United States Department of Agriculture

Wrangell Island Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

Wrangell RangerDistrict R10-MB-634 May 2016
Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

AMHT Alaska Mental Health Trust

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act

APDES Alaska pollutant discharge elimination 

system

APE Area of potential effect

ATM Access and travel management

BMP Best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DEIS Draft environmental impact statement

DHC Deer habitat capability

DPS Distinct population segment

EFH Essential fish habitat

EIS Environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FACTS Forest activities tracking system

FAST-R Financial analysis spreadsheet tool –

Residual value

FEIS Final environmental impact statement

FSH Forest Service handbook

FSM Forest Service manual

GIS Geographic information system

GMU Game management unit

GPS Global positioning system

HUC Hydrologic unit code

IDT Interdisciplinary team

IRA Inventoried roadless area

LUD Land use designation

MBF Thousand board feet

MIS Management indicator species

ML Maintenance level

MMBF Million board feet

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NRIS Natural Resource Information System

OBML Objective maintenance level

OGR Old-growth reserve

OHV Off-highway vehicle

OPML Operational maintenance level

POG Productive old-growth

R10 Region 10 (Alaska Region of the Forest 

Service)

RAW Reasonable assurance of windfirmness

RMA Riparian management area

ROD Record of decision

ROS Recreation opportunity spectrum

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SIO Scenic integrity objective

TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VCU Value comparison unit

VPR Visual priority travel routes and use areas

WAA Wildlife analysis area

Cover Photo: Mill Basin, Wrangell Island. Photograph by Andrea Slusser

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

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

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

contact the Wrangell Ranger District at (907) 874-2323.
United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

Phone: (907) 225-3101

Fax: (907) 228-6215

Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 

File Code: 1950

Date: May 24, 2016

Dear Planning Participant: 

The Tongass National Forest is seeking public input on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS), which proposes timber harvest and road construction on Wrangell Island. The 

Forest Service analyzed four action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Alternative 2 is the 

Forest Service’s Preferred Alternative at this time, which proposes the harvest of 65 million 

board feet (MMBF) on 5,309 acres and the construction of approximately 32 miles of road. All 

of the alternatives, however, will be considered in my decision.

It is important to note that this project is subject to the objection process pursuant to 36 CFR § 

218 (March 27, 2013), and is not being authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

(HFRA). Only individuals or entities (as defined by 36 CFR §218.2) who submit timely and 

specific written comments (as defined by 36 CFR §218.2) about this proposed project or activity 

during this or another public comment period established by the Responsible Official will be 

eligible to file an objection. Other eligibility requirements are defined by 36 CFR §218.25(a)(3) 

and include name, postal address, title of the project, and signature or other verification of 

identity upon request. Individual members of an entity must submit their own individual 

comments in order to have eligibility to object as an individual. A timely submission will be 

determined as outlined in 36 CFR §218.25(a)(4). It is the responsibility of the sender to ensure 

timely receipt of any comments submitted. Comments should be within the scope of the 

proposed action, have a direct relationship to the proposed action, and must include supporting 

reasons for the Responsible Official to consider (36 CFR §218.2). Those who provide specific 

written comments during any designated opportunity for public comment in accordance with36 

CFR §218.5 will be eligible to participate in the objection process. Issues raised in objections 

must be based on previously submitted timely, specific written comments regarding the proposed 

project unless new information arises after designated opportunities (36 CFR §218.7). 

Comments on this proposed project will be accepted for 45 days beginning on the first day after 

the date of publication of the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS in the Federal Register. 

While a public notice will also be placed in the Ketchikan Daily News, and the Wrangell 

Sentinel, the publication date of the NOA in the Federal Register is the exclusive means for 

calculating the 45-day comment period for a proposed action documented in a DEIS. 

The DEIS and associated road and unit cards are available for review online at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831. Paper copies are available at the Wrangell 

Ranger District and the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Ketchikan. If you require a paper copy or a 

DVD, or need additional information, please contact Andrea Slusser, District NEPA Planner, at 

907-874-2323 or send your request to: andreamslusser@fs.fed.us.

Specific written comments may be submitted via e-mail to comments-alaska-tongasswrangell@fs.fed.us with ‘Wrangell Island Project’ in the subject line; or by fax to (907) 874-

7595. Comments may also be mailed to: Robert Dalrymple, District Ranger, Wrangell Ranger 

District, PO Box 51, Wrangell, AK 99929, or hand-delivered to 525 Bennett Street, Wrangell, 

AK. The district office business hours are 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
2

excluding holidays. Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and 

addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action and 

will become a matter of public record. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 

considered, but those submitting anonymous comments will not be eligible for objection per 36 

CFR §218.5.
Wrangell Island Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

United States Department of Agriculture

Lead Agency: 

USDA Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Cooperating Agencies: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

City and Borough of Wrangell

Responsible Official:

Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

Federal Building

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

For Information Contact:

Bob Dalrymple, District Ranger

Wrangell Ranger District

PO Box 51

Wrangell, Alaska 99929

907-874-2323

Andrea Slusser, NEPA Planner

Wrangell Ranger District

PO Box 51

Wrangell, Alaska 99929

Comments will be accepted for 45 days beginning on the first day after the date of publication of the 

DEIS Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. Comments may be mailed to Andrea Slusser 

(address above) or submitted electronically to: comments-alaska-tongass-wrangell@fs.fed.us with 

“Wrangell Island Project” in the subject line.

Abstract

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

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

Alaska. The DEIS describes and analyzes in detail five alternatives that provide differing outputs and 

responses to issues identified for this project. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative.
Page intentionally left blank.
Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ v

Summary 

Introduction

The Tongass National Forest has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to analyze 

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

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

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

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

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

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

resources that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

Location of the Project Area

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

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

National Forest (Figure 1).

Why is this Project Important?

The forest products industry has been a vital part of Wrangell Island and the Southeast Alaska economy 

since the 1950s. Currently, the forest products industry in this area is in decline. Alaska timber mills 

contribute to local and regional economies by providing forest products and employment. The timber 

industry in Southeast Alaska includes large and small timber purchasers, mill operators, and value-added 

wood product industries that are dependent upon a reliable supply of sawtimber in the region and on 

Wrangell Island.

The Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Wrangell Island Project is to respond to the goals and objectives identified by the 2008 

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

Service 2008a) to guide timber management to support the local and regional economies of Southeast 

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

resources.

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

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

market demand annually and for the planning cycle, and to restore and improve forest resources to a 

condition where they provide increased benefits to society (Tongass Timber Reform Act, Section 101).

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

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

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

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

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

management on the Tongass National Forest.

The Proposed Action

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

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

5,309 acres of forested land. The harvest would produce an estimated 65 million board feet (MMBF) of 
Summary

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ vi

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

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

methods. 

The timber harvest would require approximately 17.2 miles of National Forest System (NFS) road 

construction, 5.8 miles of reconditioning and approximately 14.9 miles of temporary road construction. 

Existing road systems and marine access facilities would also be used as needed to transport the timber. 

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

conditions described in the Forest Plan.

Decisions to Be Made

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

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

the Forest Supervisor will make a decision which will include:

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

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

used;

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

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

3. Project design features, mitigation and monitoring requirements.

This decision will be documented in a Record of Decision.

Key Issues

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

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

and internal scoping.

The following key issues are addressed by the action alternatives.

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: Both the timber supply and timber sale economics produced from national forest lands 

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

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

young-growth. 

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat

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

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

Issue 3: Scenic Quality

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

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

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

Issue 4: Access Management

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

for recreation and subsistence and access for agency administrative purposes.
Summary

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ vii

Alternatives Considered in Detail

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

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

provide a reasonable range of alternatives. 

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

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

Alternative 1 – No Action

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

would occur. 

NEPA requires the analysis of a no-action alternative in an environmental impact statement. It provides a 

baseline of existing conditions and trends, enabling the Responsible Official to compare the magnitude of 

environmental effects of the action alternatives. In this alternative, approved forest management activities 

not related to the proposed project can and would continue, and road management would be based on the 

existing access and travel management plan for Wrangell Island.

The Wrangell District Access and Travel Management Plan Decision Notice (ATM) deferred closure of 

some roads until the Wrangell Island EIS was complete (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Alternative 1 

would fully implement the decision and close approximately 24.1 miles of existing National Forest 

System (NFS) road currently open to motorized use and 2.5 miles of existing NFS road would be 

decommissioned. Approximately 73 miles of existing NFS road would then be open for public use for 

motorized vehicles of all types.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

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

to address the purpose and need. The proposed action was published in the Federal Register on October 

27, 2015 and is the alternative designed to provide the greatest supply of timber volume for the timber 

industry, while protecting scenic quality, old growth habitat and connectivity. 

Alternative 2 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest on suitable lands within a 10-year 

period, and new and temporary road construction. New roads would be closed and temporary roads would 

be decommissioned after project activities are completed, as directed by the existing access management 

plan. Alternative 2 would accomplish proposed activities according to Forest Plan land use designations 

and maintain current road management objectives. 

Alternative 2 was designed to harvest timber in the roaded land base in development land use 

designations (LUDs; Timber Production and Modified Landscape). This alternative provides timber 

volume opportunities for both large and small sales outside of the 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(IRAs). This alternative addresses Issue 1 by providing the greatest timber volume from which to offer 

individual timber sales. It also addresses Issue 4 by providing the most motorized public access following 

harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 2 would yield an estimated 65 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 5,309 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 3,528 acres of 

uneven-aged management (partial harvest) and 1,781 acres of even-aged management (clearcut) that 

would be achieved using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The partial harvest 

systems are prescribed primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. 

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

commercially viable young-growth timber is available. 
Summary

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ viii

Roads: Alternative 2 proposes construction of 17.2 miles of new NFS roads and 14.9 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 5.8 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after harvest and firewood gathering are complete. Existing marine access facilities 

would be used.

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

developed through a collaborative process between the interdisciplinary team and the Wrangell Borough. 

The process identified the roads associated with the alternative that are the most important to the 

community for subsistence and recreation access. Then, the roads were evaluated based on resource 

protection needs and future maintenance costs. Alternative 2 proposes closing 16.1 miles of road to public 

motorized use and decommissioning 0.2 mile. Approximately 101 miles of NFS road would be available 

for public motorized access, of which 14 miles would be restricted to motorized trail use. These roads are 

shown on the Alternative 2 Access Management map (Figure 9).

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 is designed to address Issues 2 (Wildlife Habitat), 3 (Scenic Quality) and 4 (Access 

Management). In this alternative, the effect of timber harvest on scenic quality is reduced by applying less 

intensive harvest prescriptions and reducing the number of harvested acres overall. 

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

recreation while incorporating some economic considerations. It addresses Issue 4 by providing additional 

motorized public access following harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 3 would yield an estimated 48.8 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 3,184 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 1,483 acres of 

uneven-aged management (partial harvest) and 1,701 acres of even-aged management (clearcut) that 

would be achieved using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The partial harvest 

systems are primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. No younggrowth harvest is included in this alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 3 proposes construction of 15.8 miles of new NFS roads and 14.1 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 5.8 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after harvest activities and firewood gathering are complete. Existing marine access 

facilities would be used.

Motorized Access Management: Alternative 3 proposes closing 16.3 miles of NFS road to public 

motorized use and decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 99.2 miles of NFS road would then 

be open for public motorized access, 13.8 miles of which would be restricted to motorized trail use. These 

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

Alternative 4

The objective of Alternative 4 is to maximize the economic value of the timber harvest from which to 

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

and other resources as specified in the Forest Plan. This was done by selecting harvest units with least 

logging costs and road construction and minimizing helicopter yarding distances.

Alternative 4 would harvest timber in the roaded land base in development LUDs (Timber Production and 

Modified Landscape) and provide timber volume opportunities for both large and small sales outside of 

the 2001 IRAs using both even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest in proximity to existing roads.

Alternative 4 also addresses Issue 4 by providing motorized public access following harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 4 would yield an estimated 51 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 3,531 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include about 1,738 acres of uneven-
Summary

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ ix

aged management (partial harvest) and about 1,793 acres of even-aged management (clearcut) that would 

be achieved using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The partial harvest systems 

are primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. No young-growth 

harvest is included in this alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 4 proposes construction of 16.1 miles of new NFS roads and 16.2 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 5.4 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after harvest activities and firewood gathering are complete. The existing marine access 

facilities would be used.

Motorized Access Management: Alternative 4 proposes closing 15.7 miles of NFS road to public 

motorized use and decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 100 miles of NFS road would then 

be open for public motorized access, 13.6 miles of which would be restricted to motorized trail use. These 

roads are shown on the Alternative 4 Access Management map (Figure 11). 

Alternative 5

The objective of Alternative 5 is to provide economic timber harvest while maintaining wildlife habitat 

(Issue 2). This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in that it proposes less intensive harvest prescriptions 

than allowable under the Forest Plan and reduces the total acres of treatment. As a result, fewer acres of 

wildlife habitat would be affected, including elevational corridors, low elevation habitat and high-volume

productive old-growth (POG) habitat. It also minimizes harvest activities in areas with higher specific 

wildlife values, such as including 500-foot buffers on streams that have brown bear feeding. This 

alternative also provides wildlife habitat connectivity by proposing fewer roads overall and closing all 

newly constructed roads following timber harvest activities, equating to a lower road density. This 

includes closing temporary roads immediately after harvest. These road closures are intended to reduce 

effects on wolves and would also reduce effects on deer and marten. 

Timber Harvest: Alternative 5 would yield an estimated 42.8 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 3,804 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include about 2,868 acres of unevenaged management and about 936 acres of even-aged management that would be achieved using 

conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. No young-growth harvest is included in this 

alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 5 proposes construction of 12.5 miles of new NFS roads and 9.1 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.1 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after immediately after harvest activities are complete. The existing marine access 

facilities would be used.

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

is complete. Alternative 5 would fully implement the ATM and also close all newly constructed roads. 

Approximately 36.5 miles of road (existing and proposed) would be closed and 2.5 miles of existing road 

decommissioned. Approximately 73 miles of existing NFS road would be available for public use for 

motorized vehicles of all types. These roads are shown on the Alternative 5 Access Management map 

(Figure 12).

Comparison of Alternatives

This section compares outputs and provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative for 

the key issues. 

Estimated Timber Production by Alternative

The following table shows the estimated timber volume that could be available in each alternative. 
Summary

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ x

Table 1. Comparison of estimated timber volume (MMBF) and acres of harvest activity by alternative

Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Total net sawlog volume (MMBF) 0 57.8 43.0 45.4 38

Total utility volume (MMBF) 0 7.3 5.8 5.7 4.8

Total net volume (MMBF) 0 65.1 48.8 51.1 42.8

Uneven-aged harvest (acres) 0 3,528 1,483 1,738 2,868

Even-aged harvest (acres) 0 1,781 1,701 1,793 936

Total acres 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

Proposed Road Construction and Management

All alternatives, except the no action, propose constructing new and temporary roads and reconditioning 

existing roads. Table 2 displays the miles of road construction and reconditioning and the cost of the road 

work. Table 3 shows miles of open and closed road. In all alternatives, all temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after project activities are complete. 

Table 2. Proposed NFS road construction (miles and millions of dollars) on Wrangell Island

Activity Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Proposed NFS road 

construction (miles) 0 17.2 15.8 16.1 12.5

Proposed temporary road 

construction (miles) 0 14.9 14.1 16.2 9.1

Proposed road 

reconditioning (miles) 0 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.1

Estimated total road costs 

(in millions of dollars) 0 5.4 4.8 5.2 3.7

Table 3. Proposed access management (miles) for NFS roads on Wrangell Island

Access Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Open to all vehicles (miles) 73 86.7 85.4 86.3 72.8

Motorized trails (miles) 0 13.99 13.8 13.6 0

Closed to all vehicles 

(miles) 24.1 16.1 16.3 15.7 36.5

Decommissioned (miles) 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5
Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ xi

Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project.................................................................................................................................ii

Draft Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................................................ii

United States Department of Agriculture..............................................................................................ii

Abstract.........................................................................................................................................................ii

Summary.......................................................................................................................................................v

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................v

Location of the Project Area.....................................................................................................................v

Why is this Project Important? .................................................................................................................v

The Project Purpose and Need..................................................................................................................v

The Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................v

Decisions to Be Made..............................................................................................................................vi

Key Issues................................................................................................................................................vi

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

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................................................................vi

Issue 3: Scenic Quality.........................................................................................................................vi

Issue 4: Access Management ...............................................................................................................vi

Alternatives Considered in Detail...........................................................................................................vii

Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................................................vii

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .........................................................................................................vii

Alternative 3.......................................................................................................................................viii

Alternative 4.......................................................................................................................................viii

Alternative 5.........................................................................................................................................ix

Comparison of Alternatives.....................................................................................................................ix

Estimated Timber Production by Alternative.......................................................................................ix

Proposed Road Construction and Management ....................................................................................x

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

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

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

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

Why is this Project Important? .................................................................................................................2

The Project Purpose and Need..................................................................................................................4

The Proposed Action ................................................................................................................................4

Relationship to the Forest Plan.................................................................................................................5

Decisions to be Made ...............................................................................................................................5

Public and Agency Involvement...............................................................................................................5

Stewardship Opportunities .......................................................................................................................6

Roads and Transportation......................................................................................................................6

Recreation .............................................................................................................................................6

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Improvement........................................................................................7

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Management Activities in the Project Area ...............7

Issues ........................................................................................................................................................9

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

Federal and State Permits and Authorizations........................................................................................14

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders .................................................................................................14

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

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

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

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................17
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ xii

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

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

Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................................................17

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .........................................................................................................17

Alternative 3........................................................................................................................................18

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

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

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures for Action Alternatives............................................20

Best Management Practices................................................................................................................20

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

Landings..............................................................................................................................................21

Hazardous Materials ...........................................................................................................................21

Streams................................................................................................................................................21

Silviculture..........................................................................................................................................21

Soils.....................................................................................................................................................21

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................................21

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

Invasive Plants....................................................................................................................................22

Scenery................................................................................................................................................22

Monitoring..............................................................................................................................................22

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

Increase Available Timber Volume through Forest Plan Amendments...............................................23

Increase Wildlife Habitat Protections through Forest Plan Amendments...........................................23

Increase Available Timber Volume by Applying Minimal Nest and Stream Buffer Protections........23

Increase Available Timber Volume by Proposing Harvest over a 30-year Harvest Period .................23

Include Timber Harvest within the 2001 Inventoried Roadless Area .................................................23

Avoid Timber Harvest within the 2003 Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas...............................23

Avoid Timber Harvest in Low Elevation Productive Old-Growth Areas ...........................................24

Avoid Timber Harvest in McCormack Creek and Salamander Creek Watersheds.............................24

No New Road Construction ................................................................................................................24

Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................................24

Estimated Timber Production by Alternative......................................................................................24

Proposed Road Construction and Management ..................................................................................24

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences........................................................55

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................55

Location of the Project Area...................................................................................................................55

Land Divisions....................................................................................................................................55

Analyzing Effects................................................................................................................................58

Available Information .........................................................................................................................61

Other Resources..................................................................................................................................62

Issue 1: Timber Economics and Availability ..........................................................................................62

Summary.............................................................................................................................................62

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................62

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................64

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat.........................................................................................................................67

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................67

Affected Environment.........................................................................................................................70

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................................84

Issue 3: Scenic Quality ......................................................................................................................... 111

Affected Environment....................................................................................................................... 112

Environmental Consequences........................................................................................................... 115
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ xiii

Issue 4: Access Management................................................................................................................138

Affected Environment.......................................................................................................................138

Environmental Consequences...........................................................................................................144

Other Resources Concerns....................................................................................................................152

Air Quality and Climate Change.......................................................................................................152

Aquatics............................................................................................................................................157

Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................178

Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................................184

Plants: Sensitive and Rare.................................................................................................................184

Invasive Plants..................................................................................................................................193

Recreation .........................................................................................................................................198

Silviculture........................................................................................................................................213

Soils...................................................................................................................................................225

Subsistence........................................................................................................................................234

Wetlands............................................................................................................................................246

Findings and Disclosures......................................................................................................................251

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) .........................................................251

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended)..........................................................251

Clean Air Act.....................................................................................................................................251

Clean Water Act ................................................................................................................................251

Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land............................................................252

Endangered Species Act....................................................................................................................252

Environmental Justice/Civil Rights ..................................................................................................252

Executive Order 11593 .....................................................................................................................252

Executive Order 11988 .....................................................................................................................252

Executive Order 11990 .....................................................................................................................252

Executive Order 12962 .....................................................................................................................253

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive plant species)...............................................................................253

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act..............................................................................................253

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act of 1996.....................................................................253

National Forest Management Act .....................................................................................................253

National Historic Preservation Act ...................................................................................................253

Threatened and Endangered Species and Region 10 Sensitive Species............................................254

Tongass Timber Reform Act .............................................................................................................254

USDA Forest Service Transportation; Final Administrative Policy..................................................254

Chapter 4. Lists and References................................................................................................................255

Document Preparers and Contributors..................................................................................................255

Interdisciplinary Team Members ......................................................................................................255

Major Contributors and Reviewers...................................................................................................256

Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement..................................................................256

References Cited...................................................................................................................................257

Appendix A - Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis for the Wrangell Island Project 

FY2016 .....................................................................................................................................................273

Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis of the Wrangell Island Project ..........................273

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................273

How Does the Wrangell Island Project Fit into the Tongass Timber Program and How Does the 

Forest Service decide where Timber Harvest Projects are Located? ................................................273

Why is This Project Occurring in This Location?.............................................................................274

Why is Timber Volume from the Tongass Being Offered for Sale?..................................................274

How Does the Forest Service Develop Forecasts about Future Timber Market Demand?...............278

What Steps Must Be Completed to Prepare a Timber Volume Contract for Offer?..........................282
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ xiv

How Does the Forest Service Maintain an Orderly and Predictable Timber Program?....................283

How Objections and Litigation Affect the Tongass Timber Program...............................................286

How Does The Forest Service Decide Where Timber Harvest Projects Should Be Located?..........287

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................288

References Cited ...............................................................................................................................289

Index .........................................................................................................................................................291

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of estimated timber volume (MMBF) and acres of harvest activity by alternative ....x

Table 2. Proposed NFS road construction (miles and millions of dollars) on Wrangell Island ....................x

Table 3. Proposed access management (miles) for NFS roads on Wrangell Island ......................................x

Table 4. Summary of past, present and reasonably foreseeable management activities within or adjacent to 

the project area......................................................................................................................................7

Table 5. Comparison of estimated timber volume (MMBF) by alternative................................................24

Table 6. Miles of road construction and reconditioning by alternative.......................................................24

Table 7. Estimated total road costs by alternative.......................................................................................25

Table 8. Access management for NFS roads on Wrangell Island ...............................................................25

Table 9. Alternative comparison table.........................................................................................................26

Table 10. Land use designations (LUDs) on Wrangell Island.....................................................................56

Table 11. 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) within the Wrangell Island project area.....................58

Table 12. Alternative comparison of the measures and potential effects of project activities on the timber 

supply and timber sale economics resource........................................................................................66

Table 13. List of threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, management indicator species and 

species of interest analyzed.................................................................................................................67

Table 14. Size-density model habitat classifications...................................................................................71

Table 15. Wrangell Ranger District management indicator species (MIS), preferred habitat and units of 

measure ...............................................................................................................................................72

Table 16. Total acres of POG harvested by VCU or WAA for each alternative (NFS lands only) .............88

Table 17. Total acres of high-value POG harvested by VCU or WAA for each alternative (NFS lands only)

............................................................................................................................................................88

Table 18. Original (1954) POG and high-value POG (HPOG) remaining by VCU and WAA (all land 

ownerships).........................................................................................................................................90

Table 19. Deer density (deer/mi2

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

on NFS lands in WAA 1903................................................................................................................92

Table 20. Road miles (mi) and density (mi/mi2

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

status ...................................................................................................................................................92

Table 21. Cumulative effects to deer density (deer/mi2

) on all land ownerships in WAA 1903 by 

alternative............................................................................................................................................93

Table 22. Cumulative road density below 1,200 feet (mi/mi2

) on all land ownerships by alternative........93

Table 23. Existing acres of POG, HPOG and percent reduction from existing by alternative in WAA 1903 

on NFS land only ................................................................................................................................94

Table 24. Number of historical and current POG patches, compared to POG patches for the action 

alternatives (NFS land only)...............................................................................................................94

Table 25. Acres of marten habitat harvested by alternative ........................................................................95

Table 26. Acres of marten high-volume POG (HPOG) habitat harvested by even and uneven management

............................................................................................................................................................96

Table 27. Acres of historical marten habitat, POG/high-value POG (HPOG), and the percent remaining by 

alternative within WAA 1903 for all land ownerships........................................................................97
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ xv

Table 28. Existing acres of bear habitat (NFS lands) in WAA 1903 and percent reduction from existing 

condition .............................................................................................................................................98

Table 29. Historical and existing acres of bear habitat and percent remaining by alternative (all land 

ownerships) in WAA 1903 ..................................................................................................................99

Table 30. Acres of POG (high, medium, low) and nonproductive lands - historical, existing, amount of 

harvest and percent remaining by alternative (NFS land).................................................................100

Table 31. 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)...........101

Table 32. 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 ...........102

Table 33. Acres of POG harvested within 500 feet of Class I and II streams in WAA 1903 and percent 

reduction by alternative (NFS lands) ................................................................................................103

Table 34. 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.................................................................104

Table 35. 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............................................104

Table 36. Acres of harvest of deep snow, average snow, and non-winter habitat for deer (NFS lands only). 

Also includes percent reduction from current acres..........................................................................105

Table 37. Deer habitat capability (measured as theoretical number of deer) and percent remaining of 

historical (1954). Numbers are for all lands in WAA 1903...............................................................106

Table 38. Deep snow, average snow, and non-winter habitat for deer in WAA 1903 (all lands) and acres 

harvested, percent remaining from historical condition....................................................................106

Table 39. Vancouver goose habitat harvested by alternative and percent reduction from existing condition 

(NFS lands only)...............................................................................................................................107

Table 40. Historical acres of Vancouver goose habitat and percent remaining (all lands) by alternative.107

Table 41. Great blue heron habitat (1,000-foot beach buffer and 100-foot lake buffer) on NFS lands in 

WAA 1903.........................................................................................................................................108

Table 42. Acres and percent reduction of POG habitat (NFS lands only) in WAA 1903 by alternative...109

Table 43. Acres harvested and percentage of remaining historical POG habitat on all lands on Wrangell 

Island in WAA 1903..........................................................................................................................109

Table 44. Acres by distance zone for Wrangell Island .............................................................................. 112

Table 45. Scenic integrity objectives for NFS lands on Wrangell Island.................................................. 114

Table 46. Issues and indicators for the scenery resource .......................................................................... 115

Table 47. Proposed acres of even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest by alternative and scenic integrity 

objective............................................................................................................................................ 117

Table 48. Miles road construction (new) and existing road reconditioning (rec) by alternative and scenic 

integrity objective (SIO) ................................................................................................................... 117

Table 49. Post-1980 young-growth and proposed timber harvest acres by VCU and alternative............. 118

Table 50. Post-1980 young-growth and proposed timber harvest on NFS land by VCU expressed as a 

percentage of cumulative visual disturbance ....................................................................................137

Table 51. Miles of existing roads, Wrangell Island project area...............................................................140

Table 52. Existing bridges, Wrangell Island project area..........................................................................141

Table 53. National Forest System road fish stream culverts on Wrangell Island......................................142

Table 54. Proposed and existing road miles..............................................................................................145

Table 55. Proposed road designations by alternative ................................................................................146

Table 56. Estimated transportation costs and efficiencies.........................................................................146

Table 57. Total carbon storage in the Tongass National Forest.................................................................155

Table 58. Seventh level HUC watersheds analyzed for the proposed Wrangell Island Project ................159

Table 59. Stream classes and stream density within project watersheds ..................................................160

Table 60. Summary of past timber harvest acres in watersheds (not including road clearings) ...............161

Table 61. Existing roads by project area watersheds ................................................................................162
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ xvi

Table 62. Riparian area with historical riparian harvest ...........................................................................167

Table 63. Transient watersheds peak flow percentage change..................................................................168

Table 64. Proposed road construction in project area watersheds (percent increase)...............................169

Table 65. New NFS and temporary road crossings by alternative ............................................................169

Table 66. Alternative 2 harvest acreages by watershed and harvest type .................................................170

Table 67. Alternative 2 proposed roads and stream crossings by watershed ............................................170

Table 68. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 2 ............................171

Table 69. Alternative 3 proposed harvest acres and predicted peak flow changes ...................................171

Table 70. Alternative 3 roads and proposed stream crossings for each watershed ...................................172

Table 71. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 3 ............................172

Table 72. Alternative 4 proposed harvest acres and predicted peakflow changes by watershed ..............173

Table 73. Alternative 4 proposed roads and stream crossings...................................................................173

Table 74. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 4 ............................174

Table 75. Alternative 5 proposed harvest acres and predicted peakflow change ......................................174

Table 76. Alternative 5 proposed roads and stream crossings...................................................................174

Table 77. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 5 ............................175

Table 78. Alaska Region (Region 10) sensitive plant and lichen species known or suspected to occur in 

the Wrangell Island project area........................................................................................................188

Table 79. Estimated acreage of sensitive plant habitat affected by proposed timber harvest and road 

construction under the action alternatives.........................................................................................190

Table 80. Invasive species known to occur on NFS lands in the Wrangell Island project area ................195

Table 81. 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..................197

Table 82. ROS classes on Wrangell Island, listed from least to most developed, and the acres of each ..201

Table 83. Amount of change in ROS class................................................................................................205

Table 84. Rating of the effects from each alternative to the recreation sites and use areas on Wrangell 

Island (does not include roads) .........................................................................................................212

Table 85. Existing condition in the Wrangell Island Project unit pool expressed as percent of unit pool by 

rating .................................................................................................................................................216

Table 86. Acres harvested by silvicultural system and harvest method for each alternative ....................221

Table 87. Acres harvested by silvicultural system and harvest method....................................................223

Table 88. Soil texture and drainage related to parent material..................................................................226

Table 89. Summary of existing soil disturbance related to past management activities...........................228

Table 90. Estimated acres of detrimental soil disturbance........................................................................229

Table 91. Acres of harvest and miles of road construction on steep slopes..............................................230

Table 92. Deer habitat capability (measured from theoretical number of deer) and percent reduction by 

alternative, in WAA 1903 on NFS lands only...................................................................................237

Table 93. Percentage of deer habitat capability from historical (1954) on all land ownerships and total 

deer available to humans, by alternative in WAA 1903 ....................................................................237

Table 94. Deer density (deer/mi2

) from current (2015) condition on NFS lands in WAA 1903 ...............238

Table 95. Cumulative change in deer density (deer/mi2

) from current (2015) condition on all land 

ownerships in WAA 1903 .................................................................................................................238

Table 96. Miles and density of open roads on all land ownerships in WAA 1903....................................238

Table 97. Wetland acres impacted by alternative, including forested wetlands........................................249

Table 98. Tongass volume necessary to supply derived demand for decked log volume and chips, in 

million board feet (MMBF) (Alexander 20081

)................................................................................279

Table 99. 2015 Forest Plan Amendment DEIS Table 3.22-15. Estimated annual maximum timber harvest 

on the Tongass by alternative, Year 1 to 100.....................................................................................280

Table 100. Accomplishments in Gate System and Timber Pools (MMBF)..............................................286
Table of Contents

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ xvii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Wrangell Island Project vicinity map ............................................................................................3

Figure 2. Map showing the location of the 5 land use designations (LUDs) and 8 value comparison units 

(VCUs) in the project area. Map also shows areas of young-growth. ................................................ 11

Figure 3. Alternative 1 - Existing condition of the Wrangell Island project area........................................35

Figure 4. Alternative 2 - Proposed action for the Wrangell Island Project .................................................37

Figure 5. Alternative 3 for the Wrangell Island Project ..............................................................................39

Figure 6. Alternative 4 for the Wrangell Island Project ..............................................................................41

Figure 7. Alternative 5 for the Wrangell Island Project ..............................................................................43

Figure 8. Access Management - Existing road access plan for Wrangell Island ........................................45

Figure 9. Access Management proposed for Alternative 2 .........................................................................47

Figure 10. Access Management proposed for Alternative 3 .......................................................................49

Figure 11. Access Management proposed for Alternative 4 .......................................................................51

Figure 12. Access Management proposed for Alternative 5 .......................................................................53

Figure 13. There are six Inventoried Roadless Areas on Wrangell Island which comprise approximately 

64 percent of the NFS land .................................................................................................................59

Figure 14. Deep snow deer habitat; areas of refugia for deer during times of deep snow..........................81

Figure 15. Current condition (Alternative 1) for Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) ............................ 119

Figure 16. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ..............................121

Figure 17. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 3 ............................................................123

Figure 18. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 4 ............................................................125

Figure 19. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 5 ............................................................127

Figure 20. Visual simulation viewpoint map. The numbers (1, 2 and 3) on the map correspond to the 

photographs on the following pages. ................................................................................................129

Figure 21. Viewpoint #1. Zimovia Highway at Shoemaker Bay looking south. Existing condition. .......131

Figure 22. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #1 ...132

Figure 23. Viewpoint #2. Zimovia Strait looking northeast toward Pats Lake. Existing Condition.........133

Figure 24. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #2. ..134

Figure 25. Viewpoint #3. Eastern Passage looking southward toward Salamander Ridge. Existing 

Condition...........................................................................................................................................135

Figure 26. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #3. ..136

Figure 27. Stream class and 7th level HUC watersheds for Wrangell Island ............................................165

Figure 28. Wrangell Island is divided into 6 recreation areas...................................................................203

Figure 29. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum inventory on Wrangell Island - least impact 

(Alternative 1)...................................................................................................................................207

Figure 30. Recreation opportunity spectrum inventory for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) – highest 

impact (maximum harvest) ...............................................................................................................209

Figure 31. Soil stability and existing landslides on Wrangell Island ........................................................231

Figure 32. Tongass Timber Volume Harvested (MMBF) for Fiscal Years 2001-2015 .............................276

Figure 33. Tongass land suitability classification .....................................................................................287

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 1

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Introduction

The Tongass National Forest has prepared this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to analyze 

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

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

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

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

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

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

resources that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

Document Organization

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

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

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

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

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

information can be found in the project record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

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

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

each of the alternatives on the existing conditions.

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

references and index. 

Appendices: The appendices provide additional information to support analyses presented in the DEIS.

Location of the Project Area

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

Southeast Alaska. The northern end of Wrangell Island lies at the mouth of the Stikine River, which is 

located on the North American mainland, and has long-standing cultural and economic value to the 

community of Wrangell. Wrangell Island is surrounded by Zimovia Strait, Ernest Sound, the Eastern 

Passage and Blake Channel (the latter two are collectively and locally referred to as the “backchannel”). 

Nearby islands include Woronkofski, Etolin and Zarembo. Of Wrangell Island’s 134,306 acres, 112,936 

are Tongass National Forest (Figure 1).

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

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

population increased by 22 percent between 1970 and 1990, and then decreased by 171 residents or 7 

percent between 1990 and 2000. The population decreased by an estimated 79 residents or 3 percent from 
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 2

2000 to 2010. Total estimated population was 2,406 in Wrangell in 2014 (Alaska Department of Labor 

2015). 

Why is this Project Important?

The forest products industry has been a vital part of Wrangell Island and the Southeast Alaska economy 

since the 1950s. Currently, the forest products industry in this area is in decline. Alaska timber mills 

contribute to local and regional economies by providing forest products and employment. The timber 

industry in Southeast Alaska includes large and small timber purchasers, mill operators, and value-added 

wood product industries that are dependent upon a reliable supply of sawtimber in the region and on 

Wrangell Island. 

