 3 hunter harvest of deer on 

Wrangell Island represent approximately 3.1 percent of the modeled deer habitat capability. Hunter 

success can be expected to decline in areas where demand represents 10 to 20 percent of habitat 

capability. If demand exceeds 20 percent of habitat capability, harvest of deer by hunters may be directly 

(through restriction in seasons and bag limits) or indirectly (through reduced hunter efficiency and 

increased difficulty in obtaining deer relative to historical rates) affected (USDA Forest Service1997a, p. 

3-537). Furthermore, Alternative 3 would increase the miles of open road across the Island. Therefore, 

Alternative 3 is not expected to increase competition for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Any 

improved motorized access from temporary roads would be of short duration because all temporary roads 

would be closed at project completion. 

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Abundance and Distribution - Treatments proposed under Alternative 4 would result in the reduction of 

deep snow deer habitat by 25 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 3 percent from current condition

(table 40). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be further reduced by 6 percent of existing 

condition (table 85). Alternative 4 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density by 0.4 deer/mi2

at project completion and 0.7 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (table 87). Although there would be effects to 

deer density and capability, deer habitat would be expected to remain because Wrangell Island would still 

maintain approximately 97 percent of habitat capability 1 year post-project completion and 94 percent at 

stem exclusion; and 94 to 99 percent of the different habitat types would be maintained.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 252

Access - The construction of approximately 15.9 miles of proposed new road and 4 miles of 

reconstruction would have an effect on where deer are hunted on the island (table 51). At project 

completion, the mileage of open road on National Forest System lands would increase from the existing 

condition, making the total miles available for public use approximately 98.6, which includes motorized 

trails (table 52). Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a beneficial impact on subsistence users trying to 

access deer and other subsistence resources including timber and firewood. Where there are no safety or 

resource concerns, this alternative would allow for short-term public access to harvest firewood from 

temporary roads, once timber harvest activities are complete.

Competition - Roads can affect subsistence users by providing access, dispersing hunting pressure, or

creating the potential for increased competition through road closures. Alternative 4 would increase the 

amount of open roads across the Island. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not expected to increase competition 

for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Any improved motorized access from temporary roads

would be of short duration because all temporary roads would be closed at project completion. The 

removal of primary habitat for subsistence species can also affect competition, however, Wrangell Island 

is expected to maintain a sufficient amount of habitat if Alternative 4 is implemented.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects from Alternative 4, there would be cumulative effects when 

combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities (Table 5). Activities on Wrangell Island 

that have affected deer habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: past timber harvest (10,490

acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property 

development on lands of other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal 

organizations. Activities that have improved habitat include pre-commercial thinning which has improved 

approximately 4,000 acres since the 1970s, with an additional 1,250 acres planned over the next 10 years. 

If the AMHT land exchange is approved, Wrangell Island would gain approximately 1,071 acres of 

National Forest System lands. However, the majority of this land has been harvested and would provide 

little value to this POG associated species (Sitka black-tailed deer) other than additional summer forage 

habitat.

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 4 would maintain 82 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion and 79 percent of the original deer habitat capability at stem exclusion 

(table 86). Deer density would be reduced to 10.5 deer/mi2 1 year post-project implementation and to 10.2

deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (table 88). Alternative 4 would also result in a cumulative reduction of deer

habitat by 5 to 33 percent, based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed project would increase 

habitat fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat when combined with past present 

and reasonably foreseeable activities. However, deer habitat would be improved in the future through precommercial thinning projects implemented under the Tongass Pre-commercial Thinning program. Despite 

cumulative effects, Wrangell Island would continue to provide habitat for deer. Depending on which 

habitat type, Alternative 4 would maintain approximately 67 to 95 percent of historic habitat available to 

deer. Furthermore, Wrangell Island is approximately 134,306 acres in size, of which 113,000 is NFS land. 

Approximately 31,000 of the NFS acres are protected by medium and small OGRs. An additional 21,000 

acres are protected by the conservation strategy matrix (beach and stream buffers). This equates to nearly 

half of the NFS acres on Wrangell Island being excluded from timber harvest activities, and does not 

include 47,000 inventoried roadless acres (see table 4 and figure 13). 