A project plan for the Wrangell Island Project was completed in April 2009. The Forest Supervisor for the 

Tongass reviewed the project plan and determined that the proposed project is feasible to prepare, that it 

will be consistent with the 2008 Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management (also referred 

to in this document as the “Forest Plan”), and that further investment of resources and capital was 

warranted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

capacity.

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

However, maintaining the existing industry during this time period will be essential.

Consequently, there is a need to transition from old-growth-based harvest to young-growth harvest. The 

rate at which this transition will occur is uncertain. The rate would depend on the level of industry 

investment and, under any scenario, would require a “bridge” strategy to continue to allow some oldgrowth harvest to sustain communities and jobs through this transition. A major step, following the 

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

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

over several years. 

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

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

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

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

can switch to a stable supply of young-growth.
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 3

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

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 4

The Project Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Wrangell Island Project is to respond to the goals and objectives identified by the 2008 

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the “Forest Plan”) to guide timber 

management to support the local and regional economies of Southeast Alaska, while moving the Wrangell 

Island project area towards the desired future condition for all resources. Forest-wide multiple-use goals 

and objectives that apply to this project include, but are not limited to:

Timber—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 2-7):

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

residents.

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

suitable forest lands made available for timber harvest, on an even-flow, long-term sustained 

yield basis and in an economically efficient manner.

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

demand for Tongass National Forest timber, and the market demand for the planning cycle, up to 

a ceiling of [the Forest Plan’s] allowable sale quantity (ASQ), which is 2.67 billion board feet in 

the first decade.

• Objective: Provide 2 to 3 years supply of volume under contract to local mills and then establish 

shelf volume [sale projects with completed NEPA and field work – ready to offer] to maintain 

flexibility and stability in the sale program.

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

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

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

Local and Regional Economy—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 2-5):

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

regional economies of Southeast Alaska.

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

Alaska communities.

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

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

market demand annually and for the planning cycle, and to restore and improve forest resources to a 

condition where they provide increased benefits to society (Tongass Timber Reform Act, Section 101).

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

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

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

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

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

management on the Tongass National Forest.

The Proposed Action

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

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

5,309 acres of forested land. The harvest would produce an estimated 65 million board feet (MMBF) of 

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

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

methods. 
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 5

The timber harvest would require approximately 17.2 miles of National Forest System (NFS) road 

construction, 5.8 miles of reconditioning and approximately 14.9 miles of temporary road construction. 

Existing road systems and marine access facilities would also be used as needed to transport the timber. 

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

conditions described in the Forest Plan. 

Relationship to the Forest Plan

The 2008 Forest Plan for the Tongass National Forest includes Forest-wide multiple-use desired 

conditions, goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and land use designations to guide project planning; 

all of which are incorporated here by reference. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, which apply to all 

or most areas of the Tongass, are designed to protect forest resources and ensure consistent management 

across the Forest. Forest-wide standards and guidelines are used in conjunction with the additional 

standards and guidelines specific to each land use designation (LUD). See Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan for 

standards and guidelines.

The Forest Plan provides LUDs to guide management of NFS lands within the Tongass National Forest. 

Each designation provides direction on the types of activities, practices, and uses to be emphasized in 

specific areas. The Wrangell Island project area includes 20,962 acres of other land ownerships (16 

percent) and five LUDs across 112,936 acres of NFS lands (84 percent of Wrangell Island) (Figure 2). 

Old-growth Habitat and Municipal Watershed LUDs are within the natural setting LUD group and 

therefore not suitable for timber harvest. Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed 

are suitable for timber harvest and are referred to as development LUDs.

Decisions to be Made

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

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

the Forest Supervisor will make a decision which will include:

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

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

used;

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

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

3. Project design features, mitigation and monitoring requirements.

If the decision is made to implement an alternative beyond approximately 5 years, the Forest Supervisor 

will determine if a review of resource effects is needed to supplement the analysis in this document before 

a timber sale contract is released for bid. If a review is needed, it may result in no change to 

implementation, a change analysis in the timber sale contract, or a revision of the EIS in accordance with 

the Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.15 Chapter 18).

Public and Agency Involvement

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

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

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

been listed in the Tongass National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions, and presentations were made to 

interested groups. In response to the District’s public outreach, 77 comment letters have been received 

regarding the project proposal. Detailed information on the public and agency involvement process is

located in the project record.
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 6

Because of the interrelated goals and interests, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Alaska and 

the City and Borough of Wrangell became cooperating agencies on this project. Scoping results were 

shared with the cooperating agencies. Representatives from these agencies attended interdisciplinary team 

meetings, assisted in the development of alternatives and provided input to the analysis.

Stewardship Opportunities

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

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

These opportunities, however, are beyond the scope of this project. It is important to document these ideas 

so they may be assessed in future collaborative planning efforts. Separate NEPA processes, including 

additional public involvement and analysis, would be required before any of these projects could move 

forward. Timber receipts from the Wrangell Island Project or other funding sources would pay for these 

projects. A summary of these stewardship opportunities is presented below. 

Roads and Transportation

• Complete the north Wrangell loop road 

in cooperation with other land owners

• Bridge replacement and maintenance 

• Replace or remove red pipes

• Tyee transmission line road access 

• Fools Inlet ferry terminal

• Improve Pats Lake road and parking and 

picnic sites within Forest Service rightof-way easement

• Manage roadside vegetation to improve 

sight distance and safety

• Surfacing improvements to road 

accessing Middle Ridge recreation cabin 

• Reopen road access south of Pats Cree

Recreation

• Upper Salamander campsite 

improvement

• Surface trail Salamander Ridge 

• Reestablish snowmobile trail in Pats 

Creek Valley 

• Old Hermit / Mt. Extreme snowmobile 

trail access

• Establish and implement vegetation 

management plans around recreation 

sites and key roadside viewpoints 

(includes hazard tree assessment and 

removal)

• Develop new dispersed recreation sites

• Island kayak route, pullout, and shelters, 

including Fools Inlet area

• Water trail concept with pullouts and 

shelters to circumnavigate island

• Earl West Marsh parking and recreation 

enhancement

• Picnic area and shelter at overlook on 

Earl West Cove

• Trail to Earl West marsh and kayak 

launch area

• Build roadside cabin in Thoms Creek 

Crossing campsite area 

• Build roadside cabin at Fools Inlet 

road/trail

• Build cabin near Earl West

• Long Lake pond trail access and 

campsite improvement

• Long Lake and High Bush Lake access 

improvements

• Extend trail along Long Lake with 

shelter

• Improve dock at Long Lake 

• Build a dock at Thoms lake

• Connect the Spur Road 

• Improve Salamander Ridge trail

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

• Extend other existing trails with possible 

forks and loops

• Cross-country ski trail off Pats Creek 

road or McCormack Creek road area

• Create a network system of ATVpreferred roads

• Create trail along ridge and to ridge 

overlooking the mill basin

• Create winter trail system Create trail to 

access national forest land above 
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 7

Sowle’s rock pit Create trail from overgrown road across from Nemo Campsite 

for subsistence berry-picking

• Create trail to fork off Rainbow Falls 

trail after first bridge, to other creek, and 

possibly looping back to main trail

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Improvement

• Pats Lake area restoration with State and 

partners

• Beach fringe thinning

• Pre-commercial thinning

• Invasive plant control

• Re-establish south shore road access to 

Highbush Lake for potential fisheries 

enhancement

• Small-scale fish habitat enhancement 

opportunities on fish streams across the 

island

• Lower Salamander bank protection and 

fish improvements

• Red pipe replacement

• Watershed enhancements

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Management Activities in the Project Area

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

Individual resource analyses in Chapter 3 may reference this list.

Table 4. Summary of past, present and reasonably foreseeable management activities within or adjacent to 

the project area

Project Description Agency/Jurisdiction Resources Potentially 

Affected

Past

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

Scenery

Silviculture

Soils

Subsistence

Wetlands

Wildlife

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

Invasive Plants

Subsistence

Wetlands

Wildlife

The existing Tyee electrical transmission line provides 

power to Wrangell and Petersburg and traverses the 

analysis area for approximately 25.9 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. 

The transmission line and corridor are visually evident 

in the landscape.

Tongass National 

Forest

Scenery

Subsistence

Wetlands

Wildlife
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 8

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 specific timber sales at this time.

Alaska Mental Health 

Trust

Subsistence

Wildlife

Present

The 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 

since an average of 4 microsales a year have been 

sold. Each year an average of 20 net MBF from an 

average of 2 acres have been harvested. The Wrangell 

Island 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/Timber 

Availability

Wetlands

Reasonably foreseeable future

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 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. 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. The Wrangell 

Ranger District knows of no specific land sales at this 

time. 

Alaska Mental Health 

Trust

Wildlife

Invasive Plants

On June 30, 2015, an Agreement to Initiate was signed 

for a land exchange between the Forest Service and 

AMHT for multiple parcels across the Tongass 

National Forest. This proposal includes 1,105 acres of 

AMHT land within the analysis area to be transferred to 

the Forest Service. Newly acquired Forest Service land 

would be managed under the same Land Use 

Designation as adjacent National Forest land, which in 

this case would be the Scenic Viewshed Land Use 

Designation.

Tongass National 

Forest / State of 

Alaska 

Wildlife
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 9

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, 

Department of 

Forestry

Wetlands

Wildlife

Division of Forestry, Five-year Schedule of Timber 

Sales (CY 2015-2019) 

Earl West Cove Area timber sale is located on the 

eastern coast of Wrangell Island. The timber sale is an 

estimated total volume of 12.5 MMBF of harvest 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, 

Department of 

Forestry

Access Management

Aquatics

Silviculture

Timber Economics/Timber 

Availability

Wetlands

Wildlife

State Entitlement Land Selection from the Tongass 

National Forest 

The State of Alaska is still 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

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

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. 

City and Borough of 

Wrangell

Issues

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

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

the Responsible Official and public to understand. After reviewing all public comments and input 

received regarding the Wrangell Island Project, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed a list of issues 

to help shape the environmental analysis. These were categorized as either key issues, or other issues and 

concerns. 
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 10

Key Issues

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

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

and internal scoping. Similar issues are combined where appropriate. Issues can arise from a variety of 

sources, including:

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

• Issues identified for similar projects (past actions),

• Current internal issues,

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

• Issues raised by the public during scoping, and

• Comments from other government agencies.

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

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

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

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

national level direction or analyzed at the Forest Plan level.

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

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

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

resource(s) at the heart of the issue (See Comparison of Alternatives and Table 9 in Chapter 2). 

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

responsive to key issues. 

The following issues are addressed by the action alternatives.

Issue 1: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: Both the timber supply and timber sale economics produced from national forest lands 

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

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

young-growth. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

recreation opportunities to make the project more economically viable. Many commenters also questioned 

the decision to exclude roadless areas from the harvest units, and requested the Forest Service reconsider 

and include these areas for a variety of reasons, including meeting the goals of the originally proposed 10-

year sale and providing more access and economic benefits for the public. 
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 11

Figure 2. Map showing the location of the 5 land use designations (LUDs) and 8 value comparison units (VCUs) in the project area. Map also shows 

areas of young-growth

Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 13

Issue 2: Wildlife Habitat

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

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

Many commenters expressed general concern that logging and road construction reduces biodiversity, 

imperils species, and destroys wildlife habitat. Commenters requested the DEIS discuss impacts to 

wildlife resources expected to occur as a result of the project. 

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

wildlife in the project area, including biodiversity, species imperilment, and habitat. Commenters 

indicated past management activities on Wrangell Island have caused habitat fragmentation, and the 

proposed project presents impacts to wildlife species. Further, commenters suggested the Forest Service 

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

The project area includes low-elevation, old-growth habitat. Concern was noted relative to deer, wolves, 

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

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

due to additional road access were noted. 

Commenters also made mention of impacts to subsistence use of wildlife. Because of its ease of access, 

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

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

past harvest and increasing road density were noted concerns.

Issue 3: Scenic Quality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue 4: Access Management

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

for recreation and subsistence and access for agency administrative purposes.

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

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

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

or lowering maintenance costs.

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

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

competition for subsistence resources. 
1 Purpose and Need for Action

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 14

Federal and State Permits and Authorizations

Prior to implementation of the project, the Forest Service would have to obtain various permits or 

authorizations from other Federal and State agencies. These include the following: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Review of the project’s hazardous materials spill 

prevention control and countermeasure plan

• State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation: Certification of Compliance 

with Alaska Water Quality Standards (401 Certification); Stormwater Discharge Permit/Alaska

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System review under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (402); 

Solid Waste Disposal Permit

• State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources: Authorization for occupancy and use of 

tidelands and submerged lands

• State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources and Alaska Mental Health Trust: Right-of-way 

authorizations

• State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): Concurrence on Forest Service historic property 

determination

• State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game: Concurrence with Title 16 for activities in 

streams such as culvert installation.

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders

Shown below is a partial list of Federal laws and executive orders pertaining to project-specific planning 

and environmental analysis on Federal lands. While most pertain to all Federal lands, some of the laws 

are specific to Alaska. Disclosures and findings required by these laws and orders are contained in chapter 

3 of this DEIS.

• Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) of 1971

• Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980

(as amended)

• Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

of 1940 (as amended)

• Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended); 

• Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (as 

amended)

• Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 

(as amended)

• Executive Order 11593 (Cultural 

Resources)

• Executive Order 11988 (Floodplains)

• Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands)

• Executive Order 12898 (Environmental 

Justice); 

• Executive Order 12962 (Aquatic 

Systems and Recreational Fisheries)

• Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred 

Sites)

• Executive Order 13175 (Government-toGovernment Consultation)

• Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of 

Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation)

• Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 

1996

• Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972; 

• Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as 

amended)

• National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969 (as amended)

• National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) of 1976 (as amended)

• National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA) of 1966 (as amended)

• Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) of 

1990
Purpose and Need for Action 1

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 15

Availability of the Project Record

This analysis used the best information available. The project record contains detailed supporting material 

that documents the NEPA process and analysis from the beginning of the project to the publication of the 

final EIS (FEIS). The project record is available by request from the Wrangell Ranger District office in 

Wrangell, Alaska. 

Map Disclaimer

All map products in this document are reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the Forest 

Service. Geographic Information System (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. Using GIS products 

for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The 

Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS products without notification. 

For more information, contact the Wrangell Ranger District.

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 17

Chapter 2. Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives developed to address the key issues identified in 

Chapter 1. The chapter includes a discussion of how the alternatives were developed, alternatives not 

brought forward for full analysis, and a description of each alternative considered in detail. Also included 

is a discussion of design features, mitigation measures and monitoring common to all action alternatives. 

The chapter concludes with maps of each alternative and an alternative comparison table.

A complete detailed discussion of the environmental effects of the alternatives are presented in Chapter 3 

“Environment and Effects.”

At this time, Alternative 2 is identified as the Preferred Alternative. However, all the alternatives are 

viable and any one of them, or portions of them, could be selected by the Responsible Official.

Alternative Development

The available timber volume within the project area was analyzed in a logging system transportation plan 

which identified a possible pool of timber harvest units. This unit pool was screened for consistency with 

the Forest Plan and for economic feasibility to develop the proposed action. The proposed action was 

presented to the public during scoping to solicit public comment. Those comments were used to identity 

the key issues and alternatives to the proposed action to address those issues. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

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

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

provide a reasonable range of alternatives. 

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

Island Project. Maps of each alternative are located at the end of this chapter.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Alternative 1 is the “no-action” alternative because in this alternative, no proposed activities would occur

(Figure 3). 

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

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

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

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

Travel Management Plan decision (ATM) for Wrangell Island.

The ATM deferred closure of some roads until the Wrangell Island EIS is complete. If Alternative 1 is 

selected, then approximately 24.1 miles of NFS road currently open to motorized use would be closed, 

and 2.5 miles of existing NFS road would be decommissioned. Approximately 73 miles of existing NFS 

road would be open for public use for motorized vehicles of all types. These roads are shown on the 

Alternative 1 Access Management map (Figure 8).

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is the proposed action. The alternative is designed to provide the greatest supply of timber 

volume for the timber industry, while maintaining scenic quality, old growth habitat and habitat 

connectivity as specified in the Forest Plan (Figure 4). 
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 18

Alternative 2 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber harvest on suitable lands within a 10-year 

period, and new and temporary road construction. New roads would be closed and temporary roads would 

be decommissioned after project activities are completed, as directed by the existing access management 

plan. Alternative 2 would accomplish proposed activities according to Forest Plan land use designations 

and maintain current road management objectives.

Alternative 2 is designed to harvest timber in the roaded land base in development land use designations 

(LUDs; Timber Production and Modified Landscape). This alternative provides timber volume 

opportunities for both large and small sales outside of the 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). This 

alternative proposes harvest in the Mill Basin and Thoms areas, as well as harvest adjacent to Long Lake. 

This alternative addresses Issue 1 by providing the greatest timber volume from which to offer individual 

timber sales. It also addresses Issue 4 by providing the most motorized public access following harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 2 would produce an estimated 65 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 5,309 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 3,528 acres of 

uneven-aged management (partial harvest) and 1,781 acres of even-aged management (clearcut) that 

would be achieved using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The partial harvest 

systems are designed to provide visual resource protection but also reduce negative effects to wildlife. No 

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

viable young-growth timber is available. 

Roads: Alternative 2 proposes construction of 17.2 miles of new NFS roads and 14.9 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 5.8 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after harvest and firewood gathering activities are complete. Existing marine access 

facilities at Pats Landing and Earl West could be used.

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

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

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

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

future maintenance costs. Alternative 2 proposes closing 16.1 miles of road to public motorized use and

decommissioning 0.2 mile. Approximately 101 miles of NFS road would be available for public 

motorized access, of which 14 miles would be restricted to motorized trail use. These roads are shown on 

the Alternative 2 Access Management map (Figure 9).

Alternative 3

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

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

access.

Alternative 3 was designed to harvest timber in the roaded land base in development LUDs (Timber 

Production and Modified Landscape) while maintaining scenic quality, old growth habitat and habitat 

connectivity as specified in the Forest Plan. This alternative provides timber volume opportunities for 

both large and small sales outside of the 2001 IRAs. Alternative 3 is designed to address Issues 2 

(Wildlife Habitat), 3 (Scenic Quality) and 4 (Access Management). This alternative avoids harvest in the 

Mill Basin and adjacent to Long Lake. It proposes less harvest in the Fools Inlet area. In this alternative 

the effects of timber harvest on scenic quality are reduced by using more partial harvest prescriptions 

requiring at least two-thirds of the stand to remain, and harvesting fewer acres (Figure 5). Alternative 3 

also maintains wildlife habitat and connectivity (Issue 2), and minimizes impacts to recreation while still 

incorporating some economic harvest opportunities. It addresses Issue 4 by providing additional 

motorized public access following harvest.
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 19

Timber Harvest: Alternative 3 would yield an estimated 48.8 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 3,184 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 1,483 acres of 

uneven-aged management (partial harvest) and 1,701 acres of even-aged management (clearcut) that 

would be achieved using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The partial harvest 

systems are primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. No younggrowth harvest is included in this alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 3 proposes construction of 15.8 miles of new NFS roads and 14.1 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 5.8 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after harvest operations and firewood gathering activities are complete. Existing marine 

access facilities at Pats Landing and Earl West could be used.

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

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

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

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

future maintenance costs. Alternative 3 proposes closing 16.3 miles of road to public motorized use and 

decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 99.2 miles of NFS road would be open for public 

motorized access, 13.8 miles of which would be restricted to motorized trail use. These roads are shown 

on the Alternative 3 Access Management map (Figure 10). 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was designed to harvest timber in the roaded land base in development LUDs (Timber 

Production and Modified Landscape). This alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both 

large and small sales outside of the 2001 IRAs. Alternative 4 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber 

harvest and new and temporary road construction. Alternative 4 also proposes road management 

objectives which define public motorized access.

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

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

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

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

minimizes helicopter harvest in the Mill Basin and Eastern Passage area. It emphasizes even-aged harvest 

over the more costly partial harvest.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 4 would yield an estimated 51 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume from approximately 3,531 acres. Silvicultural prescriptions include approximately 1,738 acres of 

uneven-aged management (partial harvest) and 1,793 acres of even-aged management (clearcut) that 

would be achieved using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter logging systems. The partial harvest 

systems are primarily to provide visual resource protection but also reduce effects to wildlife. No younggrowth harvest is included in this alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 4 proposes construction of 16.1 miles of new NFS roads and 16.2 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 5.4 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

decommissioned after harvest operations and firewood gathering activities are complete. The existing 

marine access facilities at Pats Landing and Earl West could be used.

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

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

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

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

future maintenance costs. Alternative 4 proposes closing 15.7 miles of road to public motorized use and 

decommissioning 0.2 mile of road. Approximately 100 miles of NFS road would be open for public 
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 20

motorized access, 13.6 miles of which would be restricted to motorized trail use. These roads are shown 

on the Alternative 4 Access Management map (Figure 11). 

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 is designed to harvest timber in the roaded land base in development LUDs (Timber 

Production and Modified Landscape). This alternative provides timber volume opportunities for both 

large and small sales outside of the 2001 IRAs. Alternative 5 proposes even-aged and uneven-aged timber 

harvest, and new and temporary road construction. Alternative 5 also proposes road management 

objectives which define public motorized access. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

buffers on streams that have brown bear feeding (Figure 7). This alternative also provides wildlife habitat 

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

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

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

Area and adjacent to Long Lake. It does propose partial harvest in the Mill Basin.

Timber Harvest: Alternative 5 would yield an estimated 42.8 MMBF of old-growth saw/utility timber 

volume. Silvicultural prescriptions include about 2,868 acres of uneven-aged management and about 936 

acres of even-aged management that would be achieved using conventional cable, shovel, and helicopter 

logging systems. No young-growth harvest is included in this alternative. 

Roads: Alternative 5 proposes construction of 12.5 miles of new NFS roads and 9.1 miles of temporary 

roads. It also proposes reconditioning 4.1 miles of existing NFS roads. All temporary roads would be 

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

Pats Landing and Ear West could be used.

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

is complete. Alternative 5 would fully implement the ATM and also close all newly constructed roads. 

Approximately 36.5 miles of road (existing and proposed) would be closed and 2.5 miles of existing road 

decommissioned. Approximately 73 miles of existing NFS road would be available for public use for 

motorized vehicles of all types. These roads are shown on the Alternative 5 Access Management map 

(Figure 12).

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures for Action 

Alternatives

To reduce or avoid the overall impacts of this project, design features have been incorporated into the 

design of the harvest units for all action alternatives based on the application of the Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines and management prescriptions. The intent of these standards and guidelines are to help 

avoid, minimize, or mitigate possible adverse impacts due to project activities. Where applicable, these 

site-specific project design features are identified the unit and road cards. 

Best Management Practices

Best management practices (BMPs) are methods, measures, or practices to directly or indirectly protect 

water quality, and abate or mitigate adverse water quality impacts while meeting other resource goals and 

objectives identified in FSH 2509.22, Region 10 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. They are the 

result of collaboration between the Forest Service and the State of Alaska to identify practices to ensure 
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 21

timber harvest activities minimize soil erosion and protect aquatic habitat to meet the requirements of the 

Clean Water Act. In addition to having the State-approved BMPs in place, the Forest Service issued 

National Core BMPs in 2012 (USDA Forest Service 2012).

BMPs are applied to all management activities including timber harvest and road construction, 

reconditioning, and maintenance.

Marine Access Facilities

The two existing marine access facilities, Pats and Earl West, are available to convey logs for saltwater 

transportation. These facilities are permitted with the State of Alaska and are designed to minimize 

impacts to soil, water quality and marine environment.

Landings

Landings constructed for conventional or helicopter logging systems would be located adjacent to 

existing or newly constructed roads near harvest locations. Existing landings and rock quarries would be 

used for log storage and helicopter support services when available.

Hazardous Materials

All activities with potential for spills of hazardous materials would comply with all State and federal 

permits and laws regarding hazardous materials storage and cleanup. They would also comply with BMPs 

and other requirements such as a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan. 

Streams

To retain stream channel characteristics, including riparian vegetation, all Class I and II streams will be 

protected by a no-harvest riparian management area (RMA) buffer of 100 feet or more, consistent with 

the Forest Plan. Class III streams would be protected by a minimum width, no-cut riparian buffer with a 

reasonable assurance of windfirmness. Class IV streams would be protected by directional timber felling 

and yarding away from stream channel. Units considered to have increased risk of windthrow would have 

reasonable assurance of windfirmness (RAW) buffers using RAW guidelines.

Silviculture

Where specified, uneven-aged management (partial harvest) would harvest a maximum of one-third of the

stand leaving a minimum of two-thirds to provide for visual, wildlife, and other resource values.

Soils 

Effects to soils would be minimized by utilizing existing roads, landings, and rock quarries for timber 

harvest activities when present. Where feasible, temporary road locations would take advantage of 

topography and minimize disruption of natural drainage patterns. Areas identified for shovel yarding 

generally only occur on slopes less than 35 percent and outside riparian management areas. Slash or 

puncheon mats would be used to protect soils by distributing the weight of the mechanized harvest 

equipment in exposed soil areas. The leading end of logs would be suspended during yarding operations, 

reducing the footprint of logs as they are dragged on the soil surface. Helicopter yarding would provide 

full suspension of logs. Fine organic matter and coarse woody debris from cull logs and breakage of tops 

and branches remaining on the ground would provide nutrient recycling.

Wildlife

In units designated for uneven-aged management (partial harvest), a maximum of one-third of the stand 

would be removed leaving a minimum of two-thirds to provide for wildlife values. The remaining stand 

would provide cavity-nesting habitat and other habitat values. In areas of uneven-aged management, 

standing snags, and snags felled for safety reasons, would be retained to provide wildlife habitat. Known 
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 22

or suspected heron and raptor nests would be protected. A 600-foot wind firm buffer would be applied 

around all active nests. A minimum of 100 acres of POG would be provided around all known goshawk 

nests.

Wetlands

Roads would be located to avoid wetlands to the extent practicable. Drainage structures would be used in 

sufficient number to maintain natural hydrologic conditions. Ditching would be minimized to prevent 

excessive drainage. Ground-based logging systems would be required to place slash to float the 

equipment to minimize wetland disturbance. 

Invasive Plants

Require rock material from existing quarries for construction of new roads to be inspected and 

documented as being free of any high priority invasive species; require erosion control material (such as 

seed mixes) to be certified as “weed-free” for the local ecosystem; and maintain crushed rock stockpiles 

and active quarries in a “weed-free” condition. 

Develop a comprehensive invasive plant management approach prior to project implementation; focused 

treatment of small weed infestations in high value habitats (e.g., riparian, beach fringe) tiering to the 2013 

Wrangell-Petersburg Integrated Weed Management Plan; eradication or control of any newly introduced 

invasive plant species prior to closing roads; prioritization for eradication or control of invasive plants on 

roads with low levels of existing infestations that act as a vector to high country or estuarine habitat.

Scenery

To reduce the visual impact of harvest areas, and where safety and operability concerns would permit, 

vertical structure containing both live and dead trees would be retained within timber harvest units and 

along unit edges to emulate natural openings. Unit boundaries would be shaped and feathered to reduce 

any unnaturally-shaped edges and hard edges that appear as artificial features on the landscape.

Monitoring

Project monitoring is used to determine how well specific design features or mitigation work in 

minimizing adverse impacts and achieving resource objectives. The project would be monitored during 

implementation to ensure that timber sale contract provisions and resource protection measures are 

followed.

Harvest activities would be monitored as part of timber sale contract administration. Harvest units would 

be monitored with regeneration surveys to ensure adequate stand regeneration as required by the National 

Forest Management Act. Project harvest units and roads would be incorporated into the Forest-wide BMP 

monitoring program. 

Invasive plants would be monitored within the project area as part of the Wrangell District Invasive Plant 

management program.

Soil disturbance would be monitored through the Forest-wide BMP and soils monitoring programs.

Bark accumulation at the Pats Landing and Earl West marine access facilities would be monitored as 

required by the Alaska APDES Permit AKG700000 – Log Transfer Facilities in Alaska.

Project activities would be monitored to ensure that any previously unknown historical or cultural sites 

that are found would be adequately protected.

Roads and bridges associated with the project would be monitored as part of the Forest-wide roads and 

bridges inspection program. 
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 23

Goshawk nests and suspected nest areas would continue to be monitored in accordance with Forest 

goshawk monitoring protocols.

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study

Several alternatives were considered during the planning process, but eliminated from detailed study in 

the EIS. They are described briefly below, along with rationale for not considering them further.

Increase Available Timber Volume through Forest Plan Amendments

This alternative proposed project-specific Forest Plan amendments to modify some small and medium 

old-growth reserve (OGR) boundaries in order to provide a larger supply of timber volume. Removal of 

some visual priority route designations were also proposed to provide more timber volume.

This alternative was eliminated from further study because the Forest Plan itself is undergoing an 

amendment process. The uncertainty of the outcome of the Forest Plan Amendment warranted eliminating 

this alternative from consideration at this time.

Increase Wildlife Habitat Protections through Forest Plan Amendments

This alternative proposed project-specific Forest Plan amendments to allow for the modification of some 

small and medium OGR boundaries to provide additional wildlife habitat protections in these areas. Areas 

within deer winter range habitat were either excluded from harvest or only allowed for partial harvest. 

This alternative was eliminated from further study because the Forest Plan itself is undergoing an 

amendment process. The uncertainty of the outcome of the Forest Plan Amendment warranted eliminating 

this alternative from consideration at this time.

Increase Available Timber Volume by Applying Minimal Nest and Stream Buffer 

Protections

This alternative proposed to minimize the nest protections by applying a standard horizontal radius, 

regardless of productive old-growth (POG), and to minimize stream buffer protections for Class III 

streams by applying only in areas required to meet best management practices. Based on the results of a 

preliminary analysis, this alternative was eliminated because it would not result in an amount of 

additional timber volume that would justify the minimal buffer protections and would not meet the intent 

of the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.

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

Period

This alternative proposed to provide timber volume from the project over a 30-year period by scheduling 

harvest units that would not currently meet the “green up” guidelines until adjacent harvested stands had 

adequately regenerated. This alternative was eliminated because the additional timber volume is similarly

represented in other alternatives and there is too much uncertainty to warrant a 30-year project.

Include Timber Harvest within the 2001 Inventoried Roadless Area

This alternative proposed harvest within the 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas to meet the initial project 

plan of 150 to 200 MMBF of timber volume. This alternative was eliminated because timber harvest and 

road construction are not allowed within the 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). 

Avoid Timber Harvest within the 2003 Forest Plan Inventoried Roadless Areas

This alternative proposed to exclude timber harvest and road construction within the 2003 Inventoried 

Roadless Areas identified in the Forest Plan, as well as in the 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas. Excluding 
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 24

timber harvest from both types of roadless areas would not provide sufficient timber volume to meet the 

purpose and need of this project.

Avoid Timber Harvest in Low Elevation Productive Old-Growth Areas

This alternative proposed to avoid timber harvest and road construction within areas of POG below 1,500-

, 1,000-, and 800-foot elevations to protect wildlife habitat and winter range concerns. This alternative 

was eliminated because it is represented in the Alternative 5 design to reduce the effect of timber harvest 

on wildlife habitat.

Avoid Timber Harvest in McCormack Creek and Salamander Creek Watersheds

This alternative proposed to exclude timber harvest or road construction within McCormack Creek and 

Salamander Creek basins to address watershed-related concerns about the level of previous harvest in 

these areas. This alternative was eliminated because it is already addressed in Alternative 1.

No New Road Construction 

This alternative proposed timber harvest with no new road construction which would limit timber harvest 

to only helicopter yarding or to areas along existing roads. This alternative was eliminated because it 

would not meet the purpose and need for timber volume, would be highly uneconomical due to the high 

costs of helicopter yarding, and because it does not develop any road infrastructure to support the

transition to a future of sustainable young-growth management.

Comparison of Alternatives 

This section compares outputs and provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative for

the key issues. 

Estimated Timber Production by Alternative

The following table shows the estimated timber volume that could be available in each alternative. 

Estimates are based on silvicultural stand examination information used with the Region 10 FAST-R 

timber sale financial efficiency model, version October 21, 2013, and are provided for comparison and 

analysis purposes only.

Table 5. Comparison of estimated timber volume (MMBF) by alternative

Volume (MMBF) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Total net sawlog volume 0 57.8 43.0 45.4 38

Total utility volume 0 7.3 5.8 5.7 4.8

Total net volume (sawlog and utility) 0 65.1 48.8 51.1 42.8

Proposed Road Construction and Management

All alternatives, except the no action, propose constructing new and temporary roads and reconditioning 

existing roads. Table 6 displays the miles of road construction and reconditioning. Table 7 shows annual 

maintenance costs by alternative. All values are rounded estimates.

Table 6. Miles of road construction and reconditioning by alternative

Activity (miles) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

New NFS construction 0 17.2 15.8 16.1 12.5

New temporary construction 0 14.9 14.1 16.2 9.1

Reconditioning of existing road 0 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.1
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 25

Table 7. Estimated total road costs by alternative

Cost Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Total (in millions of dollars) 0 5.4 4.8 5.2 3.7

The Wrangell Island Project proposes road management objectives which designate motorized vehicle use 

by vehicle class for each alternative. Alternatives 1 and 5 close all newly constructed roads to motorized 

access following completion of timber harvest activities. The remaining roads would be managed under 

the ATM decision. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose road management objectives which would designate some roads to 

remain open to motorized vehicle use after the completion of timber harvest operations. See Table 8 for 

access management under each alternative.