Access - Cumulative open road miles in WAA 1903 under Alternative 4, for all landownerships and at all 

elevations, would be 108 miles, which is an increase from existing operational condition (table 89).

Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a beneficial effect for subsistence hunters accessing subsistence 

resources. The AMHT land exchange would add approximately 1 mile of road to the NFS lands, however, 

that road is expected to be managed as a decommissioned temporary road, and it would not contribute to 

an increase of public access to NFS lands. Another foreseeable action that would involve road building is 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 253

the State’s Earl West Cove Area timber sale, but because the State has closed all roads on its two most 

recent timber sales within the Wrangell Ranger District, it is assumed that roads constructed in the Earl 

West Cove area would also be closed to public access and would provide no new access for subsistence 

uses.

Competition - Under Alternative 4, hunter success would be expected to remain relatively high and deer 

numbers are not expected to significantly change at project completion or at stem exclusion. On Wrangell 

Island (WAA 1903), the average hunter harvest is 69 deer/year and under Alternative 4, hunter harvest of 

deer on Wrangell Island represents approximately 3.2 percent of the modeled deer habitat capability. 

Hunter success can be expected to decline in areas where demand represents 10 to 20 percent of habitat 

capability. If demand exceeds 20 percent of habitat capability, harvest of deer by hunters may be directly 

(through restriction in seasons and bag limits) or indirectly (through reduced hunter efficiency and 

increased difficulty in obtaining deer relative to historical rates) affected (USDA Forest Service 1997a, p. 

3-537). Furthermore, Alternative 4 would increase the amount of open roads across the Island. Therefore, 

Alternative 4 is not expected to increase competition for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Any 

improved motorized access from temporary roads would be of short duration because all temporary roads 

would be closed at project completion.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Abundance and Distribution - Treatments proposed under Alternative 5 would result in the reduction of 

deep snow deer habitat by 13 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 3 percent from current condition

(table 40). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be further reduced by 6 percent of existing 

condition (table 85). Alternative 5 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density by 0.4 deer/mi2

at project completion and 0.7 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (table 87). Although there would be effects to 

deer density and habitat capability, deer habitat is expected to remain because Wrangell Island would 

maintain approximately 97 percent of habitat capability 1 year post-project completion and 94 percent at 

stem exclusion; and 94 to 99 percent of the different habitat types would be maintained.

Access - The construction of approximately 19.3 miles of proposed and temporary new road would have 

short-term effects on how deer are accessed on the island because at project completion, all proposed new 

and temporary roads would be closed (Table 51). Alternative 5 would also implement the Wrangell 

Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) where an additional 23.5 miles of existing 

open National Forest System roads would be closed to the public (table 52). Therefore, Alternative 5 

would have a negative effect on access to existing subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Although 

open road miles would decrease across Wrangell Island, approximately 73 miles would remain open for 

subsistence users.

Competition - Roads can affect subsistence by providing access, dispersing hunting and fishing pressure, 

and creating the potential for increased competition through road closures. Under this alternative, all new 

NFS and temporary road proposed, in addition to 23.5 miles closed through the ATM, may increase

competition for deer on Wrangell Island. The removal of primary habitat for subsistence species can also 

affect competition but with the implementation of Alternative 5. Although there would be changes to 

habitat, access and possibly competition for subsistence resources Wrangell Island is expected to maintain 

sufficient amount of habitat and roads for subsistence users.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects from Alternative 5, there would be cumulative effects when 

combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable activities. Activities on Wrangell Island that have 

affected deer habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: past timber harvest (10,490 acres), 

road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on 

lands of other ownership and any future timber sales proposed by Federal, State or tribal organizations. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 254

Activities that have improved habitat include pre-commercial thinning which has improved 

approximately 4,000 acres since the 1970s, with an additional 1,250 acres planned over the next 10 years. 

If the AMHT land exchange is approved, Wrangell Island would gain approximately 1,071 acres of 

National Forest System lands. However, the majority of this land has been harvested and would provide 

little value to this POG associated species (Sitka black-tailed deer) other than additional summer forage 

habitat.

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 5 would maintain 82 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at 1 year post-project completion and 79 percent of the original at stem exclusion (table 86). 