Table 8. Access management for NFS roads on Wrangell Island

Access Management Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Open to all vehicles

Total new 0 5 3.8 4.7 0

Total existing 73 81.6 81.6 81.6 72.8

Total (new and existing) 73 86.7 85.4 86.3 72.8

Motorized trails

Total new 0 5.97 5.7 5.6 0

Total existing 0 8.02 8.0 8.0 0

Total (new and existing) 0 13.99 13.8 13.6 0

Closed to all vehicles

Total new 0 6.1 6.2 5.8 12.5

Total existing 24.1 10.0 10.1 10.0 24.1

Total (new and existing) 24.1 16.1 16.3 15.7 36.5

Decommissioned

Total new 0 0 0 0 0

Total existing 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5

Total (new and existing) 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 26

Table 9. Alternative comparison table

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

Basic Project Data

Timber Harvest (acres) 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

Volume of Harvest 

(MMBF) 0 65.1 48.8 51.1 42.8

Road construction 

(miles) (NFS road and 

temporary road 

construction)

0 32.1 29.9 35.4 21.6

ISSUE 1: TIMBER 

SUPPLY AND 

ECONOMICS

Timber Volume Millions of Board Feet 

(MMBF)

Sawtimber 0 57.8 43.0 45.4 38.0

Utility 0 7.3 5.8 5.7 4.8

Total Net Volume 0 65.1 48.8 51.1 42.8

Logging System (Acres)

Cable 0 1,200 1,158 1,207 640

Shovel 0 703 587 720 411

Helicopter 0 3,408 1,440 1,604 2,754

Total Harvest Acres 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

Timber Volume by 

Species 

Millions of Board Feet 

(MMBF)

Sitka spruce 0 12,711 9,465 9,979 8,360

Hemlock 0 30,044 22,373 23,587 19,760

Western Redcedar 0 4,622 3,442 3,629 3,040

Alaska Yellow-cedar 0 10,400 7,744 8,165 6,840
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 27

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

Financial Efficiency 

Analysis 

(Current Region 10 

Export Policy)

Indicated Advertised 

Rate ($/thousand board 

feet (MBF) net 

removed)

0 ($57.25) ($54.21) ($61.36) ($91.80)

Road Construction and 

Reconditioning Costs 

($/MBF net removed)

$0.00 $83.20 $99.20 $102.40 $86.90

Logging Costs ($/MBF 

net removed) 0 $318.22 $293.38 $297.99 $349.36

Financial Efficiency 

Analysis

(Domestic 

Processing)

Indicated Advertised 

Rate ($/MBF net 

removed)

0 ($218.66) ($215.62) ($237.08) ($253.21)

Road Construction and 

Reconditioning Costs 

($/MBF net removed)

0 $83.20 $99.20 $102.40 $86.90

Logging Costs ($/MBF 

net removed) 0 $318.22 $293.38 $297.99 $349.36

Employment Number of Annualized 

Jobs Supported

Total Jobs Estimated 

(Current Region 10 

Policy)

0 252 187 198 166

Domestic Processing 0 303 226 238 199
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 28

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

ISSUE 2: WILDLIFE 

HABITAT 

Cumulative Change to 

Deer Habitat on All 

Land Ownerships1

Percent Change From 

Historical Acres

Historical Deep Snow 

Winter Habitat (highproductivity old-growth 

(POG) ≤800’ elevation 

on all aspects)

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

Historical Average 

Winter Habitat (POG 

≤1,500’ elevation)

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

Historical Non-winter 

Habitat (all habitats 

except older younggrowth)

-4% -4% -4% -4% -4%

Cumulative Change in 

Deer Model Habitat 

Capability (DHC) on 

All Land Ownerships

Percent Change in 

DHC Since 1954 

(at stem exclusion)

1954 Theoretical 

Number of Deer -17.0% -23.0% -21.0% -22.0% -21.0%

Effects on Wolves on 

All Land Ownerships

Deer Density 

Compared to 

Historical Deer 

Density (deer/mi2 at 

stem exclusion)

Deer Model Deer 

Density – 1954 1 10.6 9.9 10.2 10.1 10.1

Cumulative Change to 

Bear Habitat on All 

Land Ownerships

Percent Change From 

Historical Habitat

Historical POG Within 

500 feet of Class I fish 

streams

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

 1 WAA 1903 is 134,307 acres, and current models show a deer density of 12.9 deer/mi2; 2
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 29

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

Cumulative Change to 

American Marten

Habitat on All Land 

Ownerships

Historical Winter Habitat 

– High-volume POG < 

1500’ in elevation

-34% -41% -39% -40% -39%

Historical Year-round 

Habitat – POG -18% -25% -23% -23% -23%

Cumulative Change to 

Goshawk Habitat on 

All Land Ownerships2

Historical Nesting 

Habitat by VCU – HighVolume POG 

0-49% 0-60% 0-59% 0-60% 0-59%

Historical Foraging 

Habitat by VCU – All 

POG

0-29% 0-42% 0-40% 0-40% 0-40%

Cumulative Changes 

to High-Volume POG 

and all POG Habitat 

on All Land 

Ownerships

High-volume POG -32.0% -40.0% -37.0% -37.0% -38.0%

All POG -15.0% -22.0% -19.0% -20.0% -20.0%

ISSUE 3: SCENERY

Scenic Integrity 

Objectives met? yes yes yes yes yes

Relative impact on 

scenery as a result of 

proposed timber 

harvest (lowest=1 to 

highest=5)

1 5 4 3 2

 2 VCUs 4750, 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 4900, 5040 and 5050
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 30

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

Relative impact on 

scenery as a result of 

proposed road 

construction (lowest=1 

to highest=5)

1 4 3 5 2

ISSUE 4: 

TRANSPORTATION

Proposed NFS road 

construction (miles) 0 17.2 15.8 16.1 12.5

Proposed temporary 

road construction 

(miles)

0 14.9 14.1 16.2 9.1

Proposed road 

reconditioning (miles) 0 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.1

Estimated total road 

costs (in millions of 

dollars)

0 5.4 4.8 5.2 3.7

Road Designations, 

following 

Implementation (total, 

island-wide)

Open to all vehicles 

(miles) 73 86.7 85.4 86.3 72.8

Motorized trails (miles) 0 13.99 13.8 13.6 0

Closed to all vehicles 

(miles) 24.1 16.1 16.3 15.7 36.5

Decommissioned 

(miles) 2.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.5

Temporary roads to be 

kept open for firewood 

gathering following 

harvest operations 

(approx. 2-3 years)

no yes yes yes no
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 31

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

AIR QUALITY AND 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Contribute to the effects 

of or current rate of 

climate change, 

including carbon 

sequestration?

not likely slight increase slight increase slight increase slight increase

Contribute to Yellowcedar decline? not likely not likely not likely not likely not likely

Contribute to 

greenhouse gas 

emissions?

no yes yes yes yes

AQUATICS

Proposed NFS Road 

stream crossings

Class I 0 2 2 2 1

Class II 0 8 3 8 4

Class III 0 14 12 13 9

Proposed Temporary 

Road stream 

crossings

Class I 0 0 0 0 0

Class II 0 2 1 2 1

Class III 0 12 11 13 10

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

Impacts to cultural 

resources? no no no no no

ENVIRONMENTAL 

JUSTICE

Disproportionately high 

or adverse impact on 

low-income or minority 

populations who use 

the project area?

no no no no no
2 Alternatives

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 32

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

INVENTORIED 

ROADLESS AREAS

Impact on inventoried 

roadless areas? no no no no no

PLANTS: SENSITIVE 

AND RARE

Relative ranking of 

impact to sensitive plant 

habitat (1 = most 

impact, 5 = least 

impact)

5 1 3 2 4

Relative ranking of 

impact to rare plant 

habitat (1 = most 

impact, 5 = least 

impact)

5 1 (tie) 3 1 (tie) 4

PLANTS: INVASIVE

Risk of spread of 

invasive species Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low

RECREATION

Relative ranking of 

impacts to inventoried 

recreation sites on 

Wrangell Island, not 

including roads (1 = 

most impact, 5 = least 

impact)

5 1 3 2 4

SILVICULTURE

Silvicultural system 

and harvest method

Even-aged 

Management -

Clearcut

Cable/Shovel 0 1,713 1,633 1,725 868

Clearcut with reserves

Cable/Shovel 0 68 68 68 68
Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 33

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

Helicopter 0 0 0 0 0

Uneven-aged 

Management – Single 

tree selection (up to 

33% removal)

Shovel 0 119 43 134 114

Helicopter 0 3,410 1,440 1,604 2,754

Total Acres Harvested 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

SOILS

Estimated acres of 

detrimental soil 

disturbance

Yarding 0 95 84 91 54

Temporary Roads 0 81 77 88 49

Total acres 0 175 160 180 103

Estimated harvest 

acres and road miles 

on steep slopes

Acres of harvest 

proposed on slopes 

over 72% (all harvest 

methods)

0 268 211 253 177

Miles of proposed road 

on slopes >67% 0 1.3 1.3 1.4 0.6

WETLANDS

Acres of wetlands 

impacted by activity

Harvest (acres) 0 1,740 1,056 1,112 1,230

Rock quarry (acres) 0 14 13 15 9

Road construction 

(acres) 0 78 74 81 51

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 35

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

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 37

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

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 39

Figure 5. Alternative 3 for the Wrangell Island Project

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 41

Figure 6. Alternative 4 for the Wrangell Island Project

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 43

Figure 7. Alternative 5 for the Wrangell Island Project 

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 45

Figure 8. Access Management - Existing road access plan for Wrangell Island

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 47

Figure 9. Access Management proposed for Alternative 2

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 49

Figure 10. Access Management proposed for Alternative 3

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 51

Figure 11. Access Management proposed for Alternative 4

Alternatives 2

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 53

Figure 12. Access Management proposed for Alternative 5

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 55

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 DEIS focuses 

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

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

wildlife and subsistence use, and scenic integrity and recreational opportunities. 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.

Location of 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. 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.

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.

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 10 summarizes the management emphasis, and provides the amount and 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 56

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

detailed description of each LUD. 

Table 10. Land use designations (LUDs) on Wrangell Island

Land Use 

Designation Description Acres

Percentage of NFS 

land on Wrangell 

Island

Percentage of LUD 

within 2001 

Roadless 

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% 67%

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% 18%

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% 74%

Old-growth 

Habitat

Emphasis is to maintain areas of oldgrowth 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% 58%
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 57

Land Use 

Designation Description Acres

Percentage of NFS 

land on Wrangell 

Island

Percentage of LUD 

within 2001 

Roadless 

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% 100%

Total National Forest system lands 113,110

Total lands of other ownership 21,196

134,306

Project Area

The project area is Wrangell Island itself and is about 134,306 acres in size. Included in the project area

are 21,196 acres of non-NFS lands. Non-NFS lands on Wrangell Island are owned by the State of Alaska,

Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority, Sealaska (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, 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.

Wildlife Analysis Areas

Wildlife analysis areas (WAAs) are land divisions used by the ADF&G for wildlife analysis. The Wrangell 

Island project area as WAA 1903.

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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 58

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The 2001 Roadless Rule identified Inventoried Roadless Areas on National Forest lands and how they are 

to be managed. Timber harvest and road construction are not allowed within Roadless Areas. The 2001 

Roadless Rule supersedes direction provided in the Forest Plan LUDs. 

As a result of the rule, 67 percent of the land designated by the Forest Plan for timber production within 

the Wrangell Island project area, or 43 percent of all development LUD acres, are no longer available for 

timber harvest. Table 11 summarizes the percentage of acres within 2001 Roadless for each LUD on 

Wrangell Island. 

There are six Inventoried Roadless Areas on Wrangell Island which comprise approximately 64 percent of 

the NFS land (71,926 acres) (Table 11 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. 

Table 11. 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 (The Nature Conservancy). 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 biogeographical province 

called Wrangell/Etolin/Zarembo Complex. Effects of management at this scale are analyzed as part of the 

Forest Plan.

Ecological Subsection

Ecological subsections are mid-sized terrestrial ecosystems (10 to 1,000 mi2

). They further refine

biogeographical provinces based on similar ecological characteristics (e.g., landforms, streams,

vegetation, soils, and wetlands). The Wrangell Island project area is located within the Zimovia Strait 

Complex, Eastern Passage Complex and Berg Bay Complex Ecological Subsections (Nowacki et al. 2001).

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 detail. In this document, this is covered in the Chapter 3 "environmental

consequences" section, 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 59

Figure 13. There are six Inventoried Roadless Areas on Wrangell Island which comprise approximately 64 percent of the NFS land

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 61

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 DEIS. 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 future 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.

Interrelated projects are defined for the Wrangell Island Project DEIS 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 future actions. See

Appendix A – Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis of the Wrangell Island Project.

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.

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

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

field inventories.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

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

preparation of a DEIS 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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 62

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 DEIS.

Resources Likely to be Unaffected

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

briefly 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

• 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.

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

The NFS lands on Wrangell Island are used for the analysis area for determining the volume and the 

financial efficiency analysis since that is where the timber is located that the Forest Service can offer.

Although timber from other land ownerships within the area may influence the value of the timber to 

some purchasers or units from other projects may be included in an offering, this is 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 63

or decrease. For cumulative effects analysis, the analysis area is considered to be the Tongass National 

Forest for the volume involved in the timber program.

The cumulative effects analysis area considers the entire Tongass National Forest, which combines the 

timber from various projects into the Tongass timber program. Contracts are usually not restricted to 

bidders from a distinct geographic area and can include bidders outside of Southeast Alaska, including 

bidders from the rest of the United States. In addition to the timber managed by the Forest Service, the 

State of Alaska (Division of Forestry (DOF), Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority (AMHTA), 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. Loss of even a small number of jobs can force families to 

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

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

Pats Creek drainage and just south of Earl West. 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 detailed information regarding past 

harvest in the analysis area, see the Silviculture and Vegetation Resource Report.) Currently, only minor 

harvest activities are occurring on either 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 total acres while the latter is 237 acres of unevenaged management on NFS land in the analysis area. The survival of the existing timber industry is 

dependent on a predictable and adequate supply of timber.

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 resource:

• 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 MBF3)

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

• Number of annualized jobs

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

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 64

Environmental Consequences

Summary of Effects

A summary is provided below in Table 12. For detailed discussion, refer to the Wrangell Island Project 

Timber Economics Resource Report found in the project record.

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, 24.1 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 73 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 58 MMBF net sawlog) and direct 

annualized jobs (252 to 303) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the second 

highest indicated advertised rate (negative $57.25 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative $218.66 

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

This alternative has the second highest proportion (64 percent) of unit acres utilizing the most expensive 

yarding system, helicopter ($410 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 second 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 43 MMBF net sawlog) and direct 

annualized jobs (187 to 226) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the highest 

indicated advertised rate (negative $54.21 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative $215.62 per MBF 

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

This alternative has the smallest proportion (45.2 percent) of unit acres utilizing the most expensive 

yarding system, helicopter ($410 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 fewest 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 45 MMBF net sawlog) and 

direct annualized jobs (198 to 238) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the 

third highest indicated advertised rate (negative $61.36 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative 

$237.08 per MBF net sawlog for domestic) relative to the other action alternatives. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 65

This alternative has the second smallest proportion (45.4 percent) of unit acres utilizing the most 

expensive yarding system, helicopter ($423 per MBF net sawlog) for partial harvesting. In proportion to 

total volume, this alternative exhibits the second lowest road cost per net MBF and constructs the 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 38 MMBF net sawlog) and direct 

annualized jobs (166 to 199) to meet the purpose and need for this project. This alternative has the lowest 

indicated advertised rate (negative $91.80 per MBF net sawlog for export and negative $253.21 per MBF 

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

This alternative has the highest proportion (72 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 2015 Forest Plan Amendment DEIS. 

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 Pats Creek drainage and just south of Earl West. 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. Past harvest on Wrangell Island which are now nonNational Forest lands is 3,286 acres. No future timber harvest is currently reasonably foreseeable on 

National Forest System lands. Considering the transition to young-growth timber, the young growth on 

Wrangell Island is too young and not commercial to be considered as reasonably foreseeable. Future 

foreseeable projects on non-National Forest lands includes the Earl West Timber sale scheduled for 2019 

and for 12.5 MMBF. 

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. Toward this end, 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 

and also 15 MMBF of young-growth timber. Another bridge timber project includes the Saddle Lakes 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 66

Timber Sale near Ketchikan. In addition, the Kosciusko Vegetation Management and Watershed 

Improvement project may authorize the harvest of approximately 30.2 MMBF of young-growth timber to 

begin the transition to predominately young growth management.

Table 12. Alternative comparison of the measures and potential effects of project activities on the timber 

supply and timber sale economics resource

Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Acres of Uneven Aged Harvest 0 3,528 1,483 1,738 2,868

Acres of Even Aged Harvest 0 1,781 1,701 1,793 936

Total Acres 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

Cable 0 1,200 1,158 1,207 640

Shovel 0 703 587 720 411

Helicopter 0 3,408 1,440 1,604 2,754

Total Acres 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

Sitka Spruce Volume (MBF) 0 12,711 9,465 9,979 8,360

Hemlock Volume (MBF) 0 30,044 22,373 23,587 19,760

Western Red Cedar Volume

(MBF) 0 4,622 3,442 3,629 3,040

Alaska Yellow Cedar Volume 

(MBF) 0 10,400 7,744 8,165 6,840

Total Net Sawlog Volume 

(MBF) 0 57,777 43,025 45,360 37,999

Utility Volume (MBF) 0 7,280 5,770 5,715 4,788

Total Net Volume (MBF) 0 65,057 48,795 51,075 42,787

NFS Road Construction (miles) 0.0 17.2 15.8 16.1 12.5

Temporary Road Construction 

(miles) 0.0 14.9 14.1 16.2 9.1

Total Miles 0.0 32.1 29.9 35.4 21.6

Logging Cost ($/ net MBF) 

Stump to Truck $0 $318.22 $293.38 $297.99 $349.36

Stump to Mill cost1 ($/net MBF) 0 $532.70 $529.67 $536.80 $567.25

NFS Road 

Construction/Reconditioning

Cost ($/net MBF) 

0 $83.20 $99.20 $102.40 $86.90

Indicated Advertised Rate 

Current Export Policy2

$/MBF

0 ($57.25) ($54.21) ($61.36) ($91.80)

Indicated Advertised Rate 

100% Domestic Processing3

$/MBF

($218.66) ($215.62) ($237.08) ($253.21)

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

2 - Current export policy allows 100 percent Alaska yellow-cedar export plus hemlock/spruce export equal to 50 percent total sale 

net sawlog volume.

3 - Assumes 100 percent Alaska domestic processing of hemlock/spruce/western red cedar; 100 percent export of Alaska yellowcedar.

Source: N. Stearns FAST-R (December 2015 Output), Tongass GIS 2015

All economic analysis assumes Standard Profit and Risk (14 percent).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 67

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 4), over an estimated 5 years. These functions are introduced in the Affected Environment 

section and analyzed by species in the Environmental Effects section. 

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

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

analysis area and the potential effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives on wildlife 

resources. 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. 

Table 13. 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 Megaptera novaeangliae

Steller Sea Lion (Western DPS) Eumetopias jubatus

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Yellow-billed Loon Gavia adamsii

Steller Sea Lion (Eastern DPS) Eumetipias jubatus

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

Southern Red-backed Vole Mvodes gapperi wrangeli

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

species
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 68

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 are two ESAlisted species known to occur within the project vicinity: the humpback whale and Steller sea lion 

(Western distinct population segment (DPS)). 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 (Megaptera novaeangliae) 

Status: Endangered

Effect Determination: 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.

Steller sea lion – Western Distinct Population Segments (Eumetopias jubatus)

Status: Threatened

Effect Determination: Not likely to adversely affect

Rationale: The Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines, MMPA and ESA all have measures in place to 

reduce disturbance and the risk of collision with water 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 were three sensitive species analyzed for the Wrangell Island Project: 

yellow-billed loon, Steller sea lion (Eastern DPS) and Queen Charlotte goshawk. All others were dropped 

from further analysis due to lack of habitat or occurrence in the project area.

Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive

Effect Determination: No effect

Rationale: The yellow-billed loon is considered a rare winter migrant that occurs at very low densities 

around the proposed project during the winter months when project activities would be limited to 

nonexistent. They are not known to nest or breed on Wrangell Island.

Steller sea lion – Eastern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) (Eumetopias jubatus)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 69

Effects Determination: Not likely to adversely affect

Rationale: The Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines, Marine Mammal Protection Act and Endangered 

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

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 oldgrowth (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. Therefore, the Wrangell Island Project would have no effect on these species, and they 

are not addressed further in this DEIS.

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 

Southeast Alaska but are suspected to be uncommon in Southeast Alaska waters. The bearded, ringed, and 

spotted seals are candidates for federal listing, and are directly associated with sea-ice habitats not 

commonly observed in Southeast Alaska. Critical habitat has not been designated in waters surrounding 

the proposed project area for any of above-mentioned species. Therefore, the Wrangell Island Project 

would have no effect on these species, and they are not be further analyzed in this DEIS.

Because the Wrangell Island Project is not expected to affect the species named above and their habitats, 

they are not discussed further in this DEIS, however they are addressed in a separate Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation for the Wrangell Island Project.

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 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 15). 

Other species, such as those endemic to the proposed project area, are also addressed in the wildlife 

resource report to meet FSM 2620.1 requirements to manage and maintain viable populations of existing 

native wildlife species. 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. These other species are listed in Table 15, with the 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 70

exception of mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus) which has not been documented in the project area 

and therefore will not be discussed further.

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 

manage wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native 

vertebrate species in the planning area and ensure that its actions do not contribute to trends toward 

federal listing of species. These documents are incorporated here by reference.

Migratory Birds

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 

(2007), 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 2007). 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 2007). 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 2007; Smith 2005).

Affected Environment

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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 71

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.

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 14. Size-density model habitat classifications

Habitat Size Density Map Classes

POG SD4H, SD4N, SD4S, SD5H, SD5N, SD5S, SD67

High-volume POG SD5N, SD5S, SD67

Medium POG SD4N, SD4S, SD5H

Low 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:

• Humpback whales, acoustic disturbance and habitat degradation that are associated with marine 

access facilities.

• Steller sea lion, harassment or displacement from human activities associated with marine access 

facilities and log raft towing.

• Yellow-billed loon, anthropogenic disturbances and marine contaminants.

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

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

ownerships given current or zero value (cumulative effects)

• Percentage reduction in all classes of 

♦ Productive old-growth (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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 72

• 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 15 shows the species analyzed in this document along with preferred habitat and how the units of 

measure apply to individuals and/or habitat.

Table 15. Wrangell Ranger District management indicator species (MIS), preferred habitat and units of 

measure

Species Preferred Habitat Project Level 

Indicator/Measurement

Humpback whale 

(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.

Steller sea lion (both east 

and west DPS) 

(Eumetopias jubatus)

Marine waters, primary 

abundance and distribution 

across the Gulf of Alaska and 

Aleutian Island

Harassment or displacement from 

human activities associated with 

marine access facilities and log raft 

towing.

Yellow-billed loon (Gavia 

adamsii)

In SE Alaska, marine waters 

during the nonbreeding season

Anthropogenic disturbances and 

marine contaminants.

Queen Charlotte goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis laingi)

Nests primarily in high-value POG 

habitat and forages in nonproductive forest types and 

second growth

Acres of POG and high-value 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
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 73

Species Preferred Habitat Project Level 

Indicator/Measurement

Sitka black-tailed deer

(Odocoileus hemionus 

sitkensis)

Represents a variety of habitat at 

all elevations. Winter = low 

elevation 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

Southern red-backed vole

(Myodes gapperi 

wrangeli)

Endemic mammal; POG along 

with corridors and island 

connectivity is important to 

survival

Acres of POG, habitat connection 

corridors

Migratory forest birds Old-growth forests Acres of POG

Threatened and Endangered Species

Humpback Whale (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 

8498). 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). No critical habitat has been 

designated for this species.

Humpbacks in southeast Alaska are part of the Central North Pacific stock – 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. 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. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 74

Steller sea lion (Eastern and Western Distinct Population Segments) (Eumetopias jubatus)

The Steller sea lion was emergency-listed as threatened under the ESA in April 1990 by NMFS due to 

rapid population declines in the western portion of its range (55 FR 12645). In 1997 the NMFS 

designated two DPS (occurring west and east of 144 degrees west longitude, respectively). Due to 

persistent decline, the western DPS was reclassified as endangered. In November of 2013 the eastern DPS 

was delisted and is no longer on the threatened and endangered list, because they have been increasing at 

an average rate of approximately 3 percent per year, and was estimated to number between 45,000 and 

56,000 animals. Critical habitat was designated in August 1993 (Federal Register 1993) consisting of 

breeding rookeries (sites where pups are born) and haulouts (sites where adults emerge from the water to 

rest) throughout the State, as well as marine waters within a 3,000-foot radius of those sites.

Steller sea lions in Alaska are year-round residents and are not known to make regular migrations, but 

they undertake seasonal movements in response to prey availability. The total eastern stock of the Steller 

sea lion was estimated to be at within the range of 45,095 to 55,832 sea lions with 20,793 sea lions 

counted from rookery and haulout trend sites in Southeast Alaska (Allen and Angliss 2010). Steller sea 

lions are sensitive to disturbance and harassment and displacement of sea lions from haulouts and 

rookeries by human activities such as boating, recreation, aircraft, marine access facilities, and log raft 

towing are concerns related to the long-term conservation of the sea lion in Southeast Alaska.

Sensitive Species 

Yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii)

The yellow-billed loon was petitioned for listing under the ESA in 2004 by the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD 2004). In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted, and a status review of the species was 

initiated (Federal Register 2007a). The yellow-billed loon was considered vulnerable due to a 

combination of low population size, low reproductive rate, and specific breeding habitat requirements 

(Earnst 2004). In 2009, the USFWS determined that listing the yellow-billed loon as a threatened or 

endangered species was warranted, but was precluded by other higher-priority listing actions (Federal 

Register 2009). Than on October 1, 2014 the USFWS released a 12-month finding not to list the yellowbilled loon as endangered or threatened. 

In Alaska, the yellow-billed loon breeding is concentrated on the Seward Peninsula and the western and 

central portions of the Arctic Coastal Plain. The yellow-billed loon is considered a rare migrant and 

winter visitant, and casual summer visitant to Southeast Alaska (Heinl and Piston 2009). On wintering 

grounds in Southeast Alaska, yellow-billed loons are typically recorded at low densities, and Christmas 

Bird Count (CBC) data indicate the species is uncommon around Wrangell Island. Between 1992 and 

2012, the yellow-billed loon was observed eleven times on Wrangell Islands CBCs winter count (1 to 7 

individuals per count), for a total of 28 loons. The potential negative impacts on wildlife from 

anthropogenic disturbance such as: aircraft, ground vehicle traffic, housing facilities, oil production 

facilities, and noise are well recognized (Earnst 2004), but no relevant data is available on responses of 

yellow-billed loons to anthropogenic disturbances.

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 

(USFWS 2007).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 75

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

deciduous old-growth for nesting and foraging habitat. 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. The most recent estimates of the goshawk populations range from 261 to 336 breeding pairs on 

the Tongass National Forest and 300 to 400 pairs across Southeast Alaska (Federal Register 2007). 

Research specific to Southeast Alaska concluded that goshawks are uncommon in this region and nesting 

densities are lower than other areas (Federal Register 2007). The major threat to goshawks is the loss of 

old growth habitat due to logging.

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 4-95. 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 2007). 

In August 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) received a petition to list the subspecies as 

threatened or endangered, and to recognize Prince of Wales Island as a significant portion of its range 

(Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace 2011). The petition also requested that the USFWS 

consider Prince of Wales Island and adjacent islands (including Kosciusko, Tuxekan, Heceta, Suemez, 

Dall, and others proximate to Prince of Wales) a DPS based on unique genetic, physical, and ecological 

characteristics. On March 31, 2014 the USFWS released the following: “We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus 

ligoni) as a threatened or endangered species and to designate critical habitat under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial 

scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the Alexander Archipelago wolf may be 

warranted. Therefore, with publication of this notice, we are notifying the public that when resources 

become available, we will be conducting a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf is warranted.” On January 5, 2015, 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.

Wolves in Southeast Alaska are generalists and use a wide variety of habitats but spend most of their time 

in productive and unproductive old-growth forests at low elevations (below 270 feet) (Person and Russell 

2008). They are vulnerable to over-harvest which may limit dispersal, and thus the ability of wolves to 

recolonize territories that have been vacated by trapping and hunting or maintain genetic interchange 

between separate populations. The Forest Plan states that a road density of 0.7 to 1.0 mi/mi2 or less may 

be necessary to reduce harvest-related mortality risk where locally unsustainable wolf mortality has been 

identified. Person et al. (1996) reported that wolf harvest increased twofold when total road density below 

1,200 feet elevation exceeded 0.7 mi/mi2

. Wolf populations are also closely tied to prey abundance 

(Person et al. 1996). Sitka black-tailed deer are the principal prey of wolves in Southeast Alaska,

representing up to 77 percent of their diet, but wolves also feed heavily on spawning salmon, beaver, 

moose, mountain goat, and voles (Person et al. 1996, Szepanski et al. 1999, Lowell 2012). For the 

Wrangell Island Project prey abundance (deer) and road densities were used to analyze affects. 

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-sized old-growth reserves. Marten also are important furbearers on the Tongass, and 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 76

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 belong to the subspecies M. a. americana (Small et al. 

2003). The Wrangell Island Project is within the Wrangell/Etolin Island Bio-geographic Province, which 

is considered a high-risk province for marten habitat. However, legacy standards and guidelines do not 

apply to any VCUs on Wrangell Island (USDA Forest Service WILD1.IV.D pp. 4-90 and 4-91).

ADF&G does not have population data for marten on Wrangell Island or within GMU 3. According to

trapping data, populations appear to fluctuate yearly. An average of 16 marten/year (range 0-69) were

trapped on Wrangell Island between 1992 and 2010 (ADF&G 2015). The harvest of 60 and 69 in 

2011/2012 far exceeds any previous year trapping levels. There are currently no furbearer regulatory 

closures in response to the past nine decades of population decline in GMU 3; however, increased road 

densities associated with timber harvest activities have improved trappers’ access to furbearers’ habitat, 

reducing their refugia and making the animals increasingly vulnerable to overharvest (Lowell 2014). 

Regulatory mechanisms include licensing; setting season lengths, dates, and harvest limits; assigning 

trapper’s exclusive rights to trapping areas; establishing refugia; and selective trapping of sexes.

The availability of good quality marten habitat is important and is defined in this report as POG (SD4H, 

SD4N, SD4S, SD5H, SD5N, SD5S and SD6/7), high-value POG (SD5N, 5S and 6/7) below 1,500 feet

and below 800 feet in elevation. Studies of eight marten populations in Southeast Alaska conducted 

between 2001 and 2003 show that marten selected POG but also used some young-growth 26 to 40 years 

of age.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

The bald eagle was selected as an MIS to represent species associated with beach, 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 13,000-26,000 birds (Hodges 2011).

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

numbers. The Tongass both historically and presently has supported the largest breeding population of 

bald eagles in the world. Currently, a stable population of approximately 25,000 adult birds is estimated to 

occur in Southeast Alaska (Jacobson and Hodges 1999), and more than 8,000 nest sites have been 

documented in the area (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 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. 

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 2008b, p. 3-233). 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.

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

without a guide. Annual black bear harvest in GMU 3 has increased from 29 bears in 1973 to 309 bears in 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 77

2000 with over half of the bears harvested from nearby Kuiu Island (Lowell 2011a). Harvest by nonresidents increased from less than 50 percent to 80 percent during the same timeframe. Recent harvest has 

ranged from 169 to 225 bears annually with the 169 black bears killed in during the 2009-2010 season,

the lowest annual harvest since 1992 (Lowell 2011a). Non-residents continued to harvest roughly 80 

percent of the bears. Reported black bear harvest on Wrangell Island is minor compared to Kuiu, although 

unreported harvest may occur. An average of 3.5 bears (range 1-10) were taken yearly between 1991 and 

2014. On Wrangell Island, over 75 percent of the harvest was by resident hunters (ADF&G 2012).

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 2007; 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 (Lowell 2011b).

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 2011b). Three brown bears have been 

harvested on Wrangell Island since 2005; the high proportion of female harvest is a management concern 

(ADF&G 2011).

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; young clearcuts, muskegs, small openings, and 

subalpine meadows provide high levels of forage (USDA Forest Service 2008b, pp. 2-233 and 3-235). For 

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

is used for critical foraging habitat. 

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 2013 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. 2015). However, 

statistically significant state-wide trends are not available for these species (Sauer et al. 2015). 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.

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) 

The brown creeper is an uncommon year-round resident that is widely distributed throughout Southeast 

Alaska and the Tongass National Forest (Heinl 2010). Although widespread, this species occurs primarily 

in old-growth and mature coniferous forests and can be difficult to detect and monitor due to its small 

size, cryptic coloration and its low volume, high-pitched call. The predominant subspecies in the Tongass 

is the resident, C. a. occidentalis, which occurs along the Pacific Coast from Southeast Alaska to 

Northern California. Quantitative data on the abundance of brown creepers in the Tongass is lacking. It is 

also unlikely that trend information from broad-scale surveys (e.g., BBSs and Christmas Bird Counts

(CBCs)) can be used to determine if population fluctuations are due to habitat alterations or to other 

causes. Data from BBS indicates that abundance of brown creepers along the Zimovia Strait survey 

fluctuates with a high of 29 in 2005 and a low of 0 (6.3 individuals/year; Sauer et al. 2015). Counts from 

Wrangell Island CBCs from 1997 to 2011 ranged from 0 to 10 birds per survey year (0 to 0.18 birds/party 

hour; Audubon Society 2015), and in winter surveys conducted by Hughes (1985) on Admiralty Island, 

the density of brown creepers in stands of old-growth forest was 15 individuals/100 acres.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 78

Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) 

Hairy woodpeckers are an uncommon resident throughout Southeast Alaska that occur in relatively small 

numbers (Heinl 2010) and breed and overwinter on Wrangell Island (USDA Forest Service 2001b). 

According to the Zimovia Strait BBS route, hairy woodpeckers average 1.6/per year, with a high of 7 in 

1997 and 98 (Sauer et al. 2015). Cotter (2007) estimated density of 0.1 birds per acre. According to 

Audubon CBC data, they have only been 4 times since 1992 (Audubon Society 2015). Hairy 

woodpeckers occupy mature, uneven-aged timber stands with many snags for foraging and nesting 

(Conner and Crawford 1974). They prefer habitats with high tree basal area, tall canopy, large diameter 

trees, and nest cavities that are high above the ground (Conner and Adkisson 1976). High-volume, oldgrowth forests receive more use in the Tongass National Forest than medium or low volume stands 

(Hughes 1985). Habitat patches greater than 500 acres are thought to provide optimal habitat (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b). Since data available from Southeast Alaska suggests that larger patch sizes are 

sought out by woodpeckers, high-POG (SD5N, SD5S, SD67) and patch size were used as the 

measurement criteria for analyzing effects.

Red-breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber)

The red-breasted sapsucker is considered an MIS in the Tongass for its role as a primary cavity excavator 

which depends on soft, decaying wood for its cavities. The species is widely distributed throughout 

Southeast Alaska forests during the spring, summer, and fall seasons. Northern populations are at least 

partially migratory and reduced abundances occur there during winter (Walters et al. 2002), with the 

remaining individuals occurring predominately at lower elevations (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Based

on Wrangell Island CBCs, red-breasted sapsuckers are uncommon within the project area in the winter

(Audubon Society 2015).

Approximately 32 percent of the global population of red-breasted sapsuckers breeds in Southeast Alaska 

(Kissling 2006). Data from BBSs indicate that Southeast Alaska has a high breeding density of redbreasted sapsuckers, with an average of approximately 9 individuals/year on the Zimovia Strait route, and 

a high of 37 individuals recorded in 2004 (Sauer et al. 2015). Only one BBS has been conducted on 

Wrangell Island, in 1984, and the data from this single survey is not useful in interpreting bird abundances 

or population trends. Studies indicate a preference for late-successional forests (greater than 200 years 

old) with higher densities of larger snags (Joy 2000, Kissling and Garton 2008, Dellasala et al. 1996).

The Forest Plan FEIS defines habitat for red-breasted sapsuckers as low to moderate volume old-growth 

forest habitat (low- and medium-POG classes SD4H, SD4N, SD4S, SD5H) in patches greater than 250 

acres.

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 2007). 

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 2008b, p. 3-239), red squirrels are covered under the Reserve 

Tree/Cavity-Nesting Habitat guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 4-91).

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 2008b, p. 3-233). There are no specific standards and guidelines put forth by the 2008 Forest Plan 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 79

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 2013) 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 2013). Current trapping effort is 

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 2013). 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 2008b, p. 3-230). Standards and guidelines for Sitka black-tailed deer are on page 4-92 of the 

Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Winter habitat and deer condition going into winter are considered the most important limiting factors for 

deer in Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest Service 2008b, p. 3-230). Hanley (1984), states that the overall 

effect of snow restricts the range of suitable habitats and lowers the quality of all habitats. Annual 

variability in weather patterns and snowfall can have noticeable impacts on deer distribution, population 

density, and hunter accessibility (McCoy et al. 2009). From a deer’s perspective, there probably are three 

thresholds of snow depth. The first is the depth at which evergreen forbs and herb-layer shrubs become 

buried at approximately 3.9 inches (Hanley 1984, Kirchhoff and Schoen 1987, Parker et al. 1999). The 

second is when deer sink in the snow beyond front knee height (approximately 9.8 to 11.8 inches) and 

energy costs for locomotion increase greatly (Parker et al. 1984, Hanley et al. 1989, Parker et al. 1999). 