Deer density would be maintained at 10.5 deer/mi2 1 year post-project completion and 10.2 deer/mi2 at 

stem exclusion (table 88). Alternative 5 would also result in a cumulative reduction of deer habitat by 5 to

33 percent, based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed project would increase habitat 

fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, but when combined with past present and 

reasonably foreseeable activities. However, deer habitat would be improved in the future through precommercial thinning projects implemented under the Tongass Pre-commercial Thinning program. Despite 

cumulative effects, Wrangell Island would continue to provide habitat for deer. Depending on which 

habitat type, Alternative 5 would maintain approximately 67 to 95 percent of historic habitat available to 

deer. Furthermore, Wrangell Island is approximately 134,306 acres in size, of which 113,000 is NFS land. 

Approximately 31,000 of the NFS acres are protected by medium and small OGRs. An additional 21,000 

acres are protected by the conservation strategy matrix (beach and stream buffers). This equates to nearly 

half of the NFS acres on Wrangell Island being excluded from timber harvest activities, and does not 

include 47,000 inventoried roadless acres. The effects from Alternative 5 may not be as severe because 

habitat would be maintained and approximately 77 percent of the proposed harvest method is single-tree

selection (STS) where approximately 67 percent or more of the stands pre-treatment basal area would 

remain.

Access - Cumulative open road miles in WAA 1903 under Alternative 5 for all landownerships and all 

elevations would be 94.9 miles, which is a decrease from existing operational condition (table 89). 

Therefore, Alternative 5 would have a negative effect for subsistence hunters trying to access subsistence 

resources. Although open road miles would decrease across Wrangell Island, there would be sufficient 

open roads for subsistence users to access resources. The AMHT land exchange would add approximately 

1 mile of road to the NFS lands, however, that road is expected to be managed as a decommissioned 

temporary road, and it would not contribute to an increase of public access to NFS lands. Another 

foreseeable action that would involve road building is the State’s Earl West Cove Area timber sale, but 

because the State has closed all roads on its two most recent timber sales within the Wrangell Ranger 

District, it is assumed that roads constructed in the Earl West Cove area would also be closed to public 

access and would provide no new access for subsistence uses.

Competition - Alternative 5, hunter success would be expected to remain relatively high and deer numbers 

are not expected to significantly change at project completion or at stem exclusion. On Wrangell Island 

(WAA 1903), the average hunter harvest is 69 deer/year and under Alternative 5, hunter harvest of deer on 

Wrangell Island represent approximately 3.3 percent of the modeled deer habitat capability at stem 

exclusion. Hunter success can be expected to decline in areas where demand represents 10 to 20 percent 

of habitat capability. If demand exceeds 20 percent of habitat capability, harvest of deer by hunters may 

be directly (through restriction in seasons and bag limits) or indirectly (through reduced hunter efficiency 

and increased difficulty in obtaining deer relative to historical rates) effected (USDA Forest Service 

1997a, p. 3-537). Although, Alternative 5 would decrease the amount of open roads on Wrangell Island, is 

not expected to significantly increase competition for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. Any 

improved motorized access from temporary roads would be of short duration because all temporary roads 

would be closed at project completion.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 255

Other Subsistence Resources

None of the Wrangell Island Project alternatives would present “a significant possibility of a significant 

restriction” of subsistence uses for most subsistence resources (black bear, marten, wolf, otter, timber as 

well as the collection of firewood, berries, marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, mushrooms, and other 

finfish). These resources are briefly discussed below.

All Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The Wrangell Island Project would have no measurable effect on the abundance and distribution of, 

access to, or competition for marine invertebrates, salmon, other finfish, waterfowl, furbearers, and 

species that utilize estuary, riparian, or coastal habitats. The risk of project-related impacts to these 

resources from timber harvest would be unmeasurable because of Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA)

stream buffers, Forest Plan beach and estuary, riparian, inventoried roadless areas, and old-growth reserve 

strategy standards and guidelines. There would be some minor impacts to some species such as bear, 

wolves and marten through the reduction of habitat which are discussed below. 

Abundance and Distribution - Under all action alternatives, POG habitat would be reduced which could 

have a minor effect on abundance and distribution because of increased habitat fragmentation. The 

proposed project would authorize harvest of 39 to 56 MMBF of timber on approximately 3,000 to 4,800 

acres. Although this project would cause a reduction in habitat it would not significantly affect the harvest 

of subsistence resources. For more information see Wrangell Island Wildlife Report.

Access – New proposed roads or roads closed through the Wrangell Island Project activities would not 

significantly affect how subsistence resources are accessed. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would increase access 

on the Island by 25 to 27 miles through new road construction and conversion to motorized trails, where 

Alternative 1 and 5 would reduce access by closing approximately 23.5 miles. This would change the 

Forest Service Access Travel Management Plan for Wrangell Island. Although there are proposed 

reductions in the miles of road for some alternatives, subsistence users would still have access. Increased 

access to the Island would have a beneficial effect on subsistence users by opening up new areas to 

subsistence resources.

Competition – It is assumed through road closures and reduction of habitat that competition for 

subsistence resources may increase but be alleviated by access to new areas. POG habitat) would be 

reduced by the action alternatives for some species such as bear, wolves and marten but this reduction 

should be minimal and not negatively affect competition for these species. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would 

increase the miles of open road on the Island and by doing so, spread out the hunting and trapping 

pressure. Road closures in Alternatives 1 and 5 could create an increase in hunting and trapping 

competition in some areas. Although competition may increase under some alternatives, there would still 

be a sufficient population of subsistence species to sustain subsistence users across Wrangell Island.

Cumulative Effects 

The Wrangell Island Project would have no measurable effect to the abundance or distribution of, access 

to, or competition for marine invertebrates, salmon, other finfish, waterfowl, furbearers, and species that 

utilize estuary, riparian, or coastal habitats. Therefore, the project would make no contribution to 

cumulative effects to these species. Exceptions are the bear, wolves, and marten which would have minor 

affects through the reductions in POG habitat and/or increased road densities and related effects 

associated with increased human access under all alternatives (see the species-specific discussions in the 

Wildlife Resource Report). Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest projects would contribute to these 

effects. Because there would be direct/indirect effects to abundance and distribution, competition and 

access from all action alternatives, there would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present, 

or reasonably foreseeable activities. Activities on Wrangell Island that have affected potential goshawk 

habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: past timber harvest (10,490 acres), road/trail 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 256

construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles) and property development on lands of 

other ownership. Activities that have improved habitat include pre-commercial thinning on approximately 

4,000 acres since the 1970s, with an additional 1,250 acres of thinning planned over the next 10 years. 

One possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange (Consolidated Appropriations Act 2017). National 

Forest System lands would acquire approximately 1,071 acres. The majority of the land has been 

harvested and is of little value to POG-associated species, but may provide an abundance of berries.

Abundance and Distribution - The Wrangell Island Project would result in temporary increases in the 

abundance and distribution of food plants, and temporary increases in access to food plants, personal use 

timber and freshwater fish. Present and foreseeable timber harvest from Federal, State or AMHT land

(through increases in early seral forest) would contribute to these effects. Past timber harvest from Federal

(6,800 acres), State and AMHT lands has altered the distribution of some species through changes in the 

distribution of habitat types and road development. Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvests and 

associated road construction, as well as other development, would contribute to these effects. Therefore, 

the Wrangell Island Project, in conjunction with past, present and foreseeable actions, may further alter 

the abundance or distribution of some important subsistence species such as bears, wolves and marten 

because of habitat loss and fragmentation.

Access - New roads associated with the Wrangell Island Project, together with any resulting from other 

projects, would improve access and reduce competition for resources. Alternatives 1 and 5, which would 

implement road closures from the ATM would reduce access to subsistence resources over the long-term.

Although approximately 23.5 miles of road could be closed under Alternative 1 and approximately 37 

miles under Alternative 5, there would be an overall negligible impact to access for subsistence resources, 

island-wide. The AMHT land exchange would add approximately 1 mile of road to the NFS lands, 

however, that road is expected to be managed as a decommissioned temporary road, and it would not 

contribute to an increase of public access to NFS lands. Another foreseeable action that would involve 

road building is the State’s Earl West Cove Area timber sale, but because the State has closed all roads on 

its two most recent timber sales within the Wrangell Ranger District, it is assumed that roads constructed 

in the Earl West Cove area would also be closed to public access and would provide no new access for 

subsistence uses.