The third threshold is the point at which tall shrubs become buried. When snow is beyond that depth, deer 

diet consists almost entirely of low quality conifer foliage, and the energy costs for locomotion are 

extremely high. Crusting of the snowpack reduces sinking depth greatly, but forage remains buried. For 

management purposes, therefore, snow deeper than 9.8 to 11.8 inches should be considered “deep snow” 

(Hanley et al. 1986, White et al. 2009). See Figure 14 for a map showing deep snow habitat on Wrangell 

Island.

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. According to 

ADF&G decline in unit-wide harvest actually reflects deer population decline in GMU 3 (Lowell 2013).

Severe weather is responsible for most declines, but predation by wolves and bears have extended the 

duration of the declines (Lowell 2013). Brinkman et al. (2011) identified a 30 percent decline in deer 

abundance during their 3-year study on nearby Prince of Wales Island, which they attributed to the 3 

consecutive severe winters. Deer populations on most islands in GMU 3 have declined since 2004 and are 

thought to be well-below carrying capacity.

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 2008 Forest Plan 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 80

specifically covering Canada geese (WILD1 XII B, p. 4-94). However, because of their association with 

coastal and freshwater aquatic environments, Vancouver Canada geese management guidelines in the 

2008 Forest Plan are covered under beach and estuary fringe (USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp. 4-4 to 4-

5), riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp. 4-50 to 4-54, and D-1 to D-20) and waterfowl and 

shorebird habitats (USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp. 4-93 to 4-94).

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 2008b, p. 3-241). 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 2008 Forest 

Plan specifically covering great blue heron rookeries (USDA Forest Service 2008a, WILD1 XIII, p. 4-94). 

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).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 81

Figure 14. Deep snow deer habitat; areas of refugia for deer during times of deep snow

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 83

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

Marbled murrelets are widely distributed across marine waters in Southeast Alaska. They spend the 

majority of their lives at sea, but travel inland up to 50 miles to nest in old-growth forest stands (Piatt et 

al. 2007). Marbled murrelets 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 Forest Plan standard and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2008a). Marbled 

murrelets spend most of their lives in the coastal marine environment in sheltered bays, fjords, leeward 

sides of islands, and island passes (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.

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

Southern Red-backed Vole (Myodes gapperi wrangeli)

Endemic species are distinct, unique species with a restricted area or range. Southeast Alaska has been 

found to be a region with an especially high degree of endemism in its small mammal fauna. This is 

apparently due to its archipelago geography and its highly dynamic glacial history. There are roughly 24 

mammal species or subspecies considered endemic to Southeast Alaska (Smith et al. 2005). Mammal 

surveys on the Tongass have resulted in the documentation of new distributions, new species. However, 

there continue to be gaps in knowledge about the natural history and ecology of wildlife subspecies 

indigenous to Southeast Alaska (Hanley et al. 2005). Within Southeast Alaska, roughly 20 percent of 

known mammal species and subspecies have been described as endemic to the region. The long-term 

viability of these endemic populations is unknown, but of increasing concern since island endemics are 

extremely susceptible to extinction because of restricted ranges, specific habitat requirements, and 

sensitivity to human activities such as species introductions (http://msb.unm.edu/isles/). The southern redbacked vole (Myodes gapperi wrangeli) is the only endemic small mammal identified on Wrangell Island; 

that also occurs on nearby Sergief Island (MacDonald and Cook 2007).

Information about Wrangell Island red-backed voles comes from Smith and Nichols (2004) and the 

related Smith et al. (2005) on Wrangell Island. They tested the association with old-growth specifically 

for the Wrangell Island red-backed vole. Muskegs and scrub forest (non-productive POG) 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 

snags (4 to 19 inch diameter at breast height) and percentage of conifer seedlings were negatively 

associated with population density as was high moss cover in the spring (Smith et al. 2005). 

The 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. In general, southern red-backed voles occur across much of northern North America and are a 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 84

common resident of later successional, moist forest habitats (Runck and Cook 2005). The highest 

densities and highest reproductive rates are often found in old-growth forest (Smith et al. 2005). 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 

measurement criteria for Wrangell Island red-backed voles. 

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 2008b, p. 3-244). 

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 2008b, pp. 3-247 and 3-248, Table 3.10). Another 24 

species were selected from the USFWS’s birds of conservation concern (BCR 5) that can occur in

Southeast Alaska (USFWS 2008). Seventeen of these species are linked to coniferous forest and could be 

affected by the proposed timber harvest on Wrangell Island. Refer to the USDA Forest Service FEIS

pages 3-244 through 3-248 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 

Direct/Indirect effects

The action alternatives will authorize harvest of 43 to 65 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 permitting process 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 85

Guidelines for riparian management will be applied. Therefore, effects to humpback whales or their prey 

are expected to be minor.

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. Whale response to noise varies and is correlated to size, behavior, and 

composition of the whales at the time of disturbance (USDA Forest Service 2008a, Appendix F). Ellison 

et al., 2011 state that “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 2008a). 

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 minor and 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 (FP 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 the 

potential for oil or fuel spills and collisions associated with vessel activity in the vicinity of the marine 

access facilities to which humpback whales could be exposed., There may be cumulative effects when 

combined with past, present or reasonable foreseeable future activities. Activities within the analysis area 

that have affected humpback whales and are cumulative with the proposed project: include any project 

that utilized the existing marine access facilities on Wrangell Island, the Roadside EA can allow up 500 

MBF of timber harvest per year which may or may not go through 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 taken together with other 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.

Steller Sea Lion (both Eastern and Western Distinct Population Segments)

Direct/Indirect effects

National Forest management activities that could have an effect on Steller sea lions are generally 

associated with the development and use of marine access facilities, increased marine activities, and 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 86

activities that alter stream habitat that flows into marine environments. Harassment or displacement of sea 

lions from preferred habitats by human activities such as boating, recreation, aircraft, log transfer 

facilities, and log raft towing, was identified as a concern with regard to long-term conservation in the 

Biological Assessment conducted for the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008c, p. F-12). The NMFS

has identified similar threats in the 2008 updated recovery plan for Steller sea lions, but acknowledged 

that there was not enough information to quantify effects. The Wrangell Island Project occurs within the 

Steller sea lion eastern distinct population segment (DPS); therefore, analysis is limited to that stock 

although incidental occurrence of western DPS individuals may occur. Temporary movements from areas 

of disturbance have been documented and rookeries subject to repeated disturbance may be permanently 

abandoned. However, because of lack of information, it is not possible to quantify these threats (NMFS 

2008). NMFS goes on to state that the potential threat from increased human disturbance highlights the 

need to keep regulatory mechanisms such as the MMPA in place to protect sea lions. NMFS has yet to 

develop a post-delisting monitoring plan which would include, among other criteria, monitoring the 

frequency and severity of Steller sea lion-human interactions in ports and harbors and the impacts of 

recreational and commercial viewing operations.

Implementation of the action alternatives could have a minor effect on Steller sea lion individuals through 

an incidental disturbance from barging or the rafting logs but travel routes will not be near any critical 

habitat or any major haul-outs. Long-term effects are not anticipated due to past history of the area. 

Similar to the humpback whales analysis, none of the activities will degrade the marine environment due 

to regulatory controls and acoustic disturbance will be temporary and indistinguishable from baseline 

conditions. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are in place to direct the Forest Service to prevent 

and/or reduce potential harassment of sea lions due to activities carried out by or under the jurisdiction of 

the Forest Service. Forest Service funded, permitted, or authorized activities must be conducted in a 

manner consistent with the requirements, consultations, or advice received from the appropriate 

regulatory agencies for the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and NMFS 

guidelines for approaching seals and sea lions. "Taking" of sea lions is prohibited; "taking" includes 

harassing or pursuing, or attempting any such activity. Therefore, any potential effects to Steller sea lions 

(eastern or western stock) would be minor immeasurable. 

Cumulative effects

Because the proposed project has the potential to result in a minor disturbance to Steller sea lion 

individuals, there would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present or reasonable 

foreseeable future activities. Activities within the analysis area that have affected Steller sea lions and are 

cumulative with the proposed project: include any project that utilized the existing marine access facilities

on Wrangell Island, the Roadside Decision Notice allows up 500 MBF of timber harvest per year which 

may or may not go through 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 all vessels would continue to 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 taken together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

activities in the marine environment in the vicinity of the marine access facilities could have a minor 

cumulative effect on Steller sea lions individuals.

Yellow-billed Loon

Direct/Indirect effects

The yellow-billed loon is a rare winter migrant which occurs at low densities around Wrangell Island. 

There are no known nesting sites on the Tongass National Forest. Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 have the 

potential to increase in vessel activity at the existing marine access facilities, however, vessel activity 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 87

would not measurably effect yellow-billed loons. General Forest Plan direction for seabirds and shorebird 

habitats apply to this species (USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp. 4-93 to 94) and direction for the protection 

of beach, estuary and riparian habitats maintain some habitat for this species. Depending upon weather, 

the proposed project is likely to have reduced or no activity during times when loons may be present. 

Therefore, effects of the project to yellow-billed loons would be negligible. 

Cumulative effects

Because there were no measurable direct and indirect effects to yellow-billed loon individuals or their 

habitat, there would be no cumulative effects when combined with past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable activities.

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

Direct/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 

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-value POG). 

Impacts to goshawks are assessed in terms of the reduction in total POG, which provides general habitat 

requirements especially foraging and high-value POG (SD 5N, 5S & 6/7) 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 second-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). Additionally, if timber harvest reduces the 

proportion of the landbase consisting of POG and mature second-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-value POG, would be expected to have the greatest effect on goshawks. All action alternatives 

would maintain at least 91 percent of the existing total POG within National Forest System (NFS) lands 

in WAA 1903 and maintain a minimum of 88 percent high-value POG (Table 16 and Table 17). At the 

VCU scale the most impacted VCU is 4750 maintaining a minimum of 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) (4,553 acres), 

followed by Alternatives 5 (3,268 acres), 4 (3,023 acres), and 3 (2,740 acres; Table 16). Within the project 

area VCUs, the amount of POG remaining on NFS land would range from 82 to 100 percent under all 

action alternatives (Table 16). VCUs 4750 and 4770 would have the greatest impacts.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 88

Table 16. Total acres of POG harvested by VCU or WAA for each alternative (NFS lands only)

2015 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 4,886 902 82 0 100 74 98 901 82

4760 3,550 318 91 228 94 245 93 228 94

4770 5,868 1,071 82 904 85 932 84 872 85

4780 7,708 689 91 531 93 576 93 516 93

4790 9,508 459 95 459 95 459 95 315 97

4800 13,361 1,114 92 618 95 738 94 436 97

5040 1,778 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5050 5,746 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

WAA 

1903 52,405 4,553 91 2,740 95 3,023 94 3,268 94

Table 17. Total acres of high-value 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 

highvalue

POG

(2015)

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

Acres 

harvested

% of 

POG left

4750 1,862 485 74 0 100 27 99 478 74

4760 1,463 172 88 122 92 147 90 122 92

4770 2,687 614 77 562 79 591 78 538 80

4780 2,638 282 89 235 92 237 91 235 91

4790 3,092 219 93 219 94 219 93 127 96

4800 4,501 503 89 267 94 394 91 156 97

5040 1,073 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

5050 2,036 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100

WAA 

1903 19,351 2,275 88 1,406 93 1,615 92 1,655 91

Alternative 2 would also harvest the most high-value POG (nesting habitat) at approximately 2,275 acres, 

followed by Alternative 5 (1,655acres), Alternative 4 (1,615 acres), and Alternative 3 (1,406 acres; Table 

17). Within the project area VCUs, the amount of existing high-value POG remaining would range from 

74 to 100 percent under all action alternatives. The greatest effect would be in VCU 4570.

Under all action alternatives, the project area as a whole would continue to provide goshawk foraging and 

nesting habitat, by maintaining at least 88 percent of the land base in POG and mature forest habitat 

(Table 16 and Table 17).

The action alternatives would result in a reduction in suitable nesting and foraging habitat for goshawks 

through the removal of POG forest habitat. 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 89

subsequent progression of forest succession in second-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-age 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 (USFWS 2007). Widen (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 the felling of all trees in a unit, provides poor quality habitat for 

goshawks immediately following timber harvest and marginal habitat for a few 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 (75 percent of harvest, 2,868 

acres), followed by Alternatives 2 (66 percent, 3,528 acres), Alternative 4 (49 percent, 1,738 acres), and 

Alternative 3 (47 percent, 1,484 acres). Therefore, implementation of the action alternatives would not 

directly affect goshawk individuals, but would indirectly affect nesting and foraging habitat.

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 reasonable foreseeable future 

activities. Past activities on Wrangell Island that have affected potential goshawk habitat and are 

cumulative with this project include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 

miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles) and property development on non-NFS land. Activities 

that has 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 Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHT) land exchange where the Forest Service would gain 

approximately 1,105 acres, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and of little value to 

this POG associated species.

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 78 percent of the original high-volume POG remain on Wrangell Island 

(existing condition) (Table 18). Within individual VCUs, the amount of original total POG ranges from 60 

to 100 percent, and the amount of original high-value POG ranges from 40 to 100 percent. Ongoing and 

future timber harvest on NFS and State lands, such as ongoing harvest cleared by the Roadside EA and 

the 700 acres proposed for harvest around Earl West, as well as private lands, would result in additional 

fragmentation loss of old-growth forest habitat and be cumulative with the proposed action.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 90

Table 18. Original (1954) POG and high-value POG (HPOG) remaining by VCU and WAA (all land ownerships)

1954 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

VCU 

/ 

WAA

Historical

POG

Historical

HPOG

% of 1954 

POG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

HPOG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

POG 

Remaining

% of 1954

HPOG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

POG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

HPOG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

POG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

HPOG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

POG 

Remaining

% of 1954 

HPOG 

Remaining

4750 6,159 2,915 84 69 70 52 84 69 83 68 70 53

4760 5,038 2,849 71 52 65 46 66 48 66 47 66 48

4770 8,404 5,282 71 51 58 40 60 41 60 40 60 41

4780 11,905 5,802 76 53 71 48 72 49 72 49 72 49

4790 12,179 5,034 90 76 86 72 86 72 86 72 88 74

4800 14,499 5,638 92 80 84 71 88 75 87 73 89 77

5040 2,125 1,406 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

5050 5,856 2,145 98 95 98 95 98 95 98 95 98 95

WAA 

1903 66,165 31,072 85 68 78 60 81 63 80 63 80 62
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 91

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 non-NFS land, 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 future projects. 

Alternative 1 would not contribute to cumulative effects to goshawks as no action would be undertaken. 

Under Alternative 1 (existing condition) WAA 1903 would maintain 85 percent of the original (1954) 

total POG, and 68 percent of the original high-volume POG. 

All of the action alternatives in combination with past, present, and foreseeable future timber harvest 

would result in an additional cumulative reduction of potential goshawk habitat on Wrangell Island (Table 

18). 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.

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 that goshawks are highly mobile and that 

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 effects to goshawks 

on Wrangell Island. Wrangell Island would continue to provide suitable habitat and the Queen Charlotte 

goshawk would continue to persist at current levels.

Alexander Archipelago Wolf 

Direct/Indirect effects

Wolf individuals would be directly affected by activities that create noise or disturbance which could 

result in displacement. There are no known den sites within the proposed project area but wolves do occur 

on Wrangell Island. For more on wolf standards and guidelines see the 2008 Forest Plan (p. 4-95).

Indirect effects of the Wrangell Island Project may include the reduction of wolves and their prey base 

(deer) with the increased human 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 2008b, p. 3-381). 

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 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 1,200 feet elevation receiving a zero value) in the WAA.

• For the cumulative effects analysis, deer habitat capability from all land ownerships (NFS and 

non-NFS lands) was divided by the total square miles of all land ownerships (all elevations 

included, but habitats on non-NFS land and land above 1,200 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 that the project could result insufficient numbers 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 92

of deer to sustain wolves and human hunting (See existing modeled deer densities). Deer model 

calculations show that there would be an estimated decline of approximately 0.3 deer/mi2 across Wrangell 

Island (WAA 1903) from current levels due to existing young growth stands entering stem exclusion. 

Alternative 2 would have greatest impact on deer density but it would maintain 12.3 deer/mi2 1 year postimplementation and 11.7 at stem exclusion (Table 19).

Table 19. 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 -- -- -- --

Current (2015) 12.9 -- -- -- --

1 yr. post 

implementation 12.9 12.3 12.5 12.5 12.5

At stem exclusion 

(2042) 12.6 11.7 12.0 12.0 12.0

All action alternatives involve road construction which can increase the risk of hunting and trapping 

mortality through increased human access. Some impacts can be mitigated through road closures (USDA 

Forest Service 2007a); open roads would be expected to have a greater effect than roads that are closed 

either through storage or decommissioning following their use (Person and Russell 2008). However, 

Person and Logan (2012) modeled the effects of such closures and found them to have little influence on 

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 in WAA 1903 are at the upper end of the Forest Plan recommendation of 0.7 

to 1.0 where road access and associated human-caused wolf mortality is a concern. Harvest rates may 

increase under alternatives that increase the total road density on Wrangell Island (open and closed roads). 

Therefore, all action alternatives would have a direct and indirect effect to wolf individuals and their 

habitat. Road densities below 1,200 feet on NFS lands only would be above the 0.7 to 1 mi/mi2 guideline 

for all the action alternatives. Alternatives 2 to 4 would increase road densities to 1.3 mi/mi2 (Table 20).

Table 20. 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 73.9 0.74 83.1 0.83 81.8 0.82 82.7 0.83 73.9 0.74

Closed 24.2 0.24 45.7 0.46 44.3 0.44 45.9 0.46 39.4 0.39

Total 98.1 0.98 128.8 1.3 126.1 1.3 128.6 1.3 113.5 1.1

NFS land below 1,200 feet 99.55 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 future activities (Table 4). 

Commercial timber harvest has occurred on the Tongass National Forest since 1954 and as a result has 

reduced habitat capability for deer in GMU 3 through the removal of POG. All action alternatives would 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 93

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 are cumulative with this 

project include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of 

utility corridors (26 miles), property development on non-NFS land and any future timber sales proposed 

by federal, State or tribal organizations. Activities that have improved habitat for the 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 

AMHT land exchange. NFS lands would increase by approximately 1,105 acres, but the majority of this 

land has already been harvested so any deer habitat benefits would be minimal at this time.

Cumulatively these impacts may have the potential to result in localized declines in the deer population, 

and therefore wolves also because deer is their primary prey. The historical and current theoretical deer 

densities on Wrangell Island have never supported 18 deer/mi2

, and the model shows even further decline 

with increased harvest. Alternative 2 would have greatest impact on deer density where it would be 

reduced to 10.4 deer/mi2 1 year post-implementation and 9.9 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (Table 21).

Table 21. Cumulative effects to deer density (deer/mi2) on all land ownerships in WAA 1903 by alternative

Timeframe

Alt 1

(existing 

condition)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 12.9 -- -- -- --

Current (2015) 10.9 -- -- -- --

1 yr. post 

implementation 10.9 10.4 10.6 10.5 10.5

At stem exclusion 

(2042) 10.6 9.9 10.2 10.1 10.1

However, wolves are highly mobile within their territories and adjacent islands with higher deer densities 

would continue to support wolves on the Wrangell Ranger District. Within the biogeographic province,

only one WAA currently meets or exceeds the 18 deer/mi2 habitat capability, and that is Zarembo Island.

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 different alternatives. All action alternatives would put 

Wrangell Island above the 1.0 mi/mi2 road density which could lead to an increase in human caused wolf 

mortality. Alternatives 2 to 4 would increase road densities to 1.5 mi/mi2 (Table 22).

Table 22. Cumulative road density below 1,200 feet (mi/mi2) on all land ownerships 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 127.1 0.95 136.3 1.0 135 1.0 135.9 1.0 127.1 0.95

Closed 46.4 0.35 67.9 0.51 66.5 0.50 68.1 0.51 62.4 0.47

Total 173.5 1.3 204.2 1.5 201.5 1.5 204 1.5 189.5 1.42

Roads include all NFS and non-NFS roads existing, motorized trails, city, State, closed and decommissioned below 1,200 feet

Square feet of all land ownerships below 1,200 feet on Wrangell Island = 133.51mi2
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 94

There could be cumulative effects on wolves or their prey when past, present and reasonable foreseeable 

future projects are combined with the implementation of the Wrangell Island Project; however, wolves 

would continue to persist on Wrangell Island.

American Marten

All action alternatives would have moderate direct and indirect effects to marten individuals and/or 

habitat. Two primary activities have been identified as affecting marten habitat: timber harvest below 

1,500 feet (especially in high volume POG forest) and increases in open motorized access. Alternatives 

that result in the greatest reduction in primary habitat would be expected to have the greatest effects to 

marten. 

Direct /Indirect Effects 

Marten individuals would be directly affected through disturbance from harvest activities, which could 

result in displacement or adversely affecting young. Through the removal of forest cover and old-growth 

ecosystem 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 7 to 12 percent depending 

on habitat type (Table 23).

Table 23. Existing acres of POG, HPOG and percent reduction from existing by alternative in WAA 1903 on 

NFS land only

Existing 

Condition 

(2015)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Elevation POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG POG HPOG

NFS lands at all 

elevations 52,405 19,351 9 12 5 7 6 8 4 9

NFS lands 

below 1,500 ft.

elevation

41,060 16,943 10 12 6 8 7 9 7 8

NFS lands 

below 800 ft.

elevation

22,164 9,261 7 9 4 5 5 6 5 5

Forest fragmentation resulting from timber harvest may also alter patterns of occupancy by marten 

(Chapin et al. 1998). Table 24 shows that as POG is reduced across Wrangell Island it becomes more 

fragmented (broken up into small patches). 

Table 24. Number of historical and current POG patches, compared to POG patches for the action 

alternatives (NFS land only)

Patch Size (acres) Historical (1954) Current (2015) Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

15-50 55 60 83 68 75 72

50-100 9 12 18 17 18 17

100-250 8 13 18 17 18 19

250-500 5 7 8 8 7 7

500-1000 1 0 4 4 4 4

1000+ 4 6 7 6 6 6

Total Acres 59,017 51,596 46,634 48,594 48,315 48,085
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 95

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 

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). Table 25 displays marten habitat acres harvested by alternative.

Table 25. Acres of marten habitat harvested by alternative

Habitat Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS land (all elevations)

POG 4,553 2,740 3,023 3,268

High-volume POG 2,275 1,405 1,614 1,655

NFS land below 1,500 feet

POG 3,969 2,489 2,757 2,769

High-volume POG 2,025 1,280 1,480 1,427

NFS land below 800 feet

POG 1,624 965 1,112 1,085

High-volume POG 797 440 574 490

Partial cutting may have less effect on marten populations. 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 26 displays even and uneven–aged 

management of high-volume POG marten habitat acres which are the most important, especially during 

the winter. Partial harvest prescription that would still maintain 67 percent of the stand volume and impact 

may not be as severe. This is especially true for Alternative 5 where 75 percent of total harvest is UA33.

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 

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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 96

Table 26. 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 658 623 669 278

UA33 1,618 782 945 1,377

Total 2,275 1,405 1,614 1,655

NFS land below 1,500 feet

Clearcut 645 607 657 261

UA33 1,380 674 824 1,166

Total 2,025 1,280 1,480 1,427

NFS land below 800 feet

Clearcut 293 270 295 78

UA33 504 170 279 412

Total 797 440 574 490

Cumulative Effects – Action Alternatives

Because there would be direct/indirect effects from all action alternatives to marten individuals and their 

habitat, there would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable 

future activities with the implementation of this project. Past activities on Wrangell Island that have 

affected martin habitat include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), 

installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on non-NFS land 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 Roadside EA and 700 acres proposed for harvest near 

Earl West Cove, as well as harvest on private lands would contribute similar effects and further reduce 

marten POG habitat and high-volume POG habitat. One possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange. 

NFS lands would gain approximately 1,105 acres, however, the majority of this land has already been 

harvested so there would be no gain in current habitat. Approximately 85 percent of the original (1954) 

POG habitat remains within the project area WAA (Table 27). Alternative 2 would have the greatest 

impact on marten habitat where critical winter habitat which is deep snow marten habitat (high-value 

POG below 800 feet elevation) only maintain 60 percent of the original 1954 historical acres (Table 27).

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 0.69 

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 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. Therefore, 

implementation of all action alternatives would have cumulative effects to martins or their habitat when 

combined with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future projects with the implementation of the 

Wrangell Island Project. Although there are effects to martins, they would still continue to persist on 

Wrangell Island.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 97

Table 27. Acres of historical marten habitat, POG/high-value 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

66,165 / 

31,072 85 68 78 60 81 63 80 63 80 62

All lands 

below 

1,500 ft.

elevation

54,554 / 

28,401 82 66 75 59 77 61 77 60 77 61

All lands 

below 800 

ft.

elevation

32,629 / 

17,734 78 60 73 56 75 58 74 57 74 58

Bald Eagle

All action alternatives have been grouped because any effects associated with timber harvest under the 

action alternative would affect bald eagles in similar ways.

Direct/Indirect Effects

Timber harvest and associated activities would create noise and disturbance (e.g., helicopter logging) and 

have the potential to result in minor, temporary negligible direct/indirect effect 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 timber harvest within 

the beach/estuary or stream buffers.

The Forest Plan also requires that bald eagle nest sites be managed in accordance with the USFWS

guidelines. These guidelines restrict activities that are consistent with current bald eagle use, a 660-foot 

radius around active bald eagle nest trees between March 1 and August 31. 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 requirements will be 

implemented if active nests areas 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; therefore,

Forest Plan standard and guidelines for bald eagles are currently being met. 

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be negligible direct/indirect effects to bald eagle individuals or their habitat under all 

action alternatives, there would be no 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. Thus, the Wrangell 

Island Project, in combination with ongoing and foreseeable activities, would have negligible cumulative 

effects to bald eagles or their habitat.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 98

Black and Brown Bears

Direct/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 

52,405 acres of denning habitat and 3,678 acres of foraging stream habitat (Table 28). Alternative 2 would 

have the greatest reduction in bear denning habitat at 9 percent. 

Table 28. 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 59,478 52,405 88 0 9 5 6 6

Foraging 

habitat2 112,139 108,537 97 0 5 3 3 3

Foraging 

within 500 

feet of Class 

I streams

4,124 3,678 89 0 3 1 2 1

1 - Denning habitat includes all POG at all elevations

2 - Foraging habitat includes all habitats except older young-growth, lakes and water

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; Davies 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).

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 over-hunting (USDA Forest Service 

2008b). For more information on road densities, see the full wildlife report.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 99

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 future activities. Activities on Wrangell Island that have affected bear habitat and prey and 

would cumulatively add to this project include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), road/trail construction 

(100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on non-NFS land 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 AMHT land 

exchange through which NFS lands would gain approximately 1,105 acres, but the majority of this land 

has already been harvested so the benefit would be a gain in short-term foraging habitat. POG harvest 

under the action alternatives would reduce the original (1954) POG remaining within the project area

WAA 1903 (Table 29). This would contribute to similar effects resulting from ongoing and foreseeable 

harvest on NFS, State lands, such as harvest cleared by the Roadside EA and 700 acres of harvest planned 

near Earl West Cove, 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 29).

Table 29. 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 

(2015)

% 

remaining Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Denning 

habitat1 66,292 56,166 85 100 78 81 80 80

Foraging 

habitat2 132,837 127,442 96 100 92 94 93 93

Foraging 

within 500 

feet of Class I 

streams

5,219 4,318 83 100 81 82 81 82

1 - Denning habitat includes all POG at all elevations

2 - Foraging habitat includes all habitats except older young-growth, lakes and saltwater

Young-growth stands generally lack large hollow trees and root masses important for denning, though 

these features would be protected in harvested stands to some extent on NFS lands under the Forest Plan.

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.

Road building associated with past timber harvest on Wrangell Island has resulted in high road densities 

for a Southeast Alaskan island. 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 100.6 miles (includes motorized 

trails) would remain open following project implementation. All temporary roads would be closed upon 

project completion. Other timber harvest projects on NFS and State lands that involve road construction 

also have the potential to result in cumulative road-related effects to bears. Projected total road densities 

(all land ownerships) would be between 0.88 to 1.07 mi/mi2 in WAA 1903 (all of Wrangell Island).

Therefore, implementation of all action alternatives would have cumulative effects to both brown and 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 100

black bears or their habitat when combined with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future projects 

with the implementation of the Wrangell Island Project. Although there are effects to bears they would 

still continue to persist on Wrangell Island.

Brown Creeper, Hairy Woodpecker, and Red-breasted Sapsucker

Direct/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 also 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. Redbreasted sapsuckers are most closely associated with low-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 30 displays existing and 

reduction of habitat by alternative. Alternative 2 would remove the greatest amount of habitat - 1 to 12

percent of existing condition. Table 30 displays historical, existing and percent remaining by alternative.

Table 30. 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

(2015)

(% 

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) 26,554 19,351 

(73)

2,275

(12)

1,405

(7)

1,614

(8)

1,655

(9)

Medium 

(4N, 4S and

5H)

-- 21,218

(--)

1,442

(7)

806

(4)

856

(4)

1,014

(5)

Low (4H) -- 11,836

(--)

837

(7)

528

(4)

553

(4)

599

(5)

Nonproductive 

lands1

-- 52,494

(--)

718

(1)

425

(1)

486

(1)

502

(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.”

Indirect effects to these species would be associated with fragmentation and the reduction in POG patch 

sizes acres (Table 31). 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 101

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 31).

Table 31. 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 5,114 4,886

(96)

902

(18)

0

(0)

74

(2)

901

(18)

4760 4,212 3,550

(84)

318

(9)

228

(6)

245

(7)

228

(6)

4770 7,424 5,868

(79)

1,071

(18)

904

(15)

932

(6)

872

(15)

4780 9,964 7,708

(77)

689

(9)

531

(7)

576

(7)

516

(7)

4790 10,639 9,508

(89)

459

(5)

459

(5)

459

(5)

315

(3)

4800 14,496 13,361

(92)

1,114

(8)

618

(5)

738

(6)

436

(3)

5040 1,778 1,778

(100)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

5050 5,881 5,746

(98)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

0

(0)

WAA 1903 59,478 52,405

(88)

4,553

(9)

2,740

(5)

3,023

(6)

3,268

(6)

Cumulative Effects

Past timber harvest has reduced the amount of foraging and nesting habitat available in the project area 

for the red-breasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper. 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 redbreasted sapsucker and are cumulative with this project include: road/trail construction (100 miles), 

installation of utility corridors (26 miles) and property development on non-NFS land. 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 AMHT land exchange where there would be a gain of approximately 1,105 acres of 

NFS land, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and would be of little value to these 

POG associated species. 

Ongoing and foreseeable timber harvest on NFS lands, including harvest cleared by the Roadside EA, 

micro-sales and free use, and the planned harvest of 700 acres of State land around Earl West Cove, 

would result in additional habitat loss and associated fragmentation. Young-growth treatments on NFS 

lands may provide additional foraging opportunities for cavity nesters through the increase in downed 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 102

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 Alternative 2 (Table 

32). Despite having cumulative impacts under all alternatives, the Forest Plan conservation strategy 

would maintain habitats for the brown creeper, hairy woodpecker and red-breasted sapsucker. 

Table 32. 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 6,159 5,203

(84)

902

(70)

0

(84)

74

(83)

901

(70)

4760 5,038 3,572

(71)

318

(65)

228

(66)

245

(66)

228

(66)

4770 8,404 5,942

(71)

1,071

(58)

904

(60)

932

(60)

872

(60)

4780 11,905 9,101

(76)

689

(71)

531

(72)

576

(72)

516

(72)

4790 12,179 10,991

(90)

459

(86)

459

(86)

459

(86)

315

(88)

4800 14,499 13,364

(92)

1,114

(84)

618

(88)

738

(87)

436

(89)

5040 2,125 2,121

(100)

0

(100)

0

(100)

0

(100)

0

(100)

5050 5,856 5,751

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

0

(98)

WAA 1903 66,165 56,045

(85)

4,553

(78)

2,740

(81)

3,023

(80)

3,268

(80)

Red Squirrel

Direct/Indirect Effects

Direct effects to red squirrels can result from disturbances 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. The removal large amounts of POG habitat will likely have the greatest 

impacts to red squirrels. It can take up to 40 years for regenerating trees to be able to produce cones. At 

the WAA scale, POG habitat would be reduced by 5 to 9 percent (Table 32).

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 

cumulative with this project include: timber harvest (6,800 acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), 

installation of utility corridors (26 miles) and property development on non-NFS land. One possible 

benefit is the AMHT land exchange. NFS lands would gain approximately 1,105 acres, but the majority of 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 103

this land has already been harvested and currently would be of little value to these POG associated 

species.

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 

Roadside EA and 700 acres of planned harvest near Earl West Cove, 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. Although there are cumulative effects to red squirrels they would still 

continue to persist on Wrangell Island.

River Otter

Direct/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. There would be 3

to 4 percent reduction of otter habitat on NFS lands through the action alternatives (Table 33). 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 would not be 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 33. 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

(2015)

(% remaining)

Alt 2 harvest 

(% remaining)

Alt 3

harvest 

(% remaining)

Alt 4

harvest 

(% remaining)

Alt 5

harvest 

(% remaining)

10,045 9,134 

(91)

334 

(4)

243 

(3)

348 

(4)

237 

(3)

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 

reasonable foreseeable future 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 20 to 21 percent reduction of 

POG habitat from historical 1954 condition within 500 feet of Class I streams (Table 34) but with a 

minimum of 100-foot buffer. Therefore, any effect from the action alternatives would be minor and 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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 104

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 34. 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 2015

(% remaining)

Alt

2

(% remaining)

Alt

3

(% remaining)

Alt

4

(% remaining)

Alt

5

(% remaining)

12,063 9,986

(84)

334

(80)

243

(81)

348

(80)

237

(81)

Sitka Black-tailed Deer 

Direct/Indirect Effects

All of the action alternatives would reduce POG habitat, therefore reducing deer habitat capability (Table 

35). Effects would be realized immediately after project completion (2016), but more so at stem exclusion 

(2042), as forest succession progress. 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 that which 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. Declines in the deer population resulting from reduced habitat 

capability may decrease the availability of deer to wolves and hunters (Person 2001, Farmer et al. 2006, 

Brinkman et al. 2009). Likewise, reductions in deer habitat capability over the long-term may reduce the 

access to and availability of deer to subsistence hunters. Alternative 2 would have greatest reduction deer 

habitat capability of 9 percent at stem exclusion (Table 35).

Table 35. 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

Alt 1

(existing 

condition)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 2,678 -- -- -- --

Current (2015) 2,264

(85%) -- -- -- --

One year post

implementation (2016)

2,216

(98%)

2,160

(5%)

2,198

(3%)

2,187

(3%)

2,193

(3%)

Stem exclusion (2042) 2,215

(98%)

2,053

(9%)

2,114

(7%)

2,098

(7%)

2,105

(7%)

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 36). This could alter the 

distribution of these habitats on the landscape resulting in concentrated deer use of these areas (Schoen 

and Kirchoff 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 105

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 1,802 acres of deep snow habitat, 41,060 acres of average snow 

habitat, and 108,538 acres of non-winter habitat (Table 36). Alternative 2 would have the greatest effect 

on average snow habitat by reducing it 10 percent. All other alternatives would have similar effects deer 

habitat (Table 36).

Table 36. 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

Current 

(2015) 

acres

% of 

Historical Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Deep snow1 2,655 1,802 68 58

3%

47

3%

54

3%

24

1%

Average 

snow2 47,871 41,060 86 3,970

10%

2,489

6%

2,757

7%

2,769

7%

Non-winter3 112,140 108,538 97 289

1%

300

1%

299

1%

286

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 POG, non-productive OG, non-forested, muskeg, and alpine at all elevations

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to individual deer and their habitat 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 deer habitat and are 

cumulative with this project include: past timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 

miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on non-NFS land 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. NFS 

lands would gain approximately 1,105 acres, but the majority of the land has already been harvested and 

would be of little value other than possible foraging habitat.