Competition – All alternatives that increase the miles of open road would be expected to alleviate 

competition for all subsistence resources. Alternatives 1 and 5 would likely increase competition for 

subsistence resources due to road closures. Although approximately 23.5 miles of road could be closed it 

would have negligible impact over competition for subsistence resources.

Subsistence Findings

The 2016 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2016c) included a cumulative effects analysis of 

resource development on subsistence resources which concluded that full implementation of the Forest 

Plan “may result in a significant restriction to subsistence use of deer due to the potential effects of 

projects on the abundance and distribution of these resources, and on competition for these resources.”

For this reason, timber sale activities cannot completely avoid cumulative landscape effects to subsistence 

uses. Based on this evaluation and ANILCA definitions of significance, it was determined that, in 

combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions, all of the alternatives (if 

implemented through project-level decisions and actions) may result in a significant restriction of 

subsistence uses of deer, due to potential effects on abundance and distribution, and on competition. This 

determination is based on an anticipated increase in human population, an associated increase in 

subsistence activities, and the capability of the habitat to produce deer. As a result of this finding, the 

Forest Service notified the appropriate State agencies, local communities, the Southeast Alaska Federal 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, and State Fish and Game Advisory Committees and held two 

subsistence hearings in Wrangell following the release of the Wrangell Island Project DEIS.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 257

Wetlands

Introduction

Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater with a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (40 CFR §230.41(a)(1)). 

The Forest Plan directs us to avoid alteration of, or new construction on, wetlands wherever there is a 

practicable alternative, and to consider the functions and values of wetlands as well as other non-wetland 

ecosystems in the project area.

Newly constructed roads and landings are expected to result in permanent impacts to wetlands. 

Harvesting forested wetlands is expected to result in a temporary impact to vegetation structure and 

hydrologic conditions, both would be restored with regrowth of the forest canopy. 

Placement of fill material into wetlands is regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

which is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Section 404(f)(1)(E) of the CWA provides that the construction or maintenance of forest roads for 

silvicultural activities is exempt from regulation under the Act, provided the roads are constructed and 

maintained in accordance with the State-approved best management practices (BMPs) and Federal

baseline provisions to ensure the flow and circulation of navigable waters are not impaired, their reach is 

not reduced, and any adverse effects would be minimized. All roads constructed for this project would be 

constructed and maintained in accordance with BMPs for forest road construction and as such, are 

expected to be exempt from permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Site-specific concerns 

and design features to avoid wetlands are presented in unit and road cards.

Effects Analysis Indicators

The primary impacts to wetlands would be the alteration of wetland habitat by harvesting overstory 

vegetation, and loss of wetlands due to construction of infrastructure, primarily roads, for timber haul.

The environmental component or indicator used to describe potential effects associated with the issues 

and concerns are acres of wetland harvest and aerial extent of wetland loss due to road construction. 

Methods

The wetlands analysis is based on a wetland map generated for the project area. The map was developed 

using the attributes of existing soil map units, and refined using field information (see the Wetland 

Resource Report in the project record). Due to varying accuracy of mapping, lacustrine and riverine 

wetlands are not consistently mapped. For example, the narrow lacustrine wetlands surrounding Pat Lake, 

Thoms Lake and Long Lake are mapped with the adjacent palustrine wetland. Thus, interpretations of 

wetland function and value are based on the interaction with adjacent habitats, as well as the wetland 

type.

The ability to predict actual changes in wetland conditions in response to project activities is limited due 

to the variability of soil and wetland types, soil mapping limitations, wetland characteristics, and their 

response to a variety of factors. Because detailed information about impacts to wetlands from past 

activities on lands of other ownership is not available, these impacts are considered but not quantified. 

Nonetheless, there is sufficient information about the project area to provide a credible evaluation and 

comparison of the magnitude and extent of likely effects of the proposed action and each alternative.

Analysis Area

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to wetlands is the area immediately affected by the 

proposed activities. The cumulative effects analysis area is the portion of Wrangell Island within the 

National Forest boundary because it represents a distinct geographic unit with defined boundaries, and is 

a sufficiently sized geographic area to provide context for the impacts. Effects lasting less than 30 years 

are considered short-term, and effects lasting longer than 30 years are considered long-term.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 258

Affected Environment

Approximately 55 percent of Wrangell Island is mapped as a wetland (73,400 of 134,306 acres). Wetlands 

are located throughout the project area in landscape positions that receive enough water to create hydric 

soil conditions. The majority of these wetlands are palustrine wetlands, with estuarine, lacustrine and 

riverine wetlands making up the other component.

Existing Wetland Disturbances

Community development and forest management are the primary factors that have altered wetlands on 

Wrangell Island and have resulted in loss of wetlands. Infrastructure such as the airport, golf course, rifle 

range, ballfield, residential areas, and roads have impacted many acres of wetlands on the north end of 

Wrangell Island. On the NFS lands, road development is the primary activity that has resulted in the loss 

of wetlands, with recreation development resulting in a minor amount of loss.

Roads in Wetlands

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act directs the Forest Service to avoid alteration of and new construction 

on wetlands wherever there is a practical alternative. Due to the climate, local topographic conditions, and 

the large percentage of wetlands on Wrangell Island, it is usually impossible for projects involving road 

construction to avoid all wetlands. Where wetlands cannot be avoided, State-approved BMPs and the 15 

Federal baseline provisions are used to minimize effects to the wetland. Special consideration is given to 

avoiding high-value wetlands. On NFS lands, Forest Service handbooks provide wetland guidelines. FSH 

2509.22 (on Soil and Water Conservation) details State-approved wetland BMPs and incorporates the 15 

Federal baseline provisions to minimize effects to wetlands. This Forest Service Handbook is also 

consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (AS 41.17).

Approximately 76 miles of existing roads on Wrangell Island are located in wetlands, impacting 

approximately 414 acres. 

Timber Harvest on Wetlands

The potential direct and indirect effects of timber harvest on wetlands include hydrologic modification, 

which affects soil productivity and stand regeneration. Additional effects may include changes to nutrient 

pathways, changes in sediment transport, and changes to species composition and growth due to reduced 

shading. 

Removal of forest canopy affects rainfall interception (Prussian 2008), snow storage, snowmelt, and soil 

moisture. Rainfall intercepted by the soil surface increases following clearcutting (Banner et al. 2005). 

Soils within harvest units tend to become wetter due to decreased canopy interception and 

evapotranspiration, which could result in slower growth or changed species composition. Soil moisture 

conditions remain elevated until evapotranspiration rates of the young stand become equivalent to preharvest conditions, which may take as long as 30 years (Jones 2000). This effect is expected to be 

temporary, and in partially harvested stands, retention of a portion of the canopy cover is expected to 

further minimize the effect of canopy removal on soil moisture. 

Recreation Developments on Wetlands

Recreation developments in wetlands on Wrangell Island consist of trails, cabin, campsite, picnic sites, 

outhouses and parking areas. These developments are constructed on rock fill with similar issues and 

concerns as road construction. Additionally recreation sites have outhouse facilities with potential to 

affect water quality. Board walk trail construction has a minimal impact on wetlands as only the footings

are in wetlands. Trails constructed with rock fill, such as the Thoms Lake trail have impacts more closely 

associated with roads than with board walk trails. 

Even though recreation sites may impact wetlands, they also serve to concentrate the impacts of human 

use, thus reducing the extent of the disturbance. Additionally, the developments provide access for people 

to learn about and appreciate the wetlands. The National Core BMP technical guide (USDA Forest 

Service 2012) provides a set of BMPs which protect soil and water quality from recreation activities; for 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 259

example, Fac-4 Sanitations Systems is a specific practice for Rec-2 Developed Recreation Sites to protect 

wetlands.

Existing recreation sites located primarily in wetlands include the Middle Ridge cabin and trail to Newt 

Lake, the High Country trails and shelters, the Long Lake trail, trailhead and shelter, and the Volunteer 

Loop trail. It is estimated that these developments have converted 30 acres to a non-wetland condition.