Past harvest activities have reduced deer habitat capability on all land ownerships within WAA 1903 

(Table 37). Additional harvest on Wrangell Island, such as the 700 acres that would occur as part of the 

Earl West Cove harvest or as cleared by the 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 Alternative would affect deer habitat capability similarly (Table 

37). 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 106

Table 37. 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

Alt 1

(existing

condition)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 2,678 -- -- -- --

Current (2015) 2,264

(85%) -- -- -- --

One year

post implementation (2016)

2,216

(85%)

2,160

(81%)

2,198

(82%)

2,187

(82%)

2,193

(82%)

Stem exclusion (2042) 2,215

(83%)

2,053

(77%)

2,114

(79%)

2,098

(78%)

2,105

(79%)

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 action alternatives. Cumulative reductions in deep snow 

and average snow winter habitat would be reduced under all action alternatives (Table 38). Currently all 

land in WAA 1903 would maintain 67 percent of the historical deep snow habitat, 82 percent of the 

average snow habitat and 96 percent of the non-winter habitat (Table 38). Therefore, 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 future harvest. Although there would be 

effects on Wrangell Island, deer would continue to persist at current levels.

Table 38. 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

(2015) 

acres

% 

remaining 

of historical

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Deep 

snow1 3,333 2,247 67 58

66%

47

66%

54

66%

24

67%

Average 

snow2 54,675 44,812 82 3,970

75%

2,489

77%

2,757

77%

2,767

77%

Nonwinter3 133,396 127,997 96 296

96%

300

96%

299

96%

286

96%

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/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 and 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 

non-forested wetlands. Timber harvest would affect this species through the removal of forested wetlands, 

but because of poor timber quality at these sites any effects are expected to be minimal. Habitat for 

Vancouver Canada geese on NFS lands would be reduced by 4 to 7 percent through the action alternatives 

(Table 39). Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would maintain habitats in beach/estuary buffers, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 107

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. 

Table 39. Vancouver goose habitat harvested by alternative and percent reduction from existing condition 

(NFS lands only)

Habitat Existing

(2015) Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Hydric POG (SD4H) 11,836 7% 4% 4% 5%

Other unproductive 

lands1 52,494 1% 1% 1% 1%

1 - Other unproductive lands = forested muskeg, non-forested and unproductive forest 

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 no cumulative effects when combined 

with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future projects. Alternative 2 would have the greatest 

impact, but approximately 93 percent of habitat would remain from 1954 historical conditions (Table 40).

There are 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. Furthermore, 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 40. Historical acres of Vancouver goose habitat and percent remaining (all lands) by alternative

Habitat

Historical

condition 

(1954)

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

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 = forested muskeg, non-forested and unproductive forest 

Great Blue Heron 

Direct/Indirect Effects

There would be negligible direct and indirect effects to great blue heron individuals 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 shortterm and negligible. This species utilizes both forested and un-forested wetlands. Approximately 97

percent of the historical 1954 habitat remains on NFS lands within WAA 1903 (Table 41). 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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 108

within 3km 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).

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be negligible cumulative adverse effects to great blue heron individuals and/or their 

habitat with the implementation of all action alternatives, there would be no cumulative effects when 

combined with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future projects. Currently 89 percent of the 

historical 1954 habitat remains on Wrangell Island (all ownerships). Also, the Forest Service 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). Furthermore, forested habitat used for nesting, which 

would not be impacted from harvest activities, nor is it the limiting factor affecting great blue herons. 

Timber harvest has generally had negligible effects because these sites are fairly unproductive for timber 

harvest. 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 41. 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

(2015)

% remaining from historical

condition

All land ownerships

6,642 acres 5,916 acres 89

NFS lands only

5,229 acres 5,067 acres 97

Marbled Murrelet 

Direct/Indirect Effects 

Timber harvest and associated activities would have direct/indirect effect on marbled murrelets through 

noise, disturbance, and the removal of potential nesting habitat. Although no murrelets were observed 

during field surveys, but 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 the table below (Table 

42). Effects would be greatest under Alternative 2, where the Wrangell Island Project would reduce 

habitat by approximately 5 to 9 percent of the existing POG habitat on Forest Service lands within WAA 

1903.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 109

Table 42. Acres and percent reduction of POG habitat (NFS lands only) in WAA 1903 by alternative

Historical

condition 

(1954)

Alt 1

(existing

condition1)

(% remaining 

from historical)

Alt 2

(% reduction 

from existing)

Alt 3

(% reduction 

from existing)

Alt 4

(% reduction 

from existing)

Alt 5

(% reduction 

from existing)

59,478 52,168

(88)

4,553

(9)

2,740

(5)

3,023

(6)

3,268

(6)

1 - Existing condition is 2015

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 future projects. Activities on Wrangell Island that have affected marbled murrelet 

potential nesting habitat and are cumulative with this project include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), 

road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on 

non-NFS land 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 1,105 acres, but 

the majority of this land has already been harvested and of little value to this POG associated species.

There are standards and guidelines in place that would protect nests if any were discovered. Cumulative 

effects to murrelet habitat in the project area is described in Table 43. The Wrangell Island Project in 

combination with past, present, and foreseeable projects would 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 78 to 81 percent of the historical 1954 

condition on all land ownerships on Wrangell Island (Table 43). 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 when combined with past present and reasonably foreseeable would allow 

for the continued persistence of marbled murrelets on Wrangell Island.

Table 43. Acres harvested and percentage of remaining historical POG habitat on all lands on Wrangell 

Island in WAA 1903

Historical

condition

(1954)

Alt 1 (existing

condition1) 

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 2

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 3

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 4

(% remaining 

of historical)

Alt 5

(% remaining 

of historical)

66,165 56,045

(85)

4,553

(78)

2,740

(81)

3,023

(80)

3268

(80)

1- Existing condition is 2015

Southern Red-backed Vole

Direct/Indirect Effects

There would be direct/indirect effects to Southern red-backed voles as a result of implementing the 

proposed action alternatives. Timber harvest would directly affect the 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 southern red-backed vole.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 110

Effects to POG forests resulting from all alternatives are described above in Table 42. Effects would be 

greatest under Alternative 2, where the Wrangell Island Project would reduce approximately 5 to 9

percent of the existing POG habitat on NFS land. Therefore all action alternatives that remove POG 

habitat would have minimal effect on red-backed voles which could lead to population declines and 

reduced genetic interchange because of habitat fragmentation.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to 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 red-backed vole habitat and are cumulative with this project include: timber harvest (6,800 

NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property 

development on non-NFS land 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 1,105 acre, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and of little value to 

this POG associated species. 

Timber harvest proposed under the action alternatives would further reduce and fragment POG habitat. 

Cumulative effects to POG and patch size in the project area by alternative is described in Table 43. 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 78 to 81 percent of 1954 POG levels. Therefore, all action 

alternatives may result in local declines in red-backed vole population due to the reduced availability 

nesting habitat. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action alternatives will increase habitat 

fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, when combined with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although there would be effects on Southern red-backed vole 

habitat, they should continue to exist on Wrangell Island at current levels.

Migratory Birds 

Direct/Indirect Effects

There would be direct/indirect effects to migratory bird 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.

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.

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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 111

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 42). The amount of POG harvest proposed under each Alternative will be used to 

measure the extent of potential effects. Through all the action alternatives there would be approximately 5 

to 9 percent reduction in POG habitat on Forest Service land Wrangell, with the greatest being Alternative 

2. 

Effects to migratory birds can be minimized by altering the season of activity, retaining snags, 

maintaining the integrity of breeding sites, considering key winter and migration areas, and minimizing 

pollution or detrimental alteration of habitats (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Under all alternatives, 

migratory bird habitat would be maintained by the Forest Plan conservation strategy.

Cumulative Effects

Because there would be direct/indirect effects to migratory bird individuals and/or habitat 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 deer habitat and are 

cumulative with this project include: past timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 

miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on non-NFS land 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 1,105 acres, but the majority of this land 

has already been harvested and of little value to this POG associated species.

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 78 to 81 percent of historical 1954 

condition (Table 43). Alternative 2 would harvest the most POG of all action alternatives and thus cause 

the greatest impact to migratory individuals and their habitat; however, 48,873 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, but when combined with past present and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although there would be impacts to migratory bird habitat, they 

should continue to exist on Wrangell Island at current levels.

Issue 3: Scenic Quality

Scenery is defined as the general appearance of a place, general appearance of a landscape, or features of 

a landscape (USDA Forest Service 1995). 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 (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 2-6), with the objective of maintaining scenic integrity 

based upon land use objectives.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 112

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 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.

Complete analysis is available in the Scenery Resource Report located in the Wrangell Island EIS project 

record.

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 Scenery Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp. 4-56 to 4-

63), in addition to visual priority travel routes and use areas (VPRs) (USDA Forest Service 2008c, pp. F-1 

to F-24). 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 44). 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 2008a, p. 4-57). LUDs 

proposed for development for the Wrangell Island Project include, Scenic Viewshed (USDA Forest 

Service 2008a, p. 3-101), Modified Landscape (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 3-109), and Timber 

Production (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 3-116).

Table 44. 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 112,041

Non-NFS land acres are not inventoried. About 223 acres are non-attributed in GIS coded as non-NFS lands, saltwater, or nonattributed which is insignificant 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
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 113

(Table 45). 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 2008a, pp. 4-57 to 4-59). Visual depictions of SIO criteria can also be found in the Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp. 4-61 to 4-63).

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).

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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 114

Table 45. 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 111,563

Non-NFS acres are not inventoried. About 700 acres are non-attributed in GIS coded as non-NFS land, saltwater, or non-attributed 

which is insignificant 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 natural 

appearing 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 

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 in 

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. 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 115

Effects Analysis Indicators (Units of Measure)

The following indicators were used to measure the potential effects of project alternatives to scenery.

Table 46. 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 visual 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 existing Forest 

Plan (2008). 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.

In areas where road construction or reconditioning is proposed, final design of rock quarry development 

would be reviewed by an interdisciplinary team to include a landscape architect prior to implementation.

Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects 

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 15). Young-growth stands within the project area 

would continue to grow to a more mature forest.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 116

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 of the 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. Timber harvest would be evident along the NemoSkip 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 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 16, Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19). The partial harvest 

proposed by 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 even-aged harvest potentially visible within 

the most visually sensitive viewsheds in the project area. It does this by proposing helicopter partial 

harvest 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 117

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 47 presents acres of timber harvest within each scenic integrity objective classification by

alternative. Acres of timber harvest are separated by even-aged management (clearcut) and uneven-aged 

management (partial harvest). Even-aged management includes timber harvest with no stand structure 

remaining (clearcut) or a clearcut with reserves with approximately 15 percent of the stand structure 

remaining (CR15). Uneven-aged management is based on single-tree or group selection with 

approximately 67 percent of the stand structure remaining and identified as UA33. 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 in Alternative 5 are reduced due to the application of less intensive 

harvest prescriptions and the reduction of total acres of treatment.

Table 47. 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 EA CR15 UA33 EA CR15 UA33 EA CR15 UA33 EA CR15 UA33

High 5 0 87 5 0 12 5 0 22 1 0 87

Moderate 357 35 419 363 35 108 357 35 137 219 35 400

Low 1,245 21 583 1,200 21 318 1,258 21 372 601 21 386

Very Low 105 1 184 65 1 52 105 1 41 47 1 59

Total 1,781 57 1,273 1,633 57 490 1,725 57 572 868 57 932

Table 48 presents the miles of new road construction and existing road reconditioning by SIO for each 

alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 would be similar in effect for miles of new road construction and 

existing road reconditioning. Alternative 4 has the greatest effect due to miles of new road construction 

and existing road reconditioning. 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 48. 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 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.6 0 0.3 0

Moderate 9.9 2.3 9.4 2.3 10.1 2.3 7.3 1.8

Low 21.8 2.6 21.4 2.6 22.5 2.1 12.7 1.6

Very Low 2.4 0.7 2.4 0.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.6

Total Miles 34.4 5.6 33.3 5.6 35.6 5.2 22.6 5.0

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 future development listed in Table 4 (Chapter 1). 

These effects include timber harvest, roads, rock quarries, landings, and other management activities. 

Previous development on Wrangell Island has modified the scenic environment of many areas from a 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

 Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 118

natural appearing condition to a condition where some landscapes appear heavily altered. The cumulative 

effect of timber harvest incorporating adjacent non-NFS lands 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 

reasonably foreseeable future.

As described in Appendix B of the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008c, p. B-23), 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 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. This is 

calculated by adding the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable harvest acres and dividing by the total 

suitable acres within the VCU. 

Table 49 and Table 50 present the cumulative visual disturbance acres and percentage of cumulative 

timber harvest. 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 uneven-aged management is considered a partial removal of an 

individual stand, only that percentage of harvest is considered as a cumulative effect.

Table 49. 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 1,131 429 1,131 429 1,131 429 1,131 208

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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 119

Figure 15. Current condition (Alternative 1) for Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 121

Figure 16. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 123

Figure 17. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 3

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 125

Figure 18. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 4

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 127

Figure 19. Scenery Integrity Objectives (SIOs) for Alternative 5

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 129

Figure 20. 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 DEIS ♦ 131

Figure 21. Viewpoint #1. Zimovia Highway at Shoemaker Bay looking south. Existing condition. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 132

Figure 22. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #1
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 133

Figure 23. Viewpoint #2. Zimovia Strait looking northeast toward Pats Lake. Existing Condition
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 134

Figure 24. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #2
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 135

Figure 25. Viewpoint #3. Eastern Passage looking southward toward Salamander Ridge. Existing Condition
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 136

Figure 26. Simulation of uneven-aged management, 33 percent removal, as seen from Viewpoint #3
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 137

Table 50. 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% 8% 8% 5% 7%

4800 3% 6% 5% 5% 5%

5040 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

5050 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

Uneven-aged harvest acres are reduced by the amount of retention.

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 will still be a lighter green in color than mature or old-growth 

forest, the color contrast at this point would be less. Textural differences will be apparent because younggrowth 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 line. 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.

Assuming implementation of the Forest Plan, 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 natural appearing forest environment.

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. The following examples represent 3 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 66 percent retention show minimal visible impact. The outcome 

indicates the project activity would meet Forest Plan requirements for scenery standards and guidelines.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 138

Issue 4: Access Management

The transportation resource considers the potential effects of the new construction and reconditioning of 

roads used to access the proposed harvest units. It also considers the status of these roads after timber 

harvest, to be open or closed, as well as the maintenance costs of these proposed road designations. Roads 

can provide access for recreation and subsistence gathering purposes to the public. 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, silviculture economics, 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 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 National Forest System 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

For Wrangell Island, the demand for new roads has primarily been for access to timber resources. 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. The amount of future road construction is 

anticipated to be determined by the need to access timber resources. All roads discussed in this analysis 

area were originally built for logging and the associated administration, though incidental recreational and 

subsistence use, including firewood gathering, occurs throughout the area.

To facilitate the understanding of road terminology, a road may be classified as NFS road, temporary, or 

an unauthorized road. 

National Forest System (NFS) Road

“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 longterm 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 in order to use more road 

maintenance funds on the open drivable roads. Maintenance Level 1, closure and basic custodial 

maintenance, is assigned.

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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 139

atlas.” 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 result in 

the stabilization and restoration of 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, waterbars added where needed, and cut and fill slopes re-vegetated.

Unauthorized Road or Trail

“A road or trail that is not a forest road or trail or a temporary road or trail and that is not included in a 

forest transportation atlas.” These include unplanned roads and off-road vehicle tracks that have not been 

designated and managed as roads or trails. Roads that are no longer under permit or authorization and 

have not been decommissioned are also considered unauthorized.

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.

Maintenance levels (ML) that are 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 highclearance 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 is an ongoing process that occurs on a periodic 

basis. 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 quality of the human 

environment and may be categorically excluded. This work is done through separate service 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. The 

maintenance and reconditioning of NFS roads in the project area may occur before, during, and after this 

project analysis. Any effects from ongoing road maintenance and reconditioning work are included in the 

cumulative effects analysis 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

than they are afterwards.

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 51.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 140

Table 51. Miles of existing roads, Wrangell Island project area

Route Status / System

National 

Forest 

system 

road

OPML

National 

Forest 

system 

road 

OBML

Other 

public 

roads

TMP -

temporary

NOT -

not 

needed

Total 

miles

NFSR maintenance level

1 - Basic custodial care (closed) 9.41 24.1

2 - High clearance vehicles 27.84 32.52

3 - Suitable for passenger cars 62.13 40.28

4 - Moderate degree of user comfort 0.15 0.15

D - Decommission 2.48

Total existing system miles 99.53 99.53 21.32 0 0 120.85

Existing decommissioned miles 6.92 22.11 0.78 29.81

Non-routed system 0 0 12.7 20.79 0 33.49

Total non-system existing miles 6.92 0 12.7 42.9 0.78 63.3

Marine Access Facilities and Log Transfer Facilities

A marine access facility is an area used by humans to transfer items from land to saltwater or vice versa,

that contains structures such as a mooring buoy, dock, marine access facility, boat ramp, or a combination 

of these. A log transfer facility is used to transfer logs and timber products from land-based transportation 

forms to water-based transportation forms (or vice-versa). These facilities are often used for the 

movement of equipment needed for logging and road construction or reconditioning. 

There are three existing marine access facilities on Wrangell Island: Pats Creek, Earl West Cove (Venus 

Point), and at the site of the former Silver Bay mill in Shoemaker Bay (private property). All three marine 

access facilities are viable options for a timber purchaser to move logs off the Wrangell Island road 

system.

Pats Creek

The Pats Creek marine access facility 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 log transfer 

facility. 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 AKG-70-0024 

under Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit AKG-70-1000 allowing for the 

discharge of bark and wood debris associated with in-water log transfer and log storage. This 

authorization was due to expire on November 30, 2013, but has been administratively extended. 

The last benthic dive survey associated with the Pats Creek Tideland Lease was completed in October 

2000. The bark accumulation was determined to be 0.33 acres of continuous debris and 0.16 acres of 

discontinuous debris, which is within the requirements of the permit.

Earl West Cove

The Venus marine access facility, commonly known as Earl West, is located at the terminal end of NFS

road 6265. Earl West consists of a log transfer facility, 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 141

The ADEC issued authorization AKG-70-0060 under Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

General Permit AKG-70-1000 allowing for the discharge of bark and wood debris associated with inwater log transfer and log storage. This authorization was due to expire on November 30, 2013, but has 

been administratively extended.

The last benthic dive survey associated with the Earl West Tideland Lease 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 former Silver Bay mill is located at approximately mile 5.5 on the Zimovia Highway (State Highway 

16) and consists of a large sort yard and a marine access facility. The marine access facility consists of a 

bulkhead where a crane can be used to transfer logs. Additionally, there is a low angle ramp were logs can 

be delivered by vehicle directly into the water.

The mill site is privately owned and the mill itself has been out of operation for several years. It is 

currently unknown if there are permits for the marine access facility or if there are any recent benthic dive 

surveys.

Minerals and Geology

There are no existing mining claims on Wrangell Island.

Table 52. Existing bridges, Wrangell Island project area 

Road Number Milepost Status Length (feet) Bridge Type Year Built Condition

50016 0.250 Disposed 58 Log Stringer 1982 Unknown

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

6260 0.967 Disposed 35 Log Stringer Unknown Poor

6260 1.013 Disposed 30 Log Stringer 1980 Serious

6260 1.229 Disposed 37 Log Stringer 1980 Critical

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

6265 14.575 Existing - Active Unknown Unknown Unknown Fair

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
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 142

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 52 displays all existing and disposed National Forest System bridges on Wrangell Island.

Table 53. National Forest System road fish stream culverts on Wrangell Island

Road

Number Milepost Stream

Class

Structure 

Category

Road

Number Milepost Stream

Class

Structure 

Category

6270 8.904 II Gray 50050 1.965 II Red

6267 8.935 I Gray 6259 2.334 I Red

6267 9.318 I Gray 6259 2.403 II Red

50055 0.031 II Red 6265 2.414 II Red

50054 0.033 II Red 6265 2.515 II Red

50054 0.063 II Red 6299 2.544 II Red

50054 0.086 II Red 6299 2.577 II Red

6250 0.150 II Red 6259 2.782 II Red

50054 0.178 II Red 6259 2.787 II Red

6265 0.313 II Red 6259 4.077 II Red

6260 0.352 II Red 6267 4.138 II Red

50050 0.538 II Red 6259 5.104 II Red

6270 0.624 II Red 6259 5.203 II Red

6259 0.647 I Red 6259 5.254 II Red

6265 0.711 II Red 6267 7.625 II Red

6265 0.718 II Red 6265 8.089 II Red

50050 0.765 I Red 6299 8.339 II Red

6265 0.767 II Red 6265 9.365 II Red

6270 1.017 II Red 6267 11.441 II Red

50040 1.292 II Red 6265 12.434 II Red

50050 1.691 II Red 6265 2.524 II Red

Fish Stream Crossings

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. There are 42 known fish stream crossing culverts 

currently categorized as red or gray on Wrangell Island. Additional discussion involving Class I and Class 

II streams are addressed in the Aquatics section of this chapter. The Tongass National Forest developed 

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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 143

• 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.

Table 53 shows the number of crossings for each existing road within the project area (See aquatics 

resource report for a detailed list).

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 

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 51. Each alternative proposes 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 51 for the most current records of road miles across other ownerships and 

jurisdictions.

Proposed new road construction routes were routed by transportation specialists and field reviewed by 

resource specialists during 2010 through 2012. Specific comments and concerns along with site-specific 

mitigation measures and design features 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. 

Units of Measure for Timber Sale Roads

The following units of measure 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
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 144

• 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 that the project should limit 

new road construction to provide added resource protection and to minimize overall maintenance costs. 

Commenters requested that road development, closures, maintenance levels, and management objectives 

be analyzed.

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.

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

• Change in anticipated future road maintenance costs (percent)

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 the 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 some 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, located on the project webpage (http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831). 

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 using 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 145

Table 54. Proposed and existing road miles

Road Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Proposed NFS - New construction 0.0 17.2 15.8 16.1 12.5

Existing NFS1 97.1 99.5 99.5 99.5 97.1

Total NFS - after implementation 97.1 116.7 115.3 115.6 109.5

Proposed temp - new construction 0.0 14.9 14.1 16.2 9.1

Existing decommissioned2,3 50.6 47.05 47.81 47.76 47.95

Total decommissioned - after 

implementation 50.6 61.9 61.9 64.0 57.1

Total proposed road construction 0.0 32.1 29.8 32.3 21.6

Road reconditioning (maintenance 

of closed roads) 0.0 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.1

1 Miles are based on Objective Maintenance Level (ML)

2 Existing miles vary to account for miles being converted to NFS or reused as Temporary

3 Existing Decommissioned = decommissioned NFS + Temporary + Not Needed (refer to Table 51).

Roads Proposed

Table 54 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 will 

not be open and drivable and are not 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. Under Alternatives 1 and 5 temporary roads will not provide the 

public access to firewood after the timber harvest is complete. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would provide 

limited access to firewood gathering for up to 2 years 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.

Table 55, displays the units of measure to describe and compare the access and road management issue.

The effects of these units of measure can be found the respective resource reports.

Alternatives 1 and 5 are essentially the same when comparing issue units of measure of access and travel 

management. All proposed NFS construction in Alternatives 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 the issue units of measure for access and travel 

management. The road management objectives are based on the recommendations of the interdisciplinary 

team of resource specialists. These recommendations did not vary alternative to alternative, rather specific 

roads, or various lengths of a road, were needed for timber access.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 146

Table 55. Proposed road designations 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 5.06 3.8 4.7 0

Existing roads 73.0 81.6 81.6 81.6 72.8

Total 73.0 86.7 85.4 86.3 72.8

NFS roads designated as motorized 

trails (ML1, OHV)

Proposed roads 0 5.97 5.7 5.6 0

Existing roads 0 8.02 8.0 8.0 0

Total 0 13.99 13.8 13.6 0

NFS roads designated to be closed to 

all vehicles (ML1)

Proposed roads 0 6.1 6.2 5.8 12.5

Existing roads 24.1 10.0 10.1 10.0 24.1

Total 24.1 16.1 16.3 15.7 36.5

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 -19% -4% -5% -4% -19%

Road Costs

Estimated costs for construction of roads are shown in Table 56. 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 56 displays the sum total of road costs per alternative, as well as the relationship between road costs 

and volume harvested.

Table 56. Estimated transportation costs and efficiencies

Road Type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS construction $0 $3,286,605 $2,764,613 $2,852,732 $2,456,296 

NFS reconditioning $0 $17,280 $17,280 $16,050 $12,180 

Temporary construction $0 $2,109,977 $2,059,399 $2,363,041 $1,251,484 

Estimated total road costs $0 $5,413,862 $4,841,292 $5,231,822 $3,719,960 

Net MBF harvested (sawlog and utility) (net MBF) 0 65,057 48,795 51,075 42,787

Total road costs per net MBF ($/net MBF) $0 $83.2 $99.2 $102.4 $86.9

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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 147

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.

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 each 2 miles of new road construction would require a rock source. 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 following the completion of timber harvest. 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 recondition 

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 associate 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. Within industry, helicopter yarding is typically 

only used in areas where the use of cable or shovel 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 the 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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 148

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 using 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.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Road miles and cost

Under Alternative 1, no new road construction or reconditioning would occur as a result of this project. 

There would be no additional road costs incurred by this alternative.

The Forest Plan’s transportation goal is to “Develop and manage roads and utility systems to support 

resource management activities; recognize the potential for future development of major Transportation 

and Utility Systems.” Alternative 1 proposes no new development of roads. This alternative would forfeit 

any opportunity to develop or enhance the current road system. It would also 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 road management objectives for existing roads. 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. This would be a 

reduction in the estimated annual maintenance costs of 19 percent.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Road miles and costs

Alternative 2 proposes construction of 17.2 miles of NFS road, 14.9 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 5.8 miles of existing NFS roads.

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 partial cutting since the remaining volume would likely not support future road development. 

Approximately 3,408 acres, or 64 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, are proposed for helicopter. 

This is the greatest number of acres proposed as helicopter and is the greatest in proportion to the total 

acres. 

Of the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the second highest amount of new road 

construction, although comparable to Alternative 4 (Table 55). This alternative also ranks the greatest in 

transportation development costs; however, at $83.2/net MBF, this alternative ranked the most efficient in 

road costs (Table 56). 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 17.2 miles of new NFS roads, 6.1 miles would be closed to all vehicles, 6.0 miles would be closed 

yet dual-designated as motorized trails, and 5.1 miles would remain open to all vehicles. Approximately 

0.2 mile of NFS roads are designated to be decommissioned. The 86.7 miles of NFS roads designated to 

be open would reduce the estimated annual maintenance costs by 4 percent from what is currently open 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 149

and drivable; however, this would be a 19 percent increase in maintenance costs based on the ATM

objective maintenance levels.

Alternative 3

Road miles and costs

Alternative 3 proposes construction of 15.8 miles of NFS road, 14.1 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 5.8 miles of existing NFS roads.

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 partial cutting since the remaining volume would likely not support future road development. 

Approximately 1,440 acres, or 45 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, are proposed for helicopter. 

This is the fewest number of acres proposed as helicopter and is tied for the least in proportion to the total 

acres. 

Of the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the second lowest amount of new road 

construction, but is comparable to Alternatives 2 and 4 (See Table 55). This alternative also ranks as the 

second lowest in transportation development costs; however, at $99.2/net MBF, this alternative ranked the 

second least-efficient in road costs (Table 56). 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 15.8 miles of new NFS roads, 6.2 miles would be closed to all vehicles, 5.7 miles would be closed 

yet dual-designated as motorized trails, and 3.8 miles would remain open to all vehicles. About 0.2 mile 

of NFS roads would be designated for decommission. The 85.4 miles of NFS roads designated open 

would reduce the estimated annual maintenance costs by 5 percent from what is currently open and 

drivable; however, this would be a 17 percent increase in maintenance costs based on the ATM objective 

maintenance levels.

Alternative 4

Road miles and costs

Alternative 4 proposes construction of 16.1 miles of NFS road, 16.2 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 5.4 miles of existing NFS roads.

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 partial cutting since the remaining volume would likely not support future road development. 

About 1,604 acres, or 45 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, are proposed for helicopter. This is 

the second lowest number of acres proposed as helicopter and the second highest in proportion to the total 

acres, although this is comparable to Alternative 3. 

Of the four action alternatives, this alternative proposes the greatest amount of new road construction 

(Table 55). This alternative also ranks the second highest in transportation development costs; however, at 

$102.4/net MBF, this alternative ranked as the least-efficient in road costs (Table 56).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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 150

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 16.1 miles of new NFS roads, 5.8 miles would be closed to all vehicles, 5.6 miles would be closed 

yet dual-designated as motorized trails, and 4.7 miles would remain open to all vehicles. About 0.2 mile 

of NFS roads would be designated for decommission. The 86.3 miles of NFS roads designated to be open 

would reduce the estimated annual maintenance costs by 4 percent from what is currently open and 

drivable; however, this would be an 18 percent increase in maintenance costs based on the ATM objective 

maintenance levels.

Alternative 5

Road miles and costs

Alternative 5 proposes construction of 12.5 miles of NFS road, 9.1 miles of temporary road, and the 

reconditioning of 4.1 miles of existing NFS roads.

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 partial cutting since the remaining volume would likely not support future road development. 

Approximately 2,754 acres, or 72 percent of the total proposed harvest acres, is proposed for helicopter. 

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 

55). This alternative ranks the lowest in transportation development costs; however, at $86.9/net MBF, 

this alternative ranked the second most-efficient in road costs (Table 56).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 none of these closed roads would be dualdesignated as motorized trails. About 2.5 miles of NFS roads would be designated for decommission. The 

remaining 72.8 miles of NFS roads designated to be open would reduce the estimated annual maintenance 

costs by 19 percent from what is currently open and drivable. 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 (See Table 54).

The proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale would add approximately 4.4 miles of roads and the 

recent Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile of roads.

The proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority land exchange would increase the miles of roads 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service by approximately 1 mile. The Alaska Mental Health Trust 

(AMHT) generally manages their roads as closed (as defined by the Alaska Forest Resources and 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 151

Practices Act) with structures and fills removed from waterways. Should the exchange occur, the 

approximately 1 mile of road would likely be managed to a decommissioned temporary road. The 

exchange would not affect road maintenance budgets or motorized access.

Alternative 2

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 116.7 miles of NFS 

roads and 61.9 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, though comparable to 

Alternatives 3 and 4.

Additionally, the proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale would add approximately 4.4 miles of 

roads and the recent Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority timber sale has added approximately 0.6 miles 

of roads.

The proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority land exchange would increase the miles of roads 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service by approximately 1 mile. The AMHT generally manages their 

roads as closed (as defined by the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act) with structures and fills 

removed from waterways. Should the exchange occur, the approximately 1 mile of road would likely be 

managed to a decommissioned temporary road. The exchange would not affect road maintenance budgets 

or motorized access.

Alternative 3

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 115.3 miles of NFS 

roads and 61.9 miles of decommissioned roads within the Wrangell Island project area. This is the second 

least cumulative amount of NFS and temporary road created by an alternative, but is comparable to 

Alternatives 2 and 4.

Additionally, the proposed Alaska Division of Forestry timber sale would add approximately 4.4 miles of 

roads and the recent Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile 

of roads.

The proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority land exchange would increase the miles of roads 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service by approximately 1 mile. The AMHT generally manages their 

roads as closed (as defined by the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act) with structures and fills 

removed from waterways. Should the exchange occur, the approximately 1 mile of road would likely be 

managed to a decommissioned temporary road. The exchange would not affect road maintenance budgets 

or motorized access.

Alternative 4

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 115.6 miles of NFS 

roads and 64 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 recent Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile 

of roads.

The proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority land exchange would increase the miles of roads 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service by approximately 1 mile. The AMHT generally manages their 

roads as closed (as defined by the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act) with structures and fills 

removed from waterways. Should the exchange occur, the approximately 1 mile of road would likely be 

managed to a decommissioned temporary road. The exchange would not affect road maintenance budgets 

or motorized access.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 152

Alternative 5

Cumulative effects of past and proposed timber harvest would result in a total of 109.5 miles of NFS 

roads and 57.1 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 recent Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority timber sale has added approximately 0.6 mile 

of roads.

The proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority land exchange would increase the miles of roads 

under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service by approximately 1 mile. The AMHT generally manages their 

roads as closed (as defined by the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act) with structures and fills 

removed from waterways. Should the exchange occur, the approximately 1 mile of road would likely be 

managed to a decommissioned temporary road. The exchange would not affect road maintenance budgets 

or motorized access.

Other Resources Concerns

Air Quality and Climate Change

This section describes the general air quality conditions expected in the Wrangell Island project area and 

information available about climate change in Southeast Alaska. Climate change and air pollution are 

related issues that have largely been separated in research and politics. It is generally accepted that 

greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions are impacting the Earth’s climate by warming the surface and the 

atmosphere, thus affecting rainfall, glacier and sea ice retreat, and sea level, among other factors 

(Ramananthan and Feng 2009). Many of the traditional air pollutants and GHGs have common sources 

and may interact physically and chemically in the atmosphere causing a variety of environmental impacts 

on the local, regional and global scales (Bytnerowicz et al. 2007).

Affected Environment

Air Quality

Air quality on the Tongass National Forest and in Southeast Alaska is generally 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 mining 

operations, marine vessels and cruise ships, wood-burning stoves, vehicle exhaust, diesel power and 

asphalt plants, incinerators, and unpaved roads can contribute to deterioration of air quality at various 

scales (temporal and spatial) that could impact sensitive receptors on the Tongass National Forest.

Designated sensitive receptors of air quality impacts are lichens (Dillman et al. 2007; USDA Forest 

Service 2008a). Lichens, especially canopy epiphytes, are particularly sensitive to pollution and climate 

because they obtain their water and nutrients directly from the atmosphere and lack membranes that are 

able to limit pollutant uptake. As a result, lichen communities are very responsive to shifts in moisture 

and temperature (McCune and Geiser 2009).

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. In these plots, lichens are sampled every 8 to 10 years for 

contaminant concentrations. Locally relevant thresholds were developed for the Forest from pristine areas 

(Dillman et al. 2007) so local or regional emissions may be identified by lichen thallus pollutant 

concentration levels above the established background. Regular monitoring allows resource managers to 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 153

compile trend data on contaminants (some of which are criteria pollutants or similar species such as 

nitrogen for nitrogen dioxide, sulfur for sulfur dioxide and lead). 

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 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 (e.g., Bryant et al. 2004, Hodgkins 2009, Hood and Berner 2009, Haufler et al. 2010, 

Wolken et al. 2011, Hennon et al. 2012).

Changing Climate

The Tongass National Forest is a matrix of forests, wetlands, alpine meadows, ice, and rock. Climate 

change impacts these landscapes in different and potentially unanticipated ways. The Forest’s role in the 

global carbon cycle is thought to be significant, equal to about 8 percent of the carbon stored in all forests 

in the lower 48 (D’Amore and Edwards 2013).

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (2009) reported Alaska has experienced a 3.4 degree 

Fahrenheit rise in average annual temperatures over the past 50 years with an increase in winter 

temperatures of 6.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures are expected to continue to rise. These increases in 

temperature have led to other related changes to climate, such as an increase in snow-free days and shifts 

in precipitation. Snow-free days have increased across Alaska by an average of 10 days. According to 

Hennon et al. (2012), the forests of coastal Alaska are expected to experience the largest twenty-first 

century increase in frost-free days anywhere in North America (Meehl et al. 2004) as the winter climate 

moves across the snow–rain threshold (Hennon et al. 2012).