Urban and Residential Development on Wetlands

Community development dominates the northern tip of Wrangell Island, with residential developments 

extending down the coastline to McCormack Creek on the west, and to Hermit Creek on the east side of 

the Island. Extensive developments in wetlands include portions of the airport, the baseball fields, rifle 

range, industrial area, golf course, and the downtown commercial area. Development of residential lots 

typically require partially filling wetlands to make them suitable for building. 

Environmental Consequences

All of the action alternatives propose some level of timber harvest and road construction on wetlands. The 

construction of roads and landings is expected to result in the greatest impact to wetlands. The placement 

of fill in wetlands would permanently affect the wetland properties and functions. Road fill placement is 

expected to result in the loss of wetland buried under the fill.

The hydrologic effects of constructing roads are expected to remain within 10 feet of the road prism

(Glaser 1999). Fill material used for road construction may act as a dam and interrupt the hydrologic 

connectivity of wetlands, or excessively drain them by acting as a conduit for water movement. The 

effects of newly-constructed roads and landings on wetland function depend in part, on the landscape 

position of the wetland and the substrate, or soil, within the wetland. Roads crossing mid-slope and lowerslope landscape positions have a greater chance of intercepting and diverting soil and surface water as the 

water moves downslope. Wetlands outside the disturbed road corridor (top of the cutbank to the toe of the 

fill) would retain wetland status but soil drainage may be affected for the first 10 feet beyond the 

disturbed road corridor (Kahklen and Moll 1999).

The type of rock used for newly-constructed roads and landings may also affect wetland conditions. The 

effects are dependent on the chemical makeup of fill material, the amount of fill, its particle size (surface 

area) and the amount of water. The road bed material may subside into the wetlands over time on roads 

with high traffic levels. Resurfacing these roads may result in a gradual widening of the road (Landwehr 

2011, Landwehr and Dillman 2014).

Harvest activities may affect wetland hydrology resulting in increased soil moisture due to tree removal 

and loss of canopy interception and transpiration. The effects are expected to be short-term, lasting until 

vegetation is established. In areas logged using single-tree selection with helicopter yarding, effects on 

wetlands are expected to be minimal. All harvested wetlands are expected to naturally regenerate and 

produce a young-growth stand. Forested wetlands generally have a low site productivity resulting in lowvolume timber stands. Therefore, it is expected that harvest would be concentrated on the higherproductivity areas (uplands) within the unit, and growth on any harvested wetlands would be slower than 

on upland sites.

Measures to minimize disturbance in wetlands due to new road construction is addressed and documented 

on road and unit cards. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are similar in the number of wetland acres affected by road 

construction. Alternative 4 would result in greatest amount of wetland impact with 56 acres of wetland 

loss while Alternative 5 would result in the loss of the fewest acres (39) (Table 90).

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under Alternative 1, no timber harvest or road construction activities would affect wetlands. Wetlands 

impacted by road construction in the past would continue to be impacted. Impacts from existing roads are 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 260

expected to remain in close proximity to the road bed (Glaser 1999, Kahklen and Moll 1999). 

Unmaintained roads would likely recolonize with alder; open roads receiving high traffic may subside 

into the wetlands and gradually widen over time. Forested wetlands that were harvested in the past would

regenerate and recover pre-harvest vegetation and hydrologic conditions.

Common to All Action Alternatives

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would have direct impacts to wetlands from road construction, rock quarries and 

timber harvest on wetlands as displayed in table 90. Indirect impacts include the potential changes to 

hydrology in harvest units and in close proximity to the road bed, these impacts are lessened during 

construction by road layout, and drainage design features.

Fill placed in wetlands for roads, landings, and pullouts would result in a permanent loss of wetland 

acreage in all action alternatives. Development of new rock quarries and landings may impact wetlands. 

Because quarry locations are not known at this time, it is estimated that 1 acre of rock quarry would be 

developed for every mile of road constructed in wetlands. Because landing locations are not known at this 

time, 0.6 acre of wetland impact was estimated for every mile of road to be constructed in wetlands.

Harvest activities are expected to have a minimal, short-term effect (30 years) on wetland hydrologic 

condition. Removal of overstory vegetation is expected to result in increased soil wetness. As younggrowth canopy becomes established, conditions would return to pre-harvest conditions. The impacts 

would be less (negligible) in areas where an uneven-aged prescription, implemented with single-tree or 

group-selection harvest methods, is utilized.