According to Haufler et al. (2010), anticipated climate change impacts to NFS lands and the lands of 

other ownerships on the Tongass National Forest include changing sea levels, increased ocean 

temperatures and changing circulation patterns, increased ocean acidification, increased storm intensities, 

changes to stream temperatures and flows, loss of glaciers, changes to wetlands, forest temperature and 

precipitation changes, and increases in invasive species. Climate change has been linked to increases in 

GHGs, with the primary factor being the rise in CO2 levels (Haufler et al. 2010).

Yellow-cedar Decline

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 Alaska yellow-cedar 

(Callitropsis nootkatensis) distribution, henceforth referred to as yellow-cedar. Although distribution of 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 154

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 the section entitled, Forest Health and Natural Disturbance 

in the Silviculture section of this chapter.

Carbon Sequestration

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). Although much of the attention on the forest carbon sequestration strategy in the 

United States has been on the role of private lands, public forests in the United States represent 

approximately 20 percent of the U.S. timberland area and also hold a significantly large share (30 percent) 

of the U.S. timber volume. With such a large standing timber inventory, these forested lands have 

considerable impact on the U.S. forest carbon balance (Depro et al. 2007).

Sequestration refers to the storage of carbon to reduce atmospheric carbon (CO2) and mitigates the effects 

of climate change. For the purposes of federal land managers, biological sequestration occurs when 

atmospheric carbon is absorbed and stored by plants or soils. Biological sequestration is the net increase 

of carbon stored within a parcel of land over time, while the net decrease is considered an emission. In 

other words, a standing forest that exists today is not, in and of itself, considered sequestration, but any 

additional carbon that is stored within that forest as it grows over time would be considered sequestration.

Forests absorb carbon dioxide and sequester and store carbon over time until growth slows down 

considerably at maturity. Older trees sequester carbon through new growth at a declining rate, but retain 

pools of stored carbon until they burn or decay as they decline, die or are harvested. Actively growing 

forests turn water, sunlight and atmospheric carbon dioxide into solid carbon and oxygen and continue to 

store significant amounts of carbon when they are old. Carbon is continuously cycled among these storage 

pools and between forest ecosystems and the atmosphere as a result of biological processes in forests 

(e.g., photosynthesis, respiration, growth, mortality, decomposition, and disturbances such as fires or pest 

outbreaks) and anthropogenic activities (e.g., harvesting, thinning, clearing, and replanting). Because the 

carbon sequestration system consists of multiple pools, the fluxes between them, and numerous processes, 

it is important to consider forest carbon as a complete system, rather than just focusing on one pool or 

process. For example, if you were to just consider carbon fixed by growing trees through photosynthesis, 

you might assume that young forests are desirable because they sequester carbon faster than old forests. 

However, it is also important to consider the importance of carbon stored in older forests, both in live and 

dead biomass pools (Oregon Forest Resources Institute 2013).

The Tongass National Forest, like most forests, is considered a carbon sink (i.e., it stores more carbon in 

its systems than is released by natural processes). Cool conditions inhibit decomposition, slowing the rate 

of biomass breakdown and carbon release. Decaying plant matter is incorporated into the system’s soil

profile, where it accumulates and may reside indefinitely. As a result, mature forests generally store 

considerable amounts of carbon on the forest floor. As such, a critical ecosystem service sustained by the 

forest is carbon sequestration (i.e., the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and keeping that 

carbon inactive by storing it in live or dead biomass as well as organic soil matter).

In 2012, the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program made numerous carbon storage estimates 

available via online tools (see FIA Forest Carbon Estimation website) and prepared the first national 

assessment of the biomass and carbon attributes of down woody material (USDA Forest Service 2015). 

Table 57 shows the total carbon storage on the Tongass National Forest.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 155

Table 57. Total carbon storage in the Tongass National Forest

State

Total Forest Carbon (million metric tons)

Live

aboveground

Live

belowground

Dead

wood

Floor 

litter

Soils 

(organic) Total

Alaska (Southeast only) 386 86 142 207 385 1,206

Source: FIA Current data as of 15 Jul 2013. Standard Tables of Forest Carbon Stock Estimates by State (Forest Inventory and 

Analysis National Program website).

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, and vehicle travel) and emissions from fuel 

combustion associated with the community of Wrangell. 

Environmental Consequences

Climate Change and Carbon Sequestration

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). It is conceivable however that the 

total carbon sequestration would be slightly higher under the No Action Alternative (at an unquantifiable 

level) considering a longer period of time (100 years) without harvest, assuming an annual increase in 

carbon sequestration (Depro et al. 2007) in absence of major natural disturbance (e.g., wildfire).

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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 156

increase CO2e emissions due to fuel combustion from construction equipment and the vehicles of 

construction crews.

Although the nature of the effects would be the same for all action alternatives, the magnitude of effects 

would differ somewhat by alternative. This environmental impact statement only evaluates the change in 

CO2e emissions produced by the action alternatives as compared to the no action alternative when 

assessing project effects to climate. This qualitative approach also matches federal protocol (CEQ 2014) 

in using CO2e as the single assessed metric to encompass all greenhouse gas emissions.

The effects of project activities on regional changes in climate, in carbon sequestration and on the natural 

regeneration of yellow-cedar would be evaluated qualitatively for all action alternatives.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The following sub-sections qualitatively assess the potential impact of the action alternatives in general 

on carbon sequestering and climate change, but do not attempt to calculate quantifiable impact values.

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 Climate 

Change Resource Report (Howle and Krosse 2014), it is uncertain whether the rate of carbon 

sequestration would be higher or lower under no action compared with the action alternatives; however, it 

is possible that the rate of carbon sequestering would be slightly higher under the no action alternative (at 

an unquantifiable level). 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.

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. Since these 

factors are directly related to seasonal snow pack (loss of snow cover at lower elevations) and thawing 

cycles in late winter, a 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

All action alternatives 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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Alternative 1

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 results in no construction-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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 157

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. The Air Quality 

and Climate Change Resource Report in the project record contains a more detailed discussion of the 

environmental effects of climate change and air quality from the activities identified for the Wrangell 

Island Project.

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 

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 loading. Increased water temperatures 

can be caused by removal of trees (which shade streams). For more detail on aquatics analysis and 

fisheries please see the Aquatics Resources Report in the project record.

Methods

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 is used to summarize location, 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 158

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 in conjunction with GIS 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 change based on Grant et al. (2008)

• Increased sediment: Percentage of basin comprised of roads (from acres of existing and proposed 

new road construction), 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 to predict potentially detectable peak flow increases. This harvest level was roughly 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,

represents the state of the science on this topic and is now the primary citation supporting effects analysis 

in the Tongass National Forest (for more detail, please refer to the Aquatics Resource Report, available in 

the project record).

Multiple harvest methods would be implemented in this project. The two primary methods would be 

clearcut (even-aged management) and UA33. The UA33 is an uneven-aged managed stand with 33

percent basal area removal. CR15 is a clearcut with 15 percent basal area retention and was calculated as 

clearcut acreage. Watershed acres for analysis via the Grant et al. (2008) method was calculated by using 

100 percent of the clearcut and CR15 acreage, and 33 percent of the UA33 acreage. 

Forest harvest and watershed condition are an evolving condition. Past activity on the watershed influence 

current conditions. Forest harvest is a particularly dynamic activity with harvest occurring since the 

1950s. 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 159

been conducted using the 7th level, which is the smallest delineation in the HUC system. There are sixtytwo 7th level watersheds on Wrangell Island. Twenty-four of them are affected by the proposed actions. 

The resources analysis has been limited to these watersheds. Table 58 lists the watersheds in this analysis 

with the alternatives in which they are included, watershed size and ownership. Figure 27 shows the 7th

level watersheds for Wrangell Island. Trout Unlimited has identified VCU 4790 as one of the Tongass 77

watersheds. Wrangell Island Project may affect 3 watersheds of the 9 within VCU 4790. The effected 

watersheds are footnoted in the table below.

Table 58. Seventh level HUC watersheds analyzed for the proposed Wrangell Island Project

7th Level HUC Watershed Alternative Acres Acres NFS Acres 

Non-NFS

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

190102090205061 3,4 6,151 6,022 129 97.9

19010209020512 2,4 1,010 923 87 91.4

190102090701021 2,3,4 2,706 2,695 11 99.6

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 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

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 PassageC 2,3,4,5 443 443 1 100

Wrangell Island-Frntl Eastern PassageD 2,3,4,5 728 601 128 82.6

Lower Earl West Creek 3 4,741 3,425 1,316 72.2

Lower Thoms Creek1 3 3,282 2,608 674 79.5

1 Part of VCU 4790

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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 160

delineated according to the criteria described in the Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook (USDA 

Forest Service 2001a). See Figure 27 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. 

Table 59. Stream classes and stream density within project watersheds

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

19010209020506 34.8 3.6 8.9 6.1 11.4 8.4

19010209020512 3.7 2.3 0.5 0.8 2.2 0.2

19010209070102 25.1 6.0 0.5 6.6 11.4 6.6

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-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

Lower Thoms Creek 12.2 2.4 6.9 2 2.7 0.6

McCormack Creek 25 5.5 4.3 2.2 8.9 9.6

Pats 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
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 161

Table 59 provides stream miles by class for each of the watersheds within the project area. Seven of the 

HUC 7 watersheds have more than 5 miles of Class I stream habitat. 

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 small flows with a return period of 6 years or less in rain dominated and transitional snow zone 

watersheds, such as the watersheds analyzed in the project area (Grant et al. 2008). Table 60 summarizes 

harvest acres from 1985 to present, of the watersheds which have had prior timber harvest within the 

project area. Unit 19010209010304 has the highest cumulative harvest at 18 percent, followed by 

McCormack Creek at 15.5 percent.

Table 60. Summary of past timber harvest acres in watersheds (not including road clearings)

7th level HUC watershed Watershed 

type

Acres % past 

harvest

Harvest 

since 1985

19010209010202 Rain 2,317 8.8 203

19010209020506 Rain 6,152 3.0 188

19010209020512 Rain 1,010 0.4 4

19010209070102 Rain 2,706 1.1 30

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 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

Lower Thoms Creek Rain 3,282 11.1 366

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-C TSZ 2,850 12.9 366

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-D TSZ 835 0.7 6

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E TSZ 1,996 12.5 250

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
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 162

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 (TSZ) 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). No active or historical stream 

gages exist within the project area. Evaluation of the data from nearby streamflow gages suggests 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 was evaluated for percentage of harvest over 1,000 feet. If the watershed had 

harvest at or above the threshold elevation, it was evaluated as a transient rain watershed. Those not 

meeting that criteria were evaluated as rain dominated watersheds. The area did not have any areas that 

met the designation of snow dominated. Table 60 lists the designation of each of the watersheds in the 

project area.

Table 61. Existing roads by project area 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

19010209020506 12.2 1.0 1.3

19010209020512 0.6 0.3 0.4

19010209070102 1.9 0.3 0.5

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 1.2 0.3 0.4

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-C 7.9 1.3 1.8

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-D 3.9 2.3 3.0

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 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

Lower Thoms Creek 6.7 1.0 1.3

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

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern Passage-C 0.1 0.1 0.1

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern Passage-D 2.4 1.6 2.1

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 130 miles of roads 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 163

in project area watersheds. A statistical relationship between fine streambed sediment and watershed 

disturbance has been reported in Southeast Alaska studies (Ross 2013). Table 61 lists the existing road 

densities for each watershed. Three of the watersheds have existing road densities exceeding 2.0 mi/mi2

but only one exceeds the 2.0 percent basin area value used by Grant et al. (2008) for differentiating peak 

flow effects within the watershed.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 165

Figure 27. Stream class and 7th level HUC watersheds for Wrangell Island 

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 167

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 for migration and 

rearing areas, and 13 degrees 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 (Paustian 2004). Prior to passage 

of the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) in 1990, timber harvest in RMAs occurred in all project area 

watersheds (Table 62). The largest harvest of riparian area is Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-D with 

43.2 percent, followed by Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E with 23.6 percent.

Table 62. Riparian area with historical riparian harvest

7th level 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

19010209020506 548 58.1 10.6

19010209020512 59.7 1 1.7

19010209070102 319.2 2.4 0.8

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest 

Sound-A 102.1 7 6.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-C 153.5 19.8 12.9

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 55.6 24 43.2

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 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

Lower Thoms Creek 369.1 17.8 4.8

McCormack Creek 269.8 61 22.6

Pats Creek 344.1 74 21.5

Upper Earl West Creek 185.8 1.1 0.6

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
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 168

Environmental Consequences

Comparison of Alternatives Effects

Analysis to determine probable changes in peak stream flow were conducted in all project watersheds by 

the method outlined in Grant et al. (2008). Twelve 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, 9 watersheds met the threshold for changes in peak flow. Table 63 shows 

the TSZ watersheds with the predicted peak flow change by alternative. Peak flows determine the 

structure and dimensions of streams. Large scale increases or decreases change habitat values and 

usability of the stream by aquatic organisms. Large increases in flow also effect infrastructure such as 

culverts, roads and bridges.

Table 63. Transient watersheds peak flow percentage change

7th level watershed Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

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

Pats 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

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 64). 

All action alternatives would increase the number of crossings on Class I, Class II and Class III streams 

(Table 65). 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 activities and after a period during which firewood gathering may be permitted. 

Decommissioning roads will 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). Road cards 

located on the project webpage (http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=34831) describe road 

management objectives, construction timing restrictions, and the locations of all new stream crossings on 

new NFS roads.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 169

Table 64. Proposed road construction in project area watersheds (percent increase)

7th level watershed Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

19010209010102 0.64 0.68 0.69 0.65

19010209010202 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.08

19010209010303 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03

19010209010304 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28

19010209020403 0.23 0.23 0.33 0

19010209020506 0.53 0.51 0.52 0.27

19010209020512 0.45 0 0.45 0.45

19010209070102 0.2 0.2 0.2 0

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-C 0.3 0 0.12 0.3

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.59

Long Lake 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.23

Lower Earl West Creek 0.02 0 0.02 0

Lower Fools Creek-A 0.4 0.4 0.4 0

Lower Salamander Creek 0.07 0.07 0.07 0

Lower Thoms Creek 0 0 0.03 0

McCormack Creek 1.13 1.18 1.18 0.7

Pats Creek 0.49 0.45 0.48 0.41

Upper Earl West Creek 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Upper Fools Creek 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11

Upper Salamander Creek 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.22

Table 65. New NFS and temporary road crossings by alternative

NFS 

roads

Temporary 

roads

Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Alt 2 2 8 14 8 0 2 12 24

Alt 3 2 3 12 9 0 1 11 22

Alt 4 2 8 13 8 0 2 13 25

Alt 5 1 4 9 6 0 1 10 20

Effects by Alternative

A list of past, current and future management activities may be found in Table 4 in Chapter 1. The effects 

of land exchanges would be negligible on aquatic resources. Timber sales would have impacts as 

described in earlier analysis. The projects that may have impacts on watersheds within the project area 

and were considered in the cumulative effects analysis are the Roadside project; pre-commercial thinning, 

where it occurs in riparian areas; and the Earl West Cove Area timber sale.

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 

detail in the Aquatics Resource Report.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 170

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 66). The largest predicted change would be in 19010209010102 at 21.7

percent. Table 67 gives the proposed roads and stream crossings in each watershed.

Table 66. Alternative 2 harvest acreages by watershed and harvest type

7th Level Watershed Acres Total

Harvest

Clearcut

Harvest

UA33 

Harvest

Predict 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 67. Alternative 2 proposed roads and stream crossings by watershed

7th level watershed NFS miles Temp miles

NFS

stream 

crossings

Temp

stream 

crossings

19010209010102 0.78 0.84 1 5

19010209010202 0.47 1.14 3 2

19010209010303 0 0.27 0 1

19010209020403 0.16 1.02 0 4

19010209020506 1.33 3.37 0 1

19010209020512 0.71 0.58 5 5

19010209070102 0.84 0.94 2 0

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 0.18 1.38 1 2

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-C 0.55 0.15 3 4

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 1.32 0.06 1 2

Long Lake 1.16 0.44 0 4

Lower Fools Creek-A 0.53 1.27 0 0

McCormack Creek 3.82 0.25 2 6

Pats Creek 3.25 0.46 0 5

Upper Fools Creek 0.41 0.51 2 4

Upper Salamander Creek 1.69 0.48 1 1
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 171

Cumulative Effects 

Table 68 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 2.0 mi/mi2 for 6 watersheds with 3 watersheds over 3 mi/mi2

. The 

largest road density would be McCormack Creek at 3.15 mi/mi2

. Peak flow increases would be over 10 

percent in 8 watersheds with the largest at 24 percent for 19010209010102 followed by McCormack 

Creek at 23 percent.

Table 68. Cumulative harvest, road density and peak flow response for Alternative 2

7th level watershed Harvest area 

cumulative %

Cumulative

road density

(mi/mi2)

% peak flow 

cumulative

response

McCormack Creek 27.35 3.15 23.20

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-D 2.74 3.03 15.82

19010209010102 29.34 2.27 23.80

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 23.59 2.26 22.08

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern Passage-D 11.43 2.10 18.43

Pats Creek 8.16 2.05 17.45

Lower Salamander Creek 17.54 1.90 11.26

19010209010304 20.83 1.76 12.25

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 may have peak flow changes in 6 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 69).

Alternative 3 will add 29.9 miles of road. Table 70 gives the proposed roads and stream crossings in each 

watershed. Table 71 gives cumulative harvest, road and peak flow predictions.

Table 69. Alternative 3 proposed harvest acres and predicted peak flow changes

7th level watershed Acres Total 

harvest

Clearcut

harvest

UA33 

harvest

Predict 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

Pats Creek 4,598 224 112 112 16
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 172

Table 70. Alternative 3 roads and proposed stream crossings for each watershed

7th level watershed NFS miles Temp

miles

NFS

stream 

crossings

Temp

stream 

crossings

19010209010102 0.78 0.96 1 5

19010209010202 0.47 1.14 3 2

19010209010303 0.21 0 1

19010209020403 0.16 1.02 0 1

19010209020506 1.33 3.25 5 5

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 0.18 0.58 1 2

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 1.32 0.91 1 2

Long Lake 1.16 1.27 0 3

Lower Fools Creek-A 0.53 0.06 0 3

Lower Salamander Creek 0 0.44 6 3

McCormack Creek 3.82 1.52 4 0

Pat Creek 3.05 0.16 0 0

Upper Earl West Creek 0 0.46 0 0

Upper Fools Creek 0.41 0.7 4 2

Upper Salamander Creek 1.69 0.48 1 1

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would result in McCormack Creek at 26.8 percent. Alternative 3 would result in six

watersheds over the 2.0 mi/mi2 road density with the highest at 3.2 mi/mi2 for McCormack Creek. Table 

71 summarizes cumulative harvest, road and peak flow predictions for Alternative 3.

Table 71. 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 26.80 3.20 23.04

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-D 3.65 3.03 16.10

19010209010102 12.92 2.31 18.88

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia 

Strait-E 19.82 2.25 11.95

Wrangell Island-Frontal 

Eastern Passage-D 11.11 2.10 18.33

Pat Creek 7.04 2.01 17.11

Lower Salamander Creek 17.63 1.90 11.29

19010209010304 19.80 1.76 11.94

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 may have peak flow changes in 5 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 173

harvest percentages with the largest being McCormack Creek at 18.9 percent (Table 72). Table 73 gives 

the proposed roads and stream crossings in each watershed.

Table 72. Alternative 4 proposed harvest acres and predicted peakflow changes by watershed

7th level watershed Acres Total 

harvest

Clearcut

harvest

UA33 

harvest

Predict 

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

Pats Creek 4,598 241 139 102 16

Table 73. Alternative 4 proposed roads and stream crossings

7th level watershed NFS miles Temp miles NFS stream 

crossings

Temp stream 

crossings

19010209010102 0.78 0.99 0 5

19010209010202 0.47 1.14 3 2

19010209010303 0 0.23 0 1

19010209020403 0 1.67 0 1

19010209020506 1.33 3.3 5 5

19010209020512 0.71 0 2 0

19010209070102 0.83 0 0 0

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 0.18 0.58 1 2

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-C 0.55 0.9 3 4

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 1.31 0 1 2

Long Lake 1.16 1.64 0 6

Lower Earl West Creek 0.15 0 1

Lower Fools Creek-A 0.3 0.29 0 0

Lower Salamander Creek 0 0.44 0 2

Lower Thoms Creek 0 0.13 0 0

McCormack Creek 3.43 1.9 6 2

Pats Creek 3.25 0.22 5 0

Upper Earl West Creek 0 0.46 0 0

Upper Fools Creek 0.09 0.81 4 2

Upper Salamander Creek 1.69 0.48 1 1

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 2.0 mi/mi2 for 5 watersheds with 2 watersheds over 3.0 mi/mi2

. The highest road density would be 

McCormack Creek at 3.2 mi/mi2

. Peak flow increases would be over 10 percent in 8 watersheds with the 

largest at 24 percent for McCormack Creek. Table 74 summarizes cumulative harvest, road and peak flow 

predictions for Alternative 4. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 174

Table 74. 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 28.49 3.20 23.55

Kunk Creek-Frontal 

Zimovia Strait-D 3.65 3.03 16.10

19010209010102 12.75 2.32 18.83

Kunk Creek-Frontal 

Zimovia Strait-E 19.82 2.24 20.95

Pats Creek 7.56 2.04 17.27

Lower Salamander Creek 16.67 1.90 11.00

Kunk Creek-Frontal 

Zimovia Strait-C 13.60 1.89 10.08

19010209010304 22.75 1.76 12.82

Table 75. Alternative 5 proposed harvest acres and predicted peakflow change

7th level watershed Acres Total 

harvest

Clearcut

harvest

UA33 

harvest

Predict peak 

flow change %

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-D 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 Strait-E 1,996 206 100 106 12

Table 76. Alternative 5 proposed roads and stream crossings

7th level watershed NFS miles Temp miles NFS stream 

crossings

Temp stream 

crossings

19010209010102 0.78 0.87 1 5

19010209010202 0 0.3 0 1

19010209010303 0 0.21 0 0

19010209020506 0.8 1.78 4 2

19010209020512 0.71 0 2 0

Fools Inlet-Frontal Ernest Sound-A 0.18 0.58 1 2

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-C 0.55 0 3 4

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 1.32 0.5 1 1

Long Lake 1.16 1.06 0 3

McCormack Creek 2.39 0.78 4 2

Pats Creek 2.84 0.1 3 0

Upper Earl West Creek 0 0.46 0 0

Upper Fools Creek 0.09 0.7 0 2

Upper Salamander Creek 1.61 0.39 1 1
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 175

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 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 11 to 18 percent based on road and 

harvest percentages with the largest at 17.85 percent for McCormack Creek (Table 75). Table 76 gives the 

proposed roads and stream crossings in each watershed. 

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 will be over 

2.0 mi/mi2 for 5 watersheds. Peak flow increases would be over 10 percent in 7 watersheds with the 

largest at McCormack creek with 22.5 percent. Table 77 summarizes cumulative harvest, road and peak 

flow predictions for Alternative 5.

Table 77. 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 2.07 24.39 10.60

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-D 3.62 3.65 16.10

McCormack Creek 2.72 25.00 22.50

19010209010102 2.28 12.10 18.63

Wrangell Island-Frontal Eastern Passage-D 2.10 11.11 18.33

Lower Salamander Creek 1.83 15.81 10.74

19010209010304 1.76 19.80 11.94

Kunk Creek-Frontal Zimovia Strait-E 1.76 19.30 11.79

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 176

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.

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 2008a). The Pats 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 will 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 177

• 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 

(DEIS) 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 (ROD) 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 

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. 

Road cards provide site-specific details.

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 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 in the analysis area, 

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. Small unmapped 

floodplains may be present within RMAs and may be crossed by new road construction. Roads crossing 

these areas have been designed to pass floods and minimize effects in accordance with the BMPs as 

depicted on the road cards.

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.

The Forest Service will 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 will be protected by a no-harvest buffer (RMA) 

of 100 feet or more.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 178

• All Class III streams will be protected by no-harvest buffers to the top of the side slope (v- notch) 

according to the Forest Plan. This minimizes the potential impact to downstream EFH. 

• Additional precautionary measures will 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 will be made to limit in-water work to protect critical fish life stages.

• Maintenance will be built into road construction contracts to correct existing erosion features.

• All proposed road crossing structures installations will adhere to fish standards and guidelines for 

passage in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2008a, pp. 4-11 to 4-12).

• New and reconditioned roads will be closed to motor vehicle use after silvicultural activities are 

complete.

• Temporary roads will be decommissioned following timber harvest and firewood gathering.

• Log staging activities will occur outside the minimum 300-foot buffer protecting Class I streams.

• Standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan and best management practices (BMPs) will be 

implemented 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.

• Annual marine dive surveys around the marine access facilities will ensure Alaska pollutant 

discharge elimination system (APDES) requirements are met for bark accumulation when 

production values are met.

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.

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 

interdisciplinary team met with WCA concerning the planned project and supplied them with a copy of 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 179

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 will occur during 

development. 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 30 m 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 survey in the area of potential effect (APE) has included inventory of both high and low 

sensitivity areas. A total of 33 sites have been documented, 30 of which are in the high sensitivity 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. Six of the discovered were evaluated 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 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 

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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 180

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. 2010:263-267). Following deglaciation, pine woodland with abundant alders, sedges, 

sphagnum mosses and ferns colonized southeast Alaska. By ca 11,460 cal yr BP Sitka spruce and 

mountain hemlock replace 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, ca 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 yrs BP 

and continuing through the Middle Wisconsin, Glacial Maximum and the Post Glacial (Heaton and Grady 

2003: 46-47). 

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: 18; Davis 1990: 197-202; Moss 1998: 88; 2004: 181-182, 2011: 47). Most of the 

proposed divisions are consistent but with some time sequence variations (Moss 2004: 181; Moss 2011:

49). Recognizing the sequence was based on a relatively small data set; the divisions were coarsely 

formulated to include the Early Period (10,000 – 5,000 BP), the Middle Period (5,000 – 1,500 BP), and 

the Late Period (1,500 BP – AD 1741) (Moss 1998: 92-102; Moss 2004: 181-182). 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 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 181

landscape and early European explorers found signs of Tlingit influence and occupation across the entire 

region (Niblack 1970 [1888]: 231, 232). 

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: 5, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20). 

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: 21, 23; Olson 1967: 1). 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: 27). 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]:73, 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: 21). 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: 3). 

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]: 73-78). 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: 164, 187-189).

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 

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: 186, 189). The HBC renamed the post Fort Stikine and traded with the Stikine Tlingit 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 182

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: 4).

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: 3). 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 2009c). 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: 4).

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: 4). 

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 8 shell middens, 5 petroglyphs, 2 pictographs, a wood 

stake fish trap, and 2 lithic scatters. Historic period sites include a boat, a burial, a building, 4 cabins, a 

cedar bark source area, 2 gardens, a fur farm, an outpost, a wood platform, a trail and 2 wolf traps.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 183

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 in the APE 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 2008a, p. 4-4). 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 vicinity include timber and salvage harvest projects, precommercial tree thinning, State entitlement land selections, utility corridor work, Alaska Mental Health 

Trust land sale program, Alaska Department of Transportation utility and transportation corridors and 

road improvements. Depending on the location and scope of these projects, cultural resources could be 

affected. 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.

Effects Common to All Alternatives

There are 33 sites in the APE but none are in areas proposed for project activities. Most of the areas that 

are suitable and available for timber harvest in the APE are on steep and highly elevated terrain and 

within the cultural resource low sensitivity zone. All of the action alternatives propose timber harvest and 

road work in these areas and implementation, regardless of the alternative, would have no effect on 

known cultural resources. Most of the known archaeology sites in the project area are located within a 

protected buffer established along the beach and estuary fringe and defined in the Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 4-4). All of the alternatives propose to harvest timber 

from inland locations, and none would encroach on the buffer zone. There are three sites located outside 

the buffer zone, but they are not in areas proposed for activities. None of the proposed action alternatives 

would have a direct or indirect effect upon known cultural resources within the APE. 

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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 184

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.

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 botanical data available for the plants in the project area and analyzes and 

discloses 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 Region 10 Sensitive Plant 

List, and rare plants ranked imperiled or critically imperiled by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program

(USDA Forest Service 2009a).

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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 185

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. 

Units of Measure

The units of measure for the analysis of project effects are the number of occurrences of sensitive and rare 

plants known to occur in the project area, and the acres of suitable habitat for sensitive plants known or 

suspected to occur in the project area that would be directly or indirectly impacted by timber harvest or 

road construction.

Review of Existing Information

A review of existing information was conducted to document the sensitive and rare plants known to occur 

in the project area and to identify habitats likely to contain sensitive plant species 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 ARCTOS herbarium 

database and the Consortium of Pacific Northwest Herbaria were also searched for other possible 

locations of sensitive or rare plants in the project area (UAMH 2015, University of Washington 2015). 

Habitat characteristics for sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur in the project area were 

identified based on relevant literature, habitat descriptions from regional floras, and forest species 

conservation assessments. Depending on the habitat requirements of each species, landscape information 

selected to assess potential habitat included landform, elevation, aspect, slope, slope position, soil type, 

surface geology, proximity to shoreline, and vegetation cover type. Relevant GIS map layers were then 

analyzed to quantify the amount and location of suitable habitat for each species. Acreage estimates based 

on map overlays are approximate and may tend to overestimate the potential habitat because they are 

based on macro-habitat information currently available in GIS, and no statistical analysis or accuracy 

assessment is applied; nevertheless, they provide a means of comparing the effects of the alternatives by 

assessing the relative proportion of each habitat that is affected. In addition, habitat map layers based on 

statistical modeling were used to identify suitable habitat for some of the sensitive plant species on the 

Forest (Turner 2012). For each species, the habitat model with the highest assessed accuracy was used.

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 or their habitat could most likely occur under 

the action alternatives but had not been previously surveyed were given the highest priority, such as 

within potential harvest units and road corridors. Where feasible, 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.

Field surveys were conducted from 2010 to 2012 during the appropriate time of year to locate and 

identify sensitive and rare plants. In Southeast Alaska this occurs approximately mid-June to mid-August. 

Survey routes were mapped using a hand-held GPS unit. For each survey, a complete list of plant species 

encountered on the survey route was compiled, and any sensitive or rare plant occurrence identified in the 

survey was documented. 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, and approximately 128 acres were surveyed 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 186

occurred within these areas. The remaining surveys were in habitats located outside potential harvest 

units. Field survey and element occurrence data, including survey routes and sensitive and rare plant 

occurrences, were entered into the NRIS-TESP database. 

Analysis

All project alternatives were analyzed to determine the direct and indirect impacts to sensitive or rare 

plant species known to occur in the project area, and sensitive plant species that are suspected to occur. 

The cumulative 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 

likelihood and consequences of effects were then assessed using a standardized risk assessment 

(Stensvold 2011) for each proposed alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects are those which are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place as the action. 

Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

Direct effects mainly occur through physical damage and/or destruction to individual plants. Crushing can 

cause physical injury or death to individual plants, and burying will also likely 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.

The direct effects of proposed timber harvest were analyzed by overlaying proposed timber harvest unit 

boundaries for each project alternative over known sensitive and rare plant occurrences and their 

associated habitat in the project area. Any sensitive or rare plant occurrence or that was either wholly or 

partially within the units, or sensitive plant habitat within the units, 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 and rare plant occurrences and their associated habitat in the 

project area. 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 (Powell 2014). Sensitive or rare plant occurrences 

either wholly or partially located within proposed road corridor, and their associated habitat within the 

corridor, were assumed to be directly impacted by road construction. 

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 or rare plant occurrences and sensitive plant habitat. Indirect effects of proposed road 

construction were analyzed by buffering the 85 feet width of the road corridor by 164 feet and overlaying 

the buffered area over known sensitive plant occurrences and suitable habitat. Sensitive or rare plant 

occurrences located outside road corridor but either wholly or partially located within the 164-foot buffer, 

and sensitive plant habitat within the buffer, were assumed to be indirectly impacted by road construction.

Cumulative effects are those that occur when the effects of an action are added to or interact with effects 

of other actions in the past, present, and foreseeable future in a particular place and within a particular 

timeframe. Reasonably foreseeable actions are those that are currently planned or scheduled to occur. The 

accumulation of impacts on sensitive or rare plants can affect viability of the species by reducing the 

numbers of individuals, the distribution of occurrences, and the amount and/or quality of habitat, which in 

turn adversely impact reproduction success, genetic variability, and resilience to future disturbances.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 187

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 and rare plant occurrences 

and estimated sensitive plant habitat in the project area. Impacts of present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions were assessed by summarizing the effects of actions that are likely to occur in the project 

area and evaluating their risk of impact to sensitive and rare plants.

Affected Environment

Roughly half of Wrangell Island is productive forest land, with the rest consisting mostly of forested and 

non-forested wetlands and sphagnum bogs that occur on poorly drained till underlying a deep layer of 

organic material. Alpine and subalpine vegetation covers relatively small areas because most elevations 

on the island are below 2,000 feet. Middle and lower elevations are habitat for forests of western hemlock 

(Tsuga heterophylla) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western 

red cedar (Thuja plicata), yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis), and shore pine (Pinus contorta var.

contorta). Productive forest cover types include western hemlock and/or mountain hemlock, Sitka spruce, 

and mixed hemlock-Sitka spruce. Low productivity forest types include those that are at high elevation, 

have a low site index, are in muskeg, are dominated by rock cover, or are located in a recurrent slide zone. 

These are often open-canopied forests consisting of a mix of conifer species including western and 

mountain hemlock, western red cedar, yellow-cedar, and shore pine. Non-forest vegetation types include 

alder brush, brush, grassland, alpine, uplifted beach, muskeg-meadow, and recurrent slides/talus slopes.

Sensitive Plants

Sensitive plants are those species identified by the Regional Forester as having potential for loss of 

viability, as evidenced by 1) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or 

density, and/or 2) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce 

a species’ existing distribution (FSM 2670). These species are given special consideration by US Forest 

Service regulations and manual direction. The regulatory and policy framework concerning the 

management of sensitive plants is contained within Forest Service manual direction 2670. Seventeen 

vascular plants and one lichen are designated as sensitive in the Alaska Region. Analysis of effects of this 

project on sensitive plants is documented in the project biological evaluation for sensitive plants, which is 

included in the project record.

Lesser roundleaved orchid is the only sensitive plant species known to occur within the project area, 

where 11 occurrences have been documented (Table 78). Due to the presence of suitable habitat, 6

sensitive plants/lichens are suspected to occur in the project area: Alaska rein orchid, Calder’s lovage, 

edible thistle, mountain lady’s slipper, Henderson’s checkermallow and lung lichen (See Table 78 and 

Stensvold 2013). Eleven other sensitive plant species are not known to occur within the project area and 

they are not suspected to occur, either because suitable habitat does not exist in the project area or because 

the project area is located outside of their known or suspected geographic range of distribution. Since 

there is no risk of impacts to these species, they will not be addressed further in this analysis. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 188

Table 78. Alaska Region (Region 10) 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 forests, grassy slopes, 

meadows, bogs, heath, and 

streambanks in the lowland and 

montane zones (1, 2).

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Calder’s loveage Ligusticum calderi

Forest edges, meadows, and 

calcareous areas in the montane, 

subalpine, and alpine zones (1).

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Edible thistle Cirsium edule var. 

macounii

Dry meadows and talus slopes, 

and open forests in the upper 

montane to subalpine/alpine zones

(1).

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Henderson’s 

checkermallow

Sidalcea 

hendersonii

Upper beach meadows and 

beach/forest ecotone in the lowland 

zone (1).

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Lesser roundleaved 

orchid

Platanthera 

orbiculata

Old growth forest, open forest, 

forest edges, and bogs in the 

lowland to montane zones (1, 3).

Known. Documented 

occurrences in the project 

area.

Lung lichen Lobaria 

amplissima

Trunks of old-growth trees in 

lowland beach/forest ecotone that 

is exposed to open ocean (1, 4).

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

Mountain lady’s 

slipper

Cypripedium 

montanum

Upper beach meadow, Forest 

edge, open forests and wet 

meadows in the lowland, montane, 

and subalpine zones (1, 5).

Suspected. Project area 

contains suitable habitat 

within known or suspected 

geographic range of the 

species.

References: (1) Stensvold 2013; (2) Dillman 2011a; (3) Dillman 2008; (4) Dillman 2011b; (5) Turner 2011.

Rare Plants

The survey criteria for rare plants on the Tongass National Forest is described in Dillman and Krosse

(2009) and USDA Forest Service 2009b. These plants generally are included in the Alaska Natural 

Heritage Program Rare Plant Tracking List (AKNHP 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 

Region 10 listed sensitive plant species, effects are analyzed only for rare plant species known to occur in 

the project area. 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 by 

the Alaska Natural Heritage Program (AKNHP 2015) as secure globally (G5), but rare within the state 

(S3). Although rare plants on the Forest are usually state-ranked as imperiled (S2) or critically imperiled 

(S1), these two species are considered for 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 189

Inundated clubmoss occurs in peat bogs, pools in peatlands, and lake margins in lowland and montane 

elevations (Douglas et al. 1998). Eleven occurrences are known within the project area. Threeleaf 

foamflower occurs in moist forests, meadows, and stream banks from lowland to subalpine elevations 

(Douglas et al. 1998). Only one occurrence of this species is known 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. Precommercial 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, 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 ground disturbance. Log landings and rock quarries are 

usually constructed adjacent to roads and are considered as part of road construction in this analysis. 

Excavation of rock material will crush, bury, or damage plants in the immediate location of the quarry. 

Since most soil is removed in the excavation process, quarries will 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. 

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; 

although 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, edge-related declines in a population does not preclude 

the possibility of future declines. Research on edge effects on forest vegetation adjacent to harvests 

indicates that changes in temperature and light availability are greatest at the edge, but decline sharply 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 190

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, 

frequency and intensity of disturbances such as windthrow could further compromise the 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 could eventually return to that of the original plant community, 

although it may take several decades.

Comparison of Alternatives

Sensitive Plants

Since no timber harvest or road construction would occur under Alternative 1 (the No Action alternative), 

no direct or indirect impacts to any known sensitive or rare plant or sensitive plant habitat in the project 

would occur. None of the action alternatives are expected to have direct or indirect impacts to any known 

sensitive plant occurrences in the project area. Also, no alternative would affect suitable habitat for 

Henderson’s checkermallow or lung lichen.

Alternative 5 would have the least impact on combined habitat for sensitive plants (Table 79), including 

about 5 percent of the estimated habitat of lesser roundleaved orchid. Next, by increasing overall levels of 

overall impact on sensitive plant habitat, is Alternative 3, followed by Alternative 4. Alternative 2 would 

have the most potential impact on sensitive plant habitat, including about 8 percent of suitable habitat for 

lesser roundleaved orchid.

The overall risk of adverse effects from all action alternatives is low to moderate for lesser roundleaved 

orchid, and low for Alaska rein orchid, Calder’s lovage, edible thistle, and mountain lady’s slipper. There 

is no risk of adverse effects to Henderson’s checkermallow and lung lichen.

Table 79. Estimated acreage of sensitive plant habitat affected by proposed timber harvest and road 

construction under the action alternatives

Species Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Alaska rein orchid 49 34 50 50

Calder’s loveage 1,409 1,059 1,322 847

Edible thistle 56 47 50 42

Henderson’s 

checkermallow 0 0 0 0

Lesser roundleaved 

orchid 2,050 1,510 1,479 1,149

Lung lichen 0 0 0 0

Mountain lady’s 

slipper 1,028 756 723 668

Total 4,592 3,406 3,624 2,756 

Rare Plants

Under Alternative 1, the likelihood of impacts to occurrences of rare plants is none because no timber 

harvest or road construction would occur. Threeleaf foamflower would not be directly or indirectly 

impacted by either by timber harvest or road construction under any action alternative, since the only 

known occurrence in the project area is located well outside of proposed harvest unit boundaries and 

proposed roads. 

Some occurrences of inundated clubmoss could be impacted under all action alternatives. Alternative 5 

would have the least risk of impact, with two occurrences affected by timber harvest and one affected by 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 191

road construction. Alternative 3 would have the next highest risk of impact, with two 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. It is important to note that this species occurs exclusively in non-forested muskeg habitat 

and would likely have little or no long-term effects from timber harvest. However, road construction in 

this habitat could damage or destroy individuals and affect the natural hydrology near the road corridor.

The overall risk of adverse effects from all action alternatives to inundated clubmoss is low to moderate. 

There is no risk of adverse effects to threeleaf foamflower under any of the action alternatives.

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. Timber harvest has 

occurred on approximately 6,800 acres of National Forest System (NFS) 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 LUDs where timber 

harvest is no longer allowed. Timber harvests can extensively alter habitat quality for old growthdependent plants such as lesser roundleaved orchid. 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 100 miles of existing National Forest System roads within the analysis area.

Of these, approximately 73 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 uncertain 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, mining, 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.

None of the 11 occurrences of lesser roundleaved orchid documented in the project area have been 

directly affected by past timber harvest. Two occurrences could have been indirectly affected by past 

timber harvest. No known occurrences have been directly or indirectly affected by past road construction 

on NFS lands. Sensitive plant habitats that have likely been minimally affected by past timber harvest and 

road construction activities are those of Henderson’s checkermallow, Alaska rein orchid, lung lichen, and 

edible thistle, while the largest effects of past management activities likely have been in potential habitat 

of lesser roundleaved orchid and Calder’s lovage. It is important to note that quantifying the magnitude of 

actual effects from past activities requires monitoring the changes to affected occurrences and habitat 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.

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 DEIS ♦ 192

level of impact is uncertain, because information on sensitive and rare plant occurrences or sensitive plant 

habitat on non-NFS lands is limited. 

The annual amount of roadside timber harvested on NFS lands is variable 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 uncertain 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 Land Office (AMHT) has recently completed timber harvest in the 

project area totaling 104 acres, with 0.6 miles 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. On June 30, 2015, an Agreement to Initiate was signed for a land 

exchange between the Forest Service and AMHT for multiple parcels across the Tongass National Forest.

This proposal includes 1,105 acres of AMHT land within the analysis area to be transferred to the Forest 

Service. Newly acquired Forest Service land would be managed under the same Land Use Designation as 

adjacent National Forest land, which in this case would be 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) (ADNR 2015). 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 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 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 

saw mill 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.

Design Features and Monitoring

Since no known sensitive plant occurrences will be directly or indirectly affected under any alternative, 

design features 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 considered.

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 design features are included in road layout and construction specifications. The 

implementation and effectiveness of these design features will be monitored during and/or after the 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 193

commencement of related project activities. 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 considered at those 

sites.

Invasive Plants

Introduction

Invasive plants directly compete with native plants and can cause displacement of the 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. EO 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 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. Included are design features that would minimize these risks. The effects of 

implementing the action alternatives would increase the current risk for introduction, spread, and 

establishment of invasive species. A complete analysis is available in the Invasive Plants resource report, 

which can be found 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 the high priority 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 high priority 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 will help prevent the introduction and spread of high priority

invasive species.

A risk assessment was conducted for invasive 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. Vectors are agents that 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 194

transport seeds or plant material from one location to another thereby facilitating the further spread of 

invasive species populations.

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 plant: 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.

The following indicators were used to measure potential effects of project activities on invasive plant 

species:

• Miles of newly constructed road

• Miles of road open to motor vehicle use (existing and proposed)

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 

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 or indirect effect of any action 

alternative. The extent of the project area allows for an assessment of risk at appropriate landscape and 

local scale to determine effects, making the island a suitable geographic area to assess impacts. The focus 

of the analysis is the introduction and spread on invasive plants on to 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 include 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 Pats 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 195

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 would 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 (NRIS) database Invasive Species (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 species were documented on Wrangell Island in 2006 (Arhangelsky 2006). Of 

these, 5 are considered high priority species for the Wrangell Ranger District: reed canarygrass (Phalaris 

arundinacea), orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum), oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare), 

meadow hawkweed (Hieracium caespitosum) and common hawkweed (Hieracium lachenalii). Table 80

summarizes the invasive plants on National Forest System (NFS) lands, their invasive ranking and 

general locations in the project area. 

Table 80. Invasive species known to occur on NFS lands in the Wrangell Island project area

Scientific name Common name Rank 0 (low) to 100 (high)1 General locations

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
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 196

During 2010 surveys, 46 infestations of high priority 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 non-NFS lands.

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), 

Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), 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.

Other invasive plant species documented within the analysis area in 2006 and 2010, but not considered

high priority invasive plants 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’sfoot 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 (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.

Prior invasive plant management activities include eradication of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) at the 

Anita Bay overlook campsite, bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) on the 6272 road, 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 197

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 

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 up to 32.3 miles of new road and may create a number of new rock 

quarries. Potential existing rock quarries and possible locations of new rock quarries have not been 

identified, nor has 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 

moderate to high alterations to the current conditions.

The overall risk of invasive plant establishment is low or moderate depending on the level of activity 

proposed for each alternative (Table 81). 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 81. 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 0.0 32.1 29.8 32.3 21.6

Road reconditioning (maintenance of 

closed roads) 0.0 5.8 5.8 5.4 4.1

Miles of open road (including motorized 

trails) after project is complete 73.0 100.7 99.2 99.9 72.8

Risk of spread Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 198

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative 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 (Table 4 in Chapter 1) was reviewed for activities that may cumulatively 

contribute to invasive plant introduction and spread of invasive plant species. 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 drivable for the foreseeable future.

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 high priority 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 high priority 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

The following monitoring action is recommended.

• Monitor newly constructed roads prior to closure for high priority 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 

detailed 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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 199

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.

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 and sites,

• Recreation uses, and

• Special use permits and outfitter/guide use.

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 detailed 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 28.

North Wrangell

Recreation use is high in the North Wrangell area because of its interface with the town 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 Pats Valley. Some 

alternatives propose timber harvest and road construction within this area, which would provide 

additional access to dispersed recreational opportunities close to town.

Pats 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 Pats 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. Pats 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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 200

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.

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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 201

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.

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 82

displays the existing ROS for Wrangell Island, and Figure 29 displays the existing ROS categories within 

the analysis area.

Table 82. 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

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 203

Figure 28. Wrangell Island is divided into 6 recreation areasBackside of Figure 28 (Recreation Areas)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 205

Environmental Consequences

Summary of Effects

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 a Roaded Modified ROS class. While timber harvest changes ROS class in absolute 

terms, the use of partial harvest by helicopter yarding, which leaves at least two-thirds of the stand and 

which requires no road construction, would have less effect on ROS than a clearcut harvest using cable or 

ground-based yarding. Therefore, in this analysis the amount of proposed roaded clearcut harvest in each 

alternatives is also displayed.

Figure 29 displays the ROS Inventory Mapping for Alternative 1, showing the existing ROS inventory. To 

illustrate the highest degree of impact proposed, Figure 30 displays all harvest units proposed in 

Alternative 2 and included in the Roaded Modified ROS class. 

Table 83 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 83. Amount of change in ROS class

Acres changed to Roaded Modified

All harvest methods

Acres changed to Roaded Modified

Clearcut harvest

Alt 1 0 0

Alt 2 9,926 4,632

Alt 3 5,138 3,402

Alt 4 6,367 4,711

Alt 5 7,463 3,114

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 Pats Valley would be affected by any alternative 

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 Pats 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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 206

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 Maps (Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11 and

Figure 12) and the Issue 4: Access Management section of this EIS for more information on public access.

Alternatives 1 and 3 propose no timber harvest or road construction in this area, which would result in 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, while it would be closed to public motorized use in 

Alternative 5. However, Alternative 5 would still provide easier pedestrian access to this area. Alternative 

4 proposes significantly less timber harvest in this area; however, it also constructs this road which would 

be open to public access.

Pats Lake, Old Hermit and Midpoint

The harvest strategies proposed in this area are similar among the action alternatives. All propose a new 

road (Road 50062/50058) which would provide easier access to the Middle Ridge Cabin. However, the 

access management for this road would have the greatest effect 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. 

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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 207

Figure 29. Existing recreation opportunity spectrum inventory on Wrangell Island - least impact (Alternative 1)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 209

Figure 30. Recreation opportunity spectrum inventory for the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) – highest impact (maximum harvest)

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 211

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 some changes in this area, but the 

activities proposed would not result in long-term significant changes to the Long Lake Area.

Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek

All of the action alternatives propose harvest to the west of Fools Inlet, with Alternative 2, 3, and 4 

proposing harvest along the road system between Fools Inlet and Thoms Creek Crossing. 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.

Summary of Effects

Direct effects considered when ranking the alternatives include long-term changes to scenic conditions, 

length of disturbance due to logging activities, transportation strategies for public motorized use once 

harvest activities are complete and long-term changes in recreation opportunities. Additional information 

is in the Recreation Resource Report.

Table 84 provides a summary of the relative ratings and ranking of each alternative’s effects to the 

recreation sites and use areas on Wrangell Island. The alternatives are rated (1 through 4) based on the 

direct effects expected at each site and then added to determine the relative rating for each area. The 

higher the number, the greater the effect to recreation. 

Alternative 1 is considered the “baseline” and is assigned a “0”. If an alternative would result in no 

impact to a recreation site, that alternative is assigned a “0” as well. In cases when the same harvest 

strategy is proposed in more than one alternative; the alternatives are assigned the same rating number. It 

is important to note these rankings are relative. For example, a “2” does not mean that the alternative has 

twice as much impact as an alternative with a “1”; it means the alternative has “more” impacts than the 

alternative with a “1”. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 212

Table 84. Rating of the effects from each alternative to the recreation sites and use areas on Wrangell Island 

(does not include roads)

Area Recreation Site or Use Area Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1

North of Pats 

Valley

North Wrangell Trail System 0 0 0 0 0

Pond Shelter 0 0 0 0 0

North Country Shelter 0 0 0 0 0

Shoemaker Shelter 0 0 0 0 0

Area 1 Summary Ranking 0 0 0 0 0

2

Pats Valley / 

Hermit / Midpoint

Middle Ridge Dispersed Recreation 0 2 2 2 1

Middle Ridge Cabin 0 2 2 2 1

Old Hermit Dispersed Recreation 0 2 3 2 1

Area 2 Summary Ranking 0 6 7 6 3

3

Nemo-Skip Loop 

Road

Nemo Point Host Site 0 1 1 1 1

Yunshookuh Loop Site 0 1 1 1 1

Three Sisters Viewpoint Rec Site 0 2 2 2 1

Anita Bay Overlook Rec Site 0 2 2 2 1

Highline Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0

Turn Island Saltwater Trail 0 0 0 0 0

Turn Island Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0

Thom’s Lake Trailhead 0 0 0 0 0

Area 3 Summary Ranking 0 6 6 6 4

4

Salamander / Earl 

West / Highbush 

Lake

Upper Salamander Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0

Lower Salamander Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0

Salamander Ridge Dispersed Recreation 0 3 2 3 1

Salamander Ridge Trail 0 1 1 1 1

Earl West Marsh Dispersed Recreation 0 2 1 1 1

Earl West Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0

Highbush Lake Rec Site 0 2 2 2 1

Area 4 Summary Ranking 0 8 6 7 4

5

Long Lake

Long Lake Roadside Rec Site 0 2 1 2 1

Long Lake Trail 0 2 1 2 1

Long Lake Shelter 0 2 1 2 1

Area 5 Summary Ranking 0 6 3 6 3

6

Fools Inlet / Thoms 

Lake and Creek

Fools Inlet Dispersed Recreation 0 2 2 2 1

Thom’s Creek Crossing Rec Site 0 0 0 0 0

Little Thom’s Lake Dispersed Recreation 0 0 0 0 0

Thom’s Creek Dispersed Recreation 0 0 0 0 0

Thom’s Lake Dispersed Recreation 0 0 0 0 0

Area 6 Summary Ranking 0 2 2 2 1

Total 0 28 24 27 19

It is important to note these rankings are relative, not additive. For example, a “2” does not mean that the alternative has twice as 

much impact as an alternative with a “1”; it means the alternative has “more” impacts than the alternative with a “1”. That difference 

could be very small (like a minor difference in harvest strategy) or quite large (like a 50-acre clearcut instead of no harvest).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 213

Direct and Indirect Effects

For 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 while increasing the amount of area in Roaded 

Modified. The amount of area in Roaded Natural, Rural, and Urban would remain the unchanged. 

Alternative 2 would cause the most change to existing ROS as 9,926 acres would be converted to Roaded 

Modified, followed by Alternative 5 at 7,463 acres, Alternative 4 at 6,367, and Alternative 3 at 5,138. 

These changes represent a less than 5 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.

The action alternatives would have effects on other recreation sites and use areas (See Table 84). Overall, 

Alternative 2 would implement the most 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 86.7 miles, 

followed closely by Alternative 4 at 86.3 miles, and Alternative 3 at 85.4 miles. Alternatives 1 and 5 

would provide the fewest miles of open road with 73.0 and 72.8 miles, respectively. Alternative 2 also 

provides the most roads designated as OHV trails with 14 miles, followed by Alternative 3 with 13.8 

miles, and Alternative 4 with 13.6 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

The past, present and reasonably foreseeable effects from other activities on Wrangell Island are not 

expected to have an effect to recreation occurring in the analysis area.

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 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 staying within 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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 214

• Changes to stand productivity and forest health

• Changes to regeneration potential

• Changes to species composition

• 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 per 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 this inventory was used to diagnose existing stand condition, which included 

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, wildlife habitat, and scenery characteristics

• Maximizing wood-fiber production

• Achieving the Forest Plan LUD desired condition while adhering to Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines

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: Alaska yellow-cedar

(Callitropsis nootkatensis) and western redcedar (Thuja plicata). Higher percentages of Sitka spruce are 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 215

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 Alaska 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-Alaska 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-Alaska yellow-cedar; western hemlock-western redcedar; mixedconifer; and shore pine series. Western hemlock, western hemlock-Alaska 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, Alaska 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 

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 (11

percent), Alaska yellow-cedar (17 percent), mountain hemlock (8 percent), western redcedar (8 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 85 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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 216

report. All units in the unit pool received at least a moderate rating for one of the four damaging agents 

shown in Table 85.

Table 85. 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 13 27 18 12

Moderate 35 52 79 28

Low 52 21 3 60

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 2016). 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, p. 140). 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.

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, 35 percent were given a “moderate” severity rating, 

and 13 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-one 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 27 percent of the unit pool acres rated high (more than 50 

percent of the trees sampled recorded stem decay).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 217

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). Eighteen percent of the unit pool acres rated high for windthrow. 

Units with a southeast exposure generally have a high windthrow risk. Seventy-nine 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.

Alaska Yellow-cedar Decline

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 

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 2016). 

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°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 (1400-1850). 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 2016). 

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 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 218

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 2016).

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 12 percent of the unit pool acreage rated high for 

yellow-cedar decline. Twenty-eight percent rated moderate and 60 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 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 future 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 planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting and regenerating a stand of 

trees. Silvicultural systems 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 219

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. 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 harvest method removes all of the merchantable trees in a stand. The site becomes fully exposed for 

the development of a new age class.

Clearcutting with Reserves

This harvest method 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 and away for 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 per 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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 220

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. Alaska 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 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 TWYGS, and other pruning treatments 

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

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, approximately 67 percent of the stand’s pre-treatment basal area would be 

retained. The next entry into these stands would be in 40 to 60 years, when additional basal area would 

again be removed from each stand in groups or as individual trees.

Single Tree Selection 

This 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 somewhat uniformly throughout the stand. 

The objective of single tree selection (STS) is to maintain visual quality and provide wildlife habitat, as 

well as maintaining a multi-storied stand structure, while still achieving economic harvest of timber. 

Harvest trees are selected to meet the above objectives. Healthy, young trees in the intermediate crown 

class would be a priority for retention to promote economic future entries. Older trees with low timber, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 221

but high wildlife, value would also be a priority for retention. The canopy gaps and disturbance created by 

harvesting the remaining 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 approximately, but no more than 33 percent of the 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 would be economical to harvest in the next entry, while mitigating other resource 

concerns. 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. Actual stand-specific basal area removal amounts by species 

will be set in the stand prescription.

Table 86 shows the acres affected by alternative for this project and how these acres are proposed for 

treatment.

Table 86. 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 1,713 1,633 1,725 868

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 1,781 1,701 1,793 936

Uneven-aged 

Management

STS (up to 

33% 

removal)

Shovel 0 119 43 134 114

Helicopter 0 3,410 1,440 1,604 2,754

Uneven-aged 

Total 0 3,528 1,483 1,738 2,868

Total acres 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Alternatives

The effects on vegetation are the result of the silvicultural prescription. Even-aged prescriptions are 

designed to 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 improve 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 and productivity, regeneration and species composition, or risk of 

windthrow, which are discussed in detail in the Silviculture Resource Report.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 222

There would be no indirect effects to forest structure, forest health and productivity, regeneration and 

species composition, or risk of windthrow.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5

The following section describes the direct and indirect effects to forest structure, forest health 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 Alaska 

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 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.

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, approximately 67 percent of the stand’s pre-treatment live 

basal area would be retained. The next 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 

individual trees.

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 somewhat uniformly 

throughout the stand. The objective of STS is to maintain visual quality and provide wildlife habitat, as 

well as maintaining a multi-storied stand structure, while still achieving economic harvest of timber. 

Harvest trees are selected to meet the above objectives. 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.

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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 223

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.

Table 87. Acres harvested by silvicultural system and harvest method

Silvicultural 

System

Harvest 

Method

Logging 

System Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Even-aged 

Management Clearcut Cable/Shovel 0 1,713 1,633 1725 868

Clearcut 

with 

Reserves

Cable/Shovel 0 68 68 68 68

Even-aged 

Total 0 1,781 1,701 1,793 936

Uneven-aged 

Management

STS (up to 

33% 

removal)

Shovel 0 119 43 134 114

Helicopter 0 3,410 1,440 1,604 2,754

Uneven-aged 

Total 0 3,528 1,483 1,738 2,868

Total acres 0 5,309 3,184 3,531 3,804

Cumulative Effects

As with the direct and indirect effects above, the analysis area for cumulative effects is the Wrangell 

Island Project area. The timeframe considered for this project analysis effects on vegetation is 10 years.

This timeframe is based on the size of this project and the timeframe of recent past timber sale projects. 

The Wrangell Island Project is a large project and the proposed action would likely be comprised of 

several large and small sale offerings. Timber sale activity is expected to span several years, and 15 years 

is a reasonable timeframe to analyze effects on vegetation for all stands included in the proposed action. 

The Forest Plan management objectives are expected to be achieved during the 10 to 15 year life of the 

plan to accomplish Plan goals (USDA Forest Service 2008). The Wrangell Island Project also expects to 

achieve management objectives in 15 years to accomplish project goals. It is recognized that the Forest 

Plan has a 100-year planning horizon.

Alternative 1 - No Action

There are no direct or indirect effects from timber harvest to forest structure, forest health and 

productivity, regeneration and species composition, or windthrow risk and therefore no cumulative 

effects. Stands in the project area would follow a natural course of forest succession. There would be no 

increase in the amount young-growth acreage suitable and available for future harvest in the project area 

under this alternative.

Common to all Action Alternatives

All action alternative provide a supply of timber using silvicultural systems utilizing treatment methods 

with sound prescriptions that are sustainable over time. The action alternatives would use a mixture of 

even-aged regeneration methods to convert old-growth structure to young growth and an uneven-aged 

regeneration method to harvest a portion of the trees while maintaining old-growth structure. 

All action alternatives would contribute new young-growth acreage to the 6,800 acres of existing younggrowth on NFS land in the project area with even-aged regeneration methods. Across action alternatives, 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 224

a range of 936 to 1,793 of the proposed treatment acres would be even-aged management. The action 

alternatives propose to harvest trees from 1,483 to 3,528 acres with an uneven-aged regeneration method.

These acres would be in addition to the existing 434 acres that have been harvested using uneven-aged 

systems on NFS lands in the project area.

Forest health would be improved and diseases like hemlock dwarf mistletoe and stem decay would be 

greatly reduced. Salvage recovery of yellow-cedar in decline would get a valuable wood source to market.

Stand productivity would be increased with even-aged management. Slow growing stands of decadent, 

mature trees beyond CMAI would be replaced by healthy, faster growing, vigorous young trees in evenaged managed stands. Larger openings (up to 2 acres for uneven-aged prescriptions) would improve 

conditions for regeneration, particularly for those species less shade tolerant, more than smaller openings 

would. Growing conditions for understory vegetation would also be improved by opening the overstory 

canopy to allow more light to the forest floor.

In the past, cumulative effects to forest vegetation have resulted from timber harvest and intermediate 

silvicultural treatments. The project area has approximately 6,800 NFS acres of young-growth originating 

from mostly even-aged harvesting. Timber harvest in the project area began in the early 1900s and was 

concentrated around the town of Wrangell and its sawmill. Early harvest was mostly single trees and 

small areas converted to some form of development. Larger areas on Wrangell Island were harvested 

beginning in the 1960s and timber harvest in the project area peaked in the 1980s and 1990s. Timber 

harvest on Wrangell Island has continued to the present at a decreased level.

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.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 converts 1,781 acres of old growth to young growth with even-aged prescriptions. This 

amounts to a 3 percent reduction in NFS POG acres on Wrangell Island – leaving 85 percent of the 

historical NFS POG intact. Alternative 2 would implement partial harvest with uneven-aged prescriptions 

on 3,528 acres. The total amount of treated acres in this alternative is 5,309 acres. The treatment acres for 

this alternative amounts to 10 percent of the existing NFS POG on Wrangell Island.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 converts 1,701 acres of old growth to young growth with even-aged prescriptions. This 

amounts to a 3 percent reduction in NFS POG acres on Wrangell Island – leaving 85 percent of the

historical NFS POG intact. Alternative 3 would implement partial harvest with uneven-aged prescriptions 

on 1,483 acres. The total amount of treated acres in this alternative is 3,184 acres. The treatment acres for 

this alternative amounts to 6 percent of the existing NFS POG on Wrangell Island.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 converts 1,793 acres of old growth to young growth with even-aged prescriptions. This 

amounts to a 3 percent reduction in NFS POG acres on Wrangell Island – leaving 85 percent of the 

historical NFS POG intact. Alternative 3 would implement partial harvest with uneven-aged prescriptions 

on 1,738 acres. The total amount of treated acres in this alternative is 3,531 acres. The treatment acres for 

this alternative amounts to 7 percent of the existing NFS POG on Wrangell Island.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 converts 936 acres of old growth to young growth with even-aged prescriptions. This 

amounts to a 1 percent reduction in NFS POG acres on Wrangell Island – leaving 87 percent of the 

historical NFS POG intact. Alternative 5 would implement partial harvest with uneven-aged prescriptions 

on 2,868 acres. The total amount of treated acres in this alternative is 3,804 acres. The treatment acres for 

this alternative amounts to 7 percent of the existing NFS POG on Wrangell Island.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 225

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 recreations uses 

depend in part on the quality of soils (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 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 identified issues and concerns relevant to soils were developed based on internal review and external 

scoping comments from the public. The concern directly pertinent to the potential impacts of the proposed 

project on the soil resources in the analysis area are 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 

constructions, 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.

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, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) and photogrammetric and 

Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) 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 photogrammetric or SRTM imagery), and are also used for the analysis. 

Interpretation of stereo-pair 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 was estimated at 6 percent of the harvest area and 4 percent for cable systems. To 

calculate the impact of temporary roads a 42-foot width was used to include pullouts and landings.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

Our 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. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 226

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 analysis 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 

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 88 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 analysis 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 88. 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
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 227

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 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 shallow slopes, and partial 

suspension (cable systems) utilized on steep slopes will generally meet the soil quality standards 

(Landwehr and Nowacki 1999, Landwehr et al. 2012, and Landwehr 2014).

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 

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 bedrock landslides 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. Rotational landslides, or slumps, occur in areas where thick 

soils are underlain by lodgement till. 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 landsliding that mobilizes 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 and 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. 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. Ziemer (1981) provides an estimate for the net reinforcement of a soil layer resulting from root 

decay of cut trees and root growth of re-sprouted trees in clearcut forests. He found that the net 

reinforcement in a clearcut area decreases to approximately 20 percent of the original (pre-harvest) root 

strength after 10 years, and increases to approximately 80 percent of the original strength after 20 years. 

The highest vulnerability for slope failure resulting from a loss of root strength is centered at 10 years 

after harvest, and the period where the net reinforcement is less than 50 percent of the pre-cut strength 

ranges from 2 to 15 years after harvest.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 228

An examination of existing landslides on Wrangell Island (Soil Resource Report) found, as expected, a 

preponderance of landslides initiated on steeper slopes. There was a higher than expected number in the 

35 to 50 degree slope class. This class also has the highest number of road related landslides, which 

partially explains the high number. As Swanston (2006) pointed out in his Mitkof Island report, it is not 

possible to predict where slope failure will occur; at best those areas at high risk of failing can be 

identified. Figure 31 shows the mapped landslides on Wrangell Island.

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 analysis 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 2008a) 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 

will 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 will be used as continuous landings, thereby eliminating additional landing 

construction costs. Detrimental soil disturbance from landings is included in the temporary road width 

calculation.

Table 89. 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 roads 680

Existing quarries2 132

Total area of disturbance 1,365

1 Based on an estimated 5 percent disturbance in harvest units

2 Based on 2 acres per quarry
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 229

Existing Soil Disturbance

Existing soil disturbances related to past management activities are summarized in Table 89. An estimated 

total of 1,365 acres of productive NFS lands have been converted into nonproductive forest land. 

Environmental Consequences

All of the action alternatives propose timber harvest and road construction which would result in soil 

disturbance (Table 90 and Table 91). 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 and complete, or near complete, removal of the overstory trees. The use of selective 

harvesting techniques and helicopter logging is expected to reduce the amount and severity of 

disturbance. Selective logging also allows us to remove fewer or no trees, in areas with slope stability 

concerns, resulting in very little affect 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 

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 assessment was conducted for proposed harvest units having an area greater 

than 1 acre in size, based on slope model, where slopes are greater than 72 percent. Reconnaissance 

reports summarizing on-site analysis have been completed and are filed in the Wrangell Island Project 

EIS project record.

Proposed road construction on steep slopes ranges from 0.6 mile in Alternative 5 to 1.4 miles in 

Alternative 4 (Table 91). 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 (and in areas with lesser slopes 

where a slope stability concern was identified that warranted an on-site review). Summaries of these onsite reviews have been completed and are filed in the Wrangell Island Project EIS project record. 

Road construction on fine-textured glacial deposits presents a high risk for slope failure. Two proposed 

roads (50076 and 50062) are partially underlain by fine-textured glacial deposits and are included in all 

action alternatives. 

Table 90. Estimated acres of detrimental soil disturbance

Disturbance type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Yarding 0 95 84 91 54

Temporary roads 0 81 77 88 49

Total acres 0 175 160 180 103
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 230

Table 91. 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 100 92 108 45

Helicopter 168 119 145 132

Miles of road on 

slopes >67% n/a 1.34 1.32 1.38 0.6

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 

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 future 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 231

Figure 31. Soil stability and existing landslides on Wrangell Island

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 233

Of the four action alternatives, Alternatives 5 would have the least impact to the soil resource. Alternative 

4 would construct the most temporary road (16.2 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 0.6 to 1.4 miles; proposed harvest on steep slopes 

ranges from 177 acres to 268 acres for the action alternatives (Table 91). 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 may contribute to landslides in the Pats 

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, 3, 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 90). 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 substantially less in part because it harvests fewer acres overall (Table 91). All harvest 

units with slopes over 72 percent gradient have received an on-site analysis 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 91). Road locations on 

slopes over 67 percent have been reviewed for slope stability, and a slope stability specialist will be 

involved in plan reviews during the design process.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects consider the proposed and past actions as described above, with those considered 

reasonably foreseeable. Reasonably foreseeable projects that may affect soil resources include small 

timber sale projects, as well as future landslides.

It is anticipated that less than 10 acres of detrimental soil disturbance would occur from reasonably 

foreseeable activities. 

Based on the past and foreseeable actions listed in Table 4, along with actions proposed by this project, a 

total of 870 to 950 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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 234

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 have an uneven-aged, single tree selection prescription retaining 66 percent of the oldgrowth stand structure. 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 

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, 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 235

otter, marine mammals, waterfowl, salmon, other finfish, marine invertebrates, timber or the collection of 

firewood, mushroom, 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). 

A subsistence hearing will be held during the 45-day comment period following the release of this DEIS.

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 USDA 1997b FEIS, Part 1, pp. 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 1997b FEIS, Part 1, pp. 3-215 to 3-221). The primary subsistence resource covered by this 

analysis is deer. The project area is also an important source for firewood, timber and other forest 

products.

Analysis Area

Wrangell4

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 by 22 percent between 1970 and 1990, and then decreased by 171 

residents or 7 percent between 1990 and 2000. The population decreased by an estimated 79 residents or 3 

percent from 2000 to 2010. Total estimated population was 2,406 in Wrangell in 2014 (ADOL 2015).

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 done by residents of Wrangell 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). Deer harvest in GMU 3 has declined from 1998 

 4 Much of the information in this section is from the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b, pp. 3-703 to 3-

708).
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 236

to 2002, increased from 2002 to 2004, and has fluctuated between 2005 and 2010 (USDA Forest Service 

2008b). Deer harvest by Wrangell residents is spread over many wildlife analysis areas (WAAs), but five 

WAAs account for 72 percent of the total (WAAs 1905, 1903, 1901, 1530 and 1906). 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.

For analyzing effects on abundance and distribution the following assumption was made:

• Reductions in deer habitat capability will 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 will result in increased 

competition from outside communities.

• Habitat reductions will 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 92. Deer habitat capability is modeled by estimating the current population with an 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 237

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 93).

Table 92. Deer habitat capability (measured from theoretical number of deer) and percent reduction by 

alternative, in WAA 1903 on NFS lands only

Deer habitat capability

(DHC)

Existing

(Alt 1) Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Historical (1954) 2,678 -- -- -- --

Current (2015) 2,264 -- -- -- --

1 year post-implementation 

(2016)

2,216

(100%)

2,160

(5%)

2,198

(3%)

2,187

(3%)

2,193

(3%)

Stem exclusion (2042) 2,215

(98%)

2,053

(9%)

2,114

(7%)

2,098

(7%)

2,105

(7%)

Table 93. Percentage of deer habitat capability from historical (1954) on all land ownerships and total deer 

available to humans, by alternative in WAA 1903

Deer habitat capability 

(DHC)

Existing 

(Alt 1) Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

WAA 1903 (mi2) 208 -- -- -- --

Hunter demand1 (Avg. per 

yr.) 69 -- -- -- --

Historical DHC (1954) 2664 -- -- -- --

Current DHC (2015) 2292 -- -- -- --

DHC and percent of 

historical DHC 1 year

post-implementation (2016)

2,216

(85%)

2,160

(81%)

2,198

(82%)

2,187

(82%)

2,193

(82%)

DHC and percent of 

historical DHC at stem

exclusion (2042)

2,215

(83%)

2,053

(77%)

2,114

(79%)

2,098

(78%)

2,105

(79%)

1 Hunter harvest data from 1996 to 2012 was used to estimate hunter demand (Lowell 2014)

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 2008a, p. 3-282). 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.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 238

Table 94. Deer density (deer/mi2) from current (2015) 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 (2015) 12.9 -- -- -- --

1 year post -

implementation 12.9 12.3 12.5 12.5 12.5

At stem exclusion 

(2042) 12.6 11.7 12.0 12.0 12.0

Table 95. Cumulative change in deer density (deer/mi2) from current (2015) 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 (2015) 10.9 -- -- -- --

1 year postimplementation 10.9 10.4 10.6 10.5 10.5

At stem exclusion 

(2042) 10.6 9.9 10.2 10.1 10.1

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 2008b, p. 3-430). The primary mode of 

access for harvesting deer in WAA 1903 is by vehicle (e.g., passenger vehicle, ATV, motorcycle). 