Table 90. Wetland acres impacted by alternative

Impact type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Road construction

(acres) 0 55 50 56 39

Rock quarry 

(acres) 0 11 10 11 8

Landings 0 7 6 7 5

Harvest

(acres) 0 1,554 871 927 1,082

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 1,554 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions. Of these, approximately 544 acres would be clearcut and 1,010 acres would be 

harvested using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method. Proposed road construction activities, 

including quarries and landings in this alternative would result in conversion of 73 acres of wetland to a 

non-wetland condition.

Alternative 3

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 871 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions. Of these, approximately 483 acres would be clearcut and 388 acres would be 

harvested using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method. Single tree or group-selection is

expected to have a little to no effect on wetlands; impacts from clearcuts are as discussed above. 

Construction of roads, quarries and landings would result in conversion of approximately 66 acres of 

wetland to a non-wetland condition.

Alternative 4

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 927 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions. Of these, approximately 552 acres would be clearcut and 375 acres would be 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 261

harvested using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method. Construction of roads, quarries and 

landings would result in conversion of approximately 74 acres of wetland to a non-wetland condition.

Alternative 5

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 1,082 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions. Of these, approximately 359 acres would be clearcut and 723 acres would be 

harvested using the single-tree or group-selection harvest method. Construction of roads, quarries and 

landings would result in conversion of 52 acres of wetland to a non-wetland condition.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is that portion of Wrangell Island within NFS lands on Wrangell 

Island. The cumulative effects analysis considers the incremental effects of the alternatives when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The effects from past actions are included in the 

affected environment; present and reasonably foreseeable projects are described in Table 5. All of these 

projects are independent of the selected alternative; as such they would contribute equally to the 

cumulative effects for each alternative. 

Reasonably foreseeable harvest activities by the State of Alaska, Alaska Mental Health Trust and the 

Forest Service small sale program may result in impacts to wetlands or loss of wetland, with effects 

similar in nature to those described for the Wrangell Island Project.

Ongoing road maintenance projects would likely result in improved wetland conditions. Maintenance 

projects include replacement of culverts, ditching and resurfacing roads, road storage and 

decommissioning of existing roads, and invasive plant control. 

The 1,071 acres to be acquired through the AMHT land exchange will be managed in a natural condition, 

which will protect the wetlands resource.

Summary of Effects 

Road construction to support timber harvest activities poses the greatest impact to wetlands. The effects 

are expected to be limited to within 10 feet of the disturbed road corridor based on Kahklen and Moll 

(1999). Wetlands outside the fill area are expected to remain wetlands. Measures to minimize disturbance 

in wetlands due to new road construction is addressed and documented on road and unit cards. BMPs 

would be implemented in all action alternatives to ensure hydraulic connectivity and beneficial functions 

of wetlands are not impaired. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 are similar in the acreage of wetland affected by 

road construction; however, Alternative 4 would result in greatest amount of wetland impact with 74 acres 

of wetland loss. Alternative 5 presents the least amount of wetland impact from road construction.

Harvest activities would have a short-term effect on wetland hydrology, due to increased soil moisture. In 

areas logged with the STS prescription using helicopter yarding, effects on wetlands habitat may be 

negligible due to the high amount of overstory retained and minimal disturbance of the understory 

vegetation during logging. Alternative 2 would harvest the greatest acreage of wetlands, while Alternative 

3 would harvest the fewest. All harvest areas are expected to naturally regenerate and produce a younggrowth stand.

Design Features

The following design features would be incorporated in any of the action alternatives: 

• Located road construction to avoid wetlands to the extent practicable.

• Use a sufficient number of drainage structures to maintain natural hydrologic conditions.

Minimize ditching to prevent excessive drainage. 

• Use slash to “float” the equipment to minimize wetland disturbance by ground-based logging 

systems.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project FEIS ♦ 262

Findings and Disclosures

Several of the laws and executive orders listed in chapter 1 require project-specific findings or other 

disclosures. These are included in the Record of Decision. They apply to all alternatives considered in 

detail in this FEIS.