Table 96. Miles and density of open roads on all land ownerships in WAA 1903

Measure Existing roads Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Miles 133.3 109.2 144.2 142.9 143.4 109.2

Density1 (mi/mi2) 0.64 0.53 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.53

1 Wrangell Island is 208mi2

2 Motorized trails are included in Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

3 Open non-NFS roads (includes Borough and State) 

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 they may also give subsistence hunters access to previously remote areas and provide a 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 239

greater opportunity for subsistence harvest (USDA Forest Service 2008b, p. 3-430). Table 96 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 much post-project completion (2016) but it is expected to be reduced 

by 2 percent at stem exclusion (2042) (Table 92). The ongoing and future pre-commercial thinning of 

managed stands would alleviate the amount of acres entering stem exclusion and increase deer forage on 

Wrangell Island.

Access – No new roads are proposed under Alternative 1, but approximately 24.1 miles of existing roads 

would be closed, leaving approximately 73 miles of open Forest Service road that allows the public to 

access subsistence resources (Table 55). Therefore, Alternative 1 would affect access to existing 

subsistence resources on Wrangell Island, including firewood, timber and other forest products.

Competition – Reduced access to subsistence resources could lead to increased competition. Therefore, 

Alternative 1 could affect competition for subsistence resources on Wrangell Island.

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 future activities. 

Stands entering stem exclusion would continue into the future but be alleviated through thinning. One 

possible benefit is the Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHT) land exchange where the Forest Service 

would gain approximately 1,105 acres, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and of 

little value to this POG-associated species other than foraging habitat.

Abundance and Distribution – Deer habitat capability would be reduced on Wrangell Island under 

Alternative 1, because of existing harvested stands entering stem exclusion, but this reduction would be 

minimal and have a minor reduction of deer habitat capability on Wrangell Island. Therefore, under 

Alternative 1, the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources would remain as they are; however,

a small reduction on deer habitat capability is expected as stands move into stem exclusion. Although the 

no action alternative would create a reduction, the deer population on Wrangell Island would be sufficient 

for subsistence hunters.

Access – There would be cumulative effects to access of subsistence resources because 24.1 miles of road 

are scheduled to be closed under alternative (Table 55); leaving approximately 109.2 miles of open roads 

on all land ownerships on Wrangell Island (Table 96). Any other project that closed additional roads 

would cumulatively affect this project. At this time no other project are scheduled to cause additional 

closures.

Competition – There are no cumulative effects to competition of subsistence resources 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 overharvest are not expected to occur under the no action alternative. Therefore, there would be no cumulative 

effects to competition when combined with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future projects with 

the implementation of the Wrangell Island Project.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 240

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 58 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 3 percent from current condition

(Table 36). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be further reduced by 9 percent of existing 

condition (Table 92). Alternative 2 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density by 0.6 

deer/mi2 post-project implementation and further reduce deer density by 1.2 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion 

(Table 94).

Access - The construction of approximately 32.1 miles of proposed new road and 5.8 miles of 

reconditioning of closed roads, would affect how deer are accessed on the island (Table 54). Upon project 

completion, the total mileage of open Forest Service roads accessible by motorized traffic would be 

approximately 101, which includes motorized trails (Table 55). Therefore, Alternative 2 would have a 

beneficial impact on subsistence users trying to access deer and other subsistence resources including 

timber and firewood. Logging slash from harvest operations would be accessible for firewood gathering 

for a short period of time following harvest.

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. 

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 future activities (Table 4). Activities on Wrangell 

Island that have affected deer habitat cumulatively add to this project include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS 

acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property 

development on non-NFS land 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 possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange; the Forest Service would gain approximately 1,105 

acres, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and is of little value to this POG associated 

species (Sitka black-tailed deer) other than foraging habitat.

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 2 would maintain 81 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion and 77 percent of the original at stem exclusion (Table 93) Deer density 

would maintain 10.4 deer/mi2 1 year post-project implementation and 9.9 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion 

(Table 95). Alternative 2 would also result in a cumulative reduction of deer habitat by 4 to 34 percent, 

based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed project will increase habitat fragmentation, human 

disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, but when combined with past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects, it should allow for the continued existence of deer and maintain current levels of 

subsistence harvest.

Access - Cumulative open road miles for motorized use on WAA 1903 under Alternative 2, for all 

landownerships and at all elevations would be 144.2, which is an increase from existing operational 

condition (Table 96). Therefore, Alternative 2 would have increased access to subsistence resources, 

including timber and firewood.

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 affect competition for deer between 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 241

users. Hunter harvest data from 1996 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. Therefore, under Alternative 2 hunter harvest of deer on 

Wrangell Island represent approximately 3.1 percent of the modeled deer habitat capability. 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 47 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 3 percent from current condition

(Table 36). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be further reduced by 7 percent from existing 

condition (Table 92). Alternative 3 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density by 0.4 

deer/mi2 at project completion and 0.9 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (Table 94). 

Access - The construction of approximately 29.8 miles of new road would have an effect how deer are 

accessed on the island (Table 54). At project completion, the amount of open Forest Service roads would 

increase to a total of 99.2 miles, which includes motorized trails (Table 55). Therefore, Alternative 3 

would have a beneficial impact on subsistence users trying to access deer and other subsistence resources, 

including timber and firewood. Logging slash from harvest operations would be accessible for firewood 

gathering for a short period of time following harvest.

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. 

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 future activities (Table 4). Activities on Wrangell 

Island that have affected deer habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: timber harvest (6,800 

NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property 

development on non-NFS land 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 possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange; the Forest Service would gain approximately 1,105 

acres, but the majority of this land has already been harvested and is of little value to deer other than 

foraging habitat.

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 3 would maintain 82 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion and 79 percent of the original at stem exclusion (Table 93). Deer density 

would be maintained at 10.6 deer/mi2 1 year post-project implementation and 10.2 deer/mi2 at stem 

exclusion (Table 95). Alternative 3 would result in a cumulative reduction of deer habitat by 4 to 34 

percent from historical (1954) condition, based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed project 

will increase habitat fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, but when combined 

with past present and reasonably foreseeable should allow for the continued existence of deer and 

maintain current levels of subsistence harvest.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 242

Access - Cumulative open road miles in WAA 1903 under Alternative 3, for all landownerships and all 

elevations would be 142.9, which is an increase from existing operational condition (Table 96). Therefore, 

Alternative 3 would have a beneficial effect on subsistence hunters accessing subsistence resources.

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. 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 54 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 3 percent from current condition

(Table 36). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be further reduced by 7 percent of existing 

condition (Table 92). Alternative 4 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density by 0.4 

deer/mi2 at project completion and 0.6 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (Table 94).

Access - The construction of approximately 32.3 miles of proposed new road would have an effect on 

where deer are hunted on the island (Table 54). At project completion, the mileage of open road on Forest 

Service land would increase from the existing condition, making the total miles available for public use 

approximately 100, which includes motorized trails (Table 55). Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a 

beneficial impact on subsistence users trying to access deer and other subsistence resources including 

timber and firewood. Logging slash from harvest operations would be accessible for firewood gathering 

for a short period of time following harvest.

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. 

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 future activities (Table 4). Activities on Wrangell 

Island that have affected deer habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: timber harvest (6,800 

NFS acres), road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property 

development on non-NFS land 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 possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange; NFS lands would gain approximately 1,105 acres, but 

the majority of this land has already been harvested and is little value to deer other than foraging habitat.

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 4 would maintain 82 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion and 78 percent of the original deer habitat capability at stem exclusion 

(Table 93). Deer density would be maintained at 10.6 deer/mi2 1 year post project implementation and 

10.1 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (Table 95). Alternative 4 would also result in a cumulative reduction of 

deer habitat by 4 to 34 percent, based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed project will 

increase habitat fragmentation, human disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, but when combined with 

past present and reasonably foreseeable projects, it should allow for the continued existence of deer and 

maintain current levels of subsistence harvest.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 243

Access - Cumulative open road miles in WAA 1903 under Alternative 4, for all landownerships and at all 

elevations would be 143.4 miles, which is an increase from existing operational condition (Table 96).

Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a beneficial effect for subsistence hunters accessing subsistence 

resources.

Competition - 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. 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 24 acres and reduce deer habitat capability by 1 percent from current condition

(Table 36). At stem exclusion, deer habitat capability would be further reduced by 7 percent of existing 

condition (Table 92). Alternative 5 would also have an immediate reduction in deer density by 0.4 

deer/mi2 at project completion and 0.6 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion (Table 94).

Access - The construction of approximately 21.6 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 54). Alternative 5 would also implement the Wrangell 

Ranger District Access and Travel Management Plan (ATM) where an additional 24.1 miles of existing 

open Forest Service roads would be closed to the public (Table 55). Therefore, Alternative 5 would have a 

negative effect on access to existing subsistence resources on Wrangell Island. 

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 24.1 miles closed through the ATM, may increase

competition for deer on Wrangell Island.

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 future activities. Activities on Wrangell Island that 

have affected deer habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), 

road/trail construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles), property development on 

non-NFS land 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 possible benefit 

is the AMHT land exchange; the Forest Service would gain approximately 1,105 acres, but the majority of 

the land has already been harvested and is of little value to deer other than foraging habitat. 

Abundance and Distribution - Alternative 5 would maintain 82 percent of the original (1954) deer habitat 

capability at project completion and 79 percent of the original at stem exclusion (Table 93). Deer density 

would be maintained at 10.5 deer/mi2 1 year post-project completion and 10.1 deer/mi2 at stem exclusion 

(Table 95). Alternative 5 would also result in a cumulative reduction of deer habitat by 4 to 33 percent,

based on habitat type. Implementation of the proposed project will increase habitat fragmentation, human 

disturbance, and cause a loss of habitat, but when combined with past present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects, it should allow for the continued existence of deer and maintain current levels of subsistence 

harvest. Although some habitat would be maintained because 75 percent of the harvest prescriptions are 

proposing partial harvest. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 244

Access - Cumulative open road miles in WAA 1903 under Alternative 5 for all landownerships and all 

elevations would be 109.2 miles, which is a decrease from existing operational condition (Table 96). 

Therefore, Alternative 5 would have a negative effect for subsistence hunters trying to access subsistence 

resources. 

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. Although, Alternative 

5 would decrease the amount of open roads on Wrangell Island. Therefore, Alternative 5 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.

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, such as wolves or bears. The risk of projectrelated 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 will be 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 48 to 73 MMBF of timber on approximately 3,100 to 5,300 

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 26 to 27 miles through new road construction and conversion to motorized trails, where 

Alternative 1 and 5 would reduce access by closing approximately 24 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.

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.

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 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 245

utilize estuary, riparian, or coastal habitats, such as wolves or bears. 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 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 Alternative 1, there would be cumulative effects when combined with past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future activities. Activities on Wrangell Island that have affected potential 

goshawk habitat and cumulatively add to this project include: timber harvest (6,800 NFS acres), road/trail 

construction (100 miles), installation of utility corridors (26 miles) and property development on nonNFS land. 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 possible benefit is the AMHT land exchange. National Forest System lands would acquire

approximately 1,105 acres, but 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 mental health 

trust land (through increases in early seral forest) would contribute to these effects. Past timber harvest 

from federal (6,800 acres), State and mental health trust 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 - Collectively, new proposed roads associated with the Wrangell Island Project, in addition to 

those resulting from other projects, would improve access and reduce competition for resources. With the 

exceptions of Alternatives 1 and 5, which would implement the ATM decision, and these road closures 

that would reduce access to subsistence resources over the long-term. Although approximately 24 miles 

of road could be closed it would have negligible impact over access for subsistence resources.

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 24 miles of road could be closed it 

would have negligible impact over competition for subsistence resources.

Subsistence Findings

The 2008 Forest Plan Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b) 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 future 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 will notify the appropriate State agencies, local communities, the Southeast Alaska Federal 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 246

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council, and State Fish and Game Advisory Committees. In addition, a 

subsistence hearing will be held sometime between the release of this DEIS and the FEIS.

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. Site-specific concerns 

and design features to avoid wetlands are presented in unit and road cards. 

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 t 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. Wetland avoidance and 

minimization of disturbance to wetlands by new road construction is addressed and documented on road 

and unit 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 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 Pats 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 non-NFS lands 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 defined as Wrangell Island itself because it 

represents a distinct geographic unit with defined boundaries, and is a sufficiently sized geographic area 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 247

to provide context for the impacts. The cumulative effects analysis area is the portion of Wrangell Island 

within the National Forest boundary, over a period of 10 years. 

Affected Environment

Approximately 55 percent of Wrangell Island is mapped as a wetland (73,400 of 134,400 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 rain 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. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 248

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 

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 

will 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 a 

new stand of timber is established. In areas logged with a partial cut prescription 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.

Wetland avoidance and minimization of disturbance to wetlands due to new road construction is 

addressed and documented on road and unit cards. Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar in the number of 

wetland acres affected by road construction. Alternative 3 would result in greatest amount of wetland 

impact with 81 acres of wetland loss while Alternative 5 would result in the loss of the fewest acres (51).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 249

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 

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, including forested wetlands (Table 97). 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 and landing 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.

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 single tree selection prescriptions are utilized.

Table 97. Wetland acres impacted by alternative, including forested wetlands

Impact type Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Road construction

(acres) 0 78 74 81 51

Rock quarry 

(acres) 0 14 13 15 9

Harvest

(acres) 0 1,740 1,056 1,112 1,230

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 1,740 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions (Table 97). Of these, approximately 700 acres would be clearcut and 1,027 acres 

would have a partial harvest prescription. Proposed road construction activities in this alternative would 

result in conversion of 92 acres of wetland to a non-wetland condition.

Alternative 3

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 1,056 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions (Table 97). Of these, approximately 650 acres would be clearcut and 406 acres

would have a partial harvest prescription. Partial harvest prescriptions are expected to have a little to no 

effect on wetlands, impacts from clearcuts are as discussed above. Construction of roads would result in 

conversion of approximately 87 acres of wetland to a non-wetland condition.

Alternative 4

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 1,112 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions (Table 97). Of these, approximately 720 acres would be clearcut and 391 acres 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 250

would have a partial harvest prescription. Alternative 4 would convert approximately 96 acres of wetland 

to a non-wetland condition due to newly-constructed roads.

Alternative 5

This alternative proposes to harvest timber from 1,230 acres of forested wetland using a variety of 

silviculture prescriptions (Table 97). Of these, approximately 427 acres would be clearcut and 802 acres 

would have a partial harvest prescription. Construction of roads would result in conversion of 60 acres of

wetland to a non-wetland condition.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is that portion of Wrangell Island within the National Forest 

boundary. 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 

4. 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. 

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. Wetland avoidance and 

minimization of disturbance to wetlands by 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 acres of 

wetland affected by road construction; however, Alternative 4 would result in greatest amount of wetland 

impact with 81 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 an uneven-aged prescription using helicopter yarding, effects on wetlands may be 

negligible. Alternative 2 would harvest the greatest acres of wetlands, while Alternative 5 would harvest 

the fewest. All harvest areas are expected to naturally regenerate and produce a young-growth stand.

Design Features

The following design features would be incorporated in all of the action alternatives: 

• Roads will be located to avoid wetlands to the extent practicable; avoidance, minimization, and 

design features for individual roads are documented on the road and unit cards.

• Drainage structures will be used in sufficient number to maintain natural hydrologic conditions.

Ditching will be minimized to prevent excessive drainage. 

• Ground-based logging systems will use slash to “float” the equipment minimizing wetland 

disturbance.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 251

Findings and Disclosures

Several of the laws and executive orders listed in Chapter 1 require project-specific findings or other 

disclosures. These are included here, and will be included in the Record of Decision. They apply to all 

alternatives considered in detail in this DEIS.

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)

An ANILCA Section 810 and 811 subsistence evaluation was conducted. The evaluation can be found in 

the subsistence section of this chapter. No significant restrictions on the abundance and distribution of, 

access to, or competition for subsistence resources in the project area are anticipated (See the subsistence 

report in the project record).

However, the Forest Plan Final EIS concluded that Forest-wide, under full implementation of the Forest 

Plan, the only subsistence resource that may be significantly restricted in the future by federal forest 

management activities is subsistence use of deer. Subsistence hearings will be held as required.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (as amended)

All alternatives would be in accordance with the interagency agreement established with the USFWS to 

maintain habitat to support long-term nesting, perching and winter roosting habitat for bald eagles.

Clean Air Act

Air quality would diminish on a recurring, temporary basis due to the construction of roads, timber 

harvest, and hauling. Limbs and logging slash would be burned at sort yards intermittently throughout the 

logging periods, which would deposit minor amounts of particulate matter and smoke into the air. 

Emissions anticipated from the implementation of any project alternative would be of short duration and 

are not expected to exceed State of Alaska ambient air quality standards (18 AAC 50). 

Clean Water Act

Congress intended the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), as amended in 1977 (Public Law 

95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4), to protect and improve the quality of water resources and maintain 

their beneficial uses. Section 313 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 12088 of January 23, 1987 

address federal agency compliance and consistency with water pollution control mandates. Agencies must 

be consistent with requirements that apply to "any governmental entity" or private person. Compliance is 

to be in line with "all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and 

process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution". 

The Clean Water Act (Sections 208 and 319) recognizes the need for control strategies for nonpoint 

source pollution. The National Nonpoint Source Policy (December 12, 1984), the Forest Service 

Nonpoint Strategy (January 29, 1985), and the USDA Nonpoint Source Water Quality Policy (December 

5, 1986) provide a protection and improvement emphasis for soil and water resources and water-related 

beneficial uses. Soil and water conservation practices (BMPs) were recognized as the primary control 

mechanisms for nonpoint source pollution on NFS lands. The Environmental Protection Agency supports 

this perspective in their guidance, “Nonpoint Source Controls and Water Quality Standards” (August 19, 

1987). 

The Forest Service must apply best management practices that are consistent with the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Regulations to achieve Alaska Water Quality Standards. The site-specific 

application of BMPs, with a monitoring and feedback mechanism, is the approved strategy for controlling 

nonpoint source pollution as defined by Alaska’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy (October 

2000). In 1997, the State approved the BMPs in the Forest Service’s Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook as consistent with the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. This handbook is 

incorporated into the Tongass Land Management Plan. 
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 252

A discharge of dredge or fill material from normal silviculture activities such as harvesting for the 

production of forest products is exempt from Section 404 permitting requirements in waters of the United 

States, including wetlands [404(f)(1)(A)]. Forest roads qualify for this exemption only if they are 

constructed and maintained in accordance with best management practices to assure that flow and 

circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the waters are not impaired 

[404(f)(1)(E)]. The BMPs that must be followed are specified in 33 CFR §323.4(a). These specific BMPs 

have been incorporated into the Forest Service’s Soil and Water Conservation Handbook under BMP 12.5.

Effects on Prime Farm Land, Range Land, and Forest Land

No prime farm land or range land would be adversely impacted by the action alternatives. Forest land 

would maintain its productivity, except for those lands permanently occupied by roads built for long-term 

access for forest management.

Endangered Species Act

None of the alternatives is anticipated to have a direct, indirect or cumulative effect on any threatened or 

endangered species in or outside the project area. A biological evaluation has been completed, following 

FSM 2670 direction, and analyzes threatened, endangered, and petitioned species. It is included in the 

Wrangell Island EIS project record. 

Environmental Justice/Civil Rights

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to state clearly whether a disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental impact on minority populations, low-income populations, or 

Indian tribes is likely to result from the proposed action and any alternatives. The Executive Order 

specifically directs agencies to consider patterns of subsistence hunting and fishing when an agency 

action may affect fish or wildlife. 

In accordance with Executive Order 12898, this project does not have disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority or low income populations. 

Executive Order 11593

Executive Order 11593 directs federal agencies to provide leadership in preserving, restoring and 

maintaining the historical and cultural environment of the Nation. The work accomplished in accordance 

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Wrangell Island Project meets the intent 

of this Executive Order.

Executive Order 11988

The numerous streams in the Wrangell Island Project make it essentially impossible to avoid all 

floodplains during timber harvest and road construction. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

riparian areas exclude most commercial timber harvesting from floodplains. Roads may be constructed in 

or through floodplains subject to the design requirements of the best management practices. Effects on 

floodplains from project activities have been avoided or minimized as much as possible.

Executive Order 11990

Executive Order 11990 requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term 

adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands. Because wetlands are so 

extensive in Wrangell Island project area, it is not feasible to avoid all wetlands. The wetlands section in 

this chapter describes the types and amounts of wetlands in the project area and how they would be 

affected. Effects to wetlands are minimized through the application of best management practices 

(BMPs). 
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 253

Road construction through wetlands is avoided where possible. Road cards contain site-specific details on 

road location through wetlands and how BMPs would be implemented. Based on the analysis in this 

chapter, it is estimated that the alternatives would result in the loss of approximately 51 to 81 acres (which 

equates to a loss of about 0.1 percent of wetland acreage in the project area) due to road fill.

Executive Order 12962

Executive Order 12962 requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed activities on aquatic 

systems and recreational fisheries. The project minimizes the effects on aquatic systems through project 

design, application of standards and guidelines, BMPs, and site-specific mitigation measures. Post-project 

road closures could limit access to some recreational fishing opportunities to foot or permitted offhighway vehicle (OHV). However, most recreational fishing throughout the Tongass occurs by boat in 

saltwater, and any adverse effects would be minimal.

Executive Order 13112 (Invasive plant species)

Executive Order 13112 requires federal agencies (in part) to evaluate whether the proposed activities will 

affect the status of invasive species; and to not carry out activities that promote the introduction or spread 

of invasive species unless it has been determined that the benefits of such action outweighs the potential 

harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measure to minimize risk of harm will 

be taken in conjunction with the actions.

Federal Cave Resource Protection Act

There are no known significant caves in the project area.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act of 1996

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act (1996) requires that all federal agencies consult with 

the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when any federal action is determined by the Forest 

Service “may adversely affect” essential fish habitat (EFH). The Forest Service’s position is that 

constructing new roads, harvesting timber near Class I streams and the use of the marine access facility

may have an adverse effect on EFH. However, by following the measures to minimize adverse effects 

listed in the EFH assessment, other standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan and implementing 

BMPs, the effects on EFH would be minimized. This DEIS, which includes the EFH assessment, will be 

made available to the National Marine Fisheries Service to initiate formal consultation. 

National Forest Management Act

All project alternatives fully comply with the Forest Plan. This project incorporates all applicable Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines and management area prescriptions as they apply to the project area, and 

complies with Forest Plan goals and objectives. All required interagency review and coordination has 

been accomplished; new or revised measures resulting from this review have been incorporated. 

The Forest Plan complies with all resource integration and management requirements of 36 CFR §219. 

Application of Forest Plan direction for the Wrangell Island Project ensures compliance at the project 

level.

National Historic Preservation Act

Cultural resource surveys of varying intensities have been conducted, following inventory protocols 

approved by the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer. Native communities have been contacted and 

public comment encouraged. The consultation and concurrence process with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer is complete. The SHPO concurred with the Forest Service finding of No Historic 

Properties Affected for this project.
3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 254

Threatened and Endangered Species and Region 10 Sensitive Species

A biological evaluation was completed for Region 10 sensitive plants. A biological evaluation/assessment 

was completed for threatened, endangered and Region 10 sensitive vertebrates and consultation occurred 

between responsible federal agencies for threatened or endangered species potentially affected by the 

project activities. Standards and guidelines have been applied, as needed, to ensure that any listed 

threatened or endangered species or its habitat would not be adversely affected. The Forest Plan contains 

standards and guidelines for each designated sensitive species, and these are incorporated into the project 

as applicable.

Tongass Timber Reform Act

Application of Forest Plan riparian standards and guidelines ensures that no commercial timber harvest 

will occur within 100 feet of any Class I or II stream flowing directly into a Class I stream as required in 

Section 103 of the Act. The proposed project would provide timber for the Tongass timber program to 

seek to meet market demand if an action alternative is selected.

See Appendix A - Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis for the Wrangell Island Project for 

information on how Section 101 of TTRA is addressed.

USDA Forest Service Transportation; Final Administrative Policy

This project is consistent with the Travel Management Rule by limiting the transportation system to the 

minimum amount necessary for project activities.
Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 255

Chapter 4. Lists and References

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

contributors), a distribution list for agencies, individuals, organizations, municipalities, tribes and other 

tribal groups who were sent the Wrangell Island DEIS, references cited in the DEIS, and an index of key 

words by page number.

Document Preparers and Contributors

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

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

appreciated.

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Joe Delabrue, Wildlife

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

Relevant experience: 17 years

Jackie de Montigny, Soils/Wetlands/Invasive Plants

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

M.S. Forestry, University of Montana, 1993

Relevant experience: 25 years

Karen Endres, Hydrologist

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

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

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

Relevant Experience: 17 years

Dee Galla, Recreation

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

Relevant experience: 27 years

Jason Powell, Transportation

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

Relevant experience: 8 years 

Greg Roberts, Silviculture

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

Relevant experience: 22 years 

Andrea Slusser, Interdisciplinary Team Leader

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

M.L.A. University of Washington, 2012

Relevant experience: 15 years 

Jane Smith, Heritage

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

Relevant experience: 32 years

Nathan Stearns, Logging Systems/Timber Economics

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

Relevant experience: 17 years
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 256

James Steward, Scenery

Education: Oregon State University, 1982

Relevant experience: 24 years

Rick Turner, Botany

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

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

Relevant experience: 22 years

Major Contributors and Reviewers

Sally Burch, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

Education: B.S

Relevant experience: 25 years

Andy Klimek, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

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

Relevant experience: 17 years

Brenda Miller, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

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

Relevant experience: 24 years

Tim Piazza, Forester/NEPA Planner

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

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

Relevant experience: 26 years

Gene Primaky, Geographic Information Systems Analysis

Education: Certificate of Forestry, AV Tech, 1990

Relevant experience: 25 years

Julianne Thompson, Forest Hydrologist 

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

Relevant experience: 27 years

Marina Whitacre, Writer/Editor

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

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

Relevant Experience: 12 years 

Judy York, Writer/Editor

Education: B.S. Wildlife Resources, 1985

M.S. Natural Resources Communications, 1989

Relevant Experience: 27 years

Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Individuals, agencies, tribes, organizations and the media on the project mailing list have been notified of 

the availability of the DEIS on the project website. This list of recipients is available in the Wrangell 

Island project record. Hard copies of the DEIS are available for public review at the Wrangell Public 

Library and the Wrangell Ranger District Office. 
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 257

References Cited

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

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

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

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

Alaska: Summaries of 30 Communities.

ADF&G. 2011. Unpublished harvest data from Lowell, R.E. 

ADF&G. 2012. Unpublished harvest data from Lowell, R.E.

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

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

Community profiles online. Available online at:

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRAExternal (accessed May 16, 2016).

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

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRAExternal/community/Details/7dc49d03-4394-

46d6-a4f2-850b79e3f2b8 (accessed April 12, 2016).

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

Development website. Available online at: http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm (accessed 

May, 9, 2016).

ADOL. 2015. Alaska Population Estimates by Borough, Census Area, City, and Census Designated Place, 

2010-2015. Available online at: http://labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/popest.htm (accessed May 9, 

2016).

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

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

http://forestry.alaska.gov/Assets/uploads/DNRPublic/forestry/pdfs/timber/ketchikan_timber/2015

-2019/2015_2019_FINAL_FYSTS_no_matrix.pdf (accessed May 9, 2016).

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

http://forestry.alaska.gov/timber/fiveyearschedules (accessed May 17, 2016).

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

(accessed May 9, 2016).

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

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

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

http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/wqs/pdfs/18%20AAC_70_WQS_Amended_July_1_2008

.pdf (accessed May 9, 2016).

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

http://alaskaweb.org/cmtys/wrangell.html (accessed April 12 2016).

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

Sustainable Economy with Thriving Communities. Forest Service, Alaska Region Publication 

R10-MB-725, Juneau, AK, 93 p. 

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

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

p.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 258

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

Prehistory. London, England: Thames and Hudson. 

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

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

State and Private Forestry. Unpublished report.

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

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

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

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

Audubon Society 2015. Christmas bird count. Website: http://birds.audubon.org/christmas-bird-count

(accessed May 9, 2016).

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

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

Forest Science Program.

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

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

of Forestry Research 38: 1319-1334.

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

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

Billings, R.F., 1975. Soils of Wrangell Island, AK. USDA Forest Service.

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

Goshawks in Western Washington. Masters Thesis. Univeristy of Washington. 80 p.

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

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

747–757. 

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

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

Anchorage. 45 p.

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

Available online at: 

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

ier+packing+company+wrangell+alaska+do?&source=bl&ots=3GhhZKzDj7&sig=BJ_6ZfILJvz

OOPMn25cUKI78l4&hl=en&ei=kVf1TKLMEsqr8AaRsZ2xBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=res

ult&resnum=3&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed April 11, 2016).

Brinkman T.J., D.K Person., F.S. Chapin III, W. Smith, and K.J. Hundertmark. 2011. “Estimating 

abundance of Sitka black-tailed deer using DNA from fecal pellets.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 75:232–242.

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

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

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

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art36/ (accessed May 9, 2016).
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 259

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

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

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

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

Available online at: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Bro/Bro-deer.htm (accessed May 9, 

2016).

Bryant, M.D., Caouette, J.P., and B.E. Wright. 2004. “Evaluating stream habitat survey data and statistical 

power using an example from Southeast Alaska.” North American Journal of Fishery 

Management 24: 1353-1362. 

Bytnerowicz A., K.B. Omasa, and E.C. Paoletti. 2007. “Integrated effects of air pollution and climate 

change on forests: A northern hemisphere perspective.” Environmental Pollution 147: 438-445.

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

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

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

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

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

128-138.

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

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

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

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

ska/seak/era/cfm/Pages/BioGeoProv.aspx (accessed May 10, 2016).

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

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

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

Center for Biological Diversity. 2004. Petition to list the yellow-billed loon, Gavia adamsii, as an 

endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Available online at: 

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/yellow-billed_loon/pdfs/YBL_petition.pdf

(accessed May 17, 2016).

Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace. 2011. Petition to list the Alexander Archipelago Wolf as 

threatened or endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act.

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

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

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

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

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

Edges into Old-Growth Douglas-Fir Forests.” Ecological Applications 5(1): 74-86. 

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

http://www.wrangell.com/visitorservices/history-wrangell (accessed April 11, 2016).

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

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

Conner, R.N. and C.S. Adkisson. 1976. “Discriminant function analysis: A possible aid in determining the 

impact of forest management of woodpecker nesting habitat.” Forest Science 22: 122-127.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 260

Conner, R.N., and H.S. Crawford. 1974. “Woodpecker foraging in Appalachian clearcuts.” Journal of 

Forestry 72: 564-566.

Cotter, P. 2007. “Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus).” In: A conservation assessment and resource 

synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion in the Tongass National Forest and 

Southeast Alaska. The Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Anchorage. Available online at:

http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm (accessed May 9, 2016).

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

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

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

Anchorage. Available online at: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm (accessed May 9, 

2016).

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

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

D.C. December 10.

CEQ. 2014. Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews. FR 79-247. 

Available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/nepa/ghgguidance (accessed May 19, 2016).

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

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

D’Amore, D., and R. Edwards. 2013 Climate and Carbon in Southeast Alaska: Beyond the Threshold of 

Change in a Dynamic Landscape. Unpublished document. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Available online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/climate-change/ (accessed May, 19, 2016).

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

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

202.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

00000aab0f02&acdnat=1390738872_dfba4d4d36a76c572a0b10769905ac40EPA (accessed May 

16, 2016).

Dillman, K.L., L.H. Geiser, and G. Brenner. 2007. Air quality bio-monitoring with lichens on the Tongass 

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

Forest.
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 261

Dillman, K. 2008. Conservation assessment for the large round-leaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata

(Pursh.) Lindl.) on the Tongass National Forest, Alaska Region. Unpublished report. USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. 

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

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

Alaska. 

Dillman, K. 2011a. “Conservation Assessment of Piperia unalascensis (Spreng.) Rydb: Region 10 

Sensitive Species.” Unpublished report. Petersburg, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest.

Dillman, K. 2011b. “Conservation Assessment of Lobaria amplissima (Scop.) Forss: Region 10 sensitive 

species.” Unpublished report. Petersburg, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

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

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

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

Parks and Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia.

Earnst, S.L. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii). 

Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5258. USDI: US Geological Survey. 42 p.

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

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

26: 21-28. 

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

Seattle. 

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

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

Federal Register. 1993. “Designated critical habitat; Stellar sea lion.” Rules and Regulations. August 27. 

Federal Register 58(165): 45269-45285.

Federal Register. 2007a. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition 

to List the Yellow-Billed Loon as Threatened or Endangered.” Proposed Rules. June 6. Federal 

Register 72(108): 31256-31264.

Federal Register. 2007. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Response to Court on 

Significant Portion of the Range, and Evaluation of Distinct Population Segments, for the Queen 

Charlotte Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi).” Rules and Regulations. November 8. Federal 

Register 72(216): 63123-63140.

Federal Register. 2009. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition 

to List the Yellow-Billed Loon as Threatened or Endangered.” Proposed Rules. March 25. 

Federal Register 74(56): 12932-12968.

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

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

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

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

Conservation.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 262

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska.

Gebauer, M.B., and I.E. Moul. 2001. Status of the Great Blue Heron in British Columbia. Unpublished 

report. B.C. Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC. 66 p.

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

Southeast Alaska. Unpublished white paper.

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

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

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

Use. University of Washington Press, Seattle.

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

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

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

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76 p. 

Hanley, T.A. 1984. Relationships between Sitka black-tailed deer and their habitat. General Technical

Report PNW-168. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 21 p.

Hanley, T.A., O.C. Wallmo, J.W. Schoen, and M.D. Kirchhoff. 1986. Habitat relationships of Sitka blacktailed deer. Juneau: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region Admin Document 151. 37 p.

Hanley, T.A., C.T. Robbins, and D.E. Spalinger. 1989. Forest habitats and the nutritional ecology of Sitka 

black-tailed deer: a research synthesis with implications for forest management. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-230. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station.

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

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

Planning 72:113-133.

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

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

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

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

Institute, Seeley Lake, Montana, USA. Available online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_038171.pdf (accessed May 17, 

2016).

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

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

Station. 7 p. 
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 263

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

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

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

Heinl, S.C. 2010. Birds of Southeast Alaska, an annotated list from Icy Bay south to Dixon Entrance.

Alaska Geographic.

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

1-99.

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

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

24(8): 163-173. 

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

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

Lab of Ornithology. 

Helms, J.A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, Maryland. 

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

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

http://www4.nau.edu/direnet/publications/publications_h/files/hennon-1997-the.pdf (accessed 

May 16, 2015).

Hennon, P., D.V. D’Amore, P. Schaberg, D. Wittwer, and C. Shanley. 2012. “Shifting climate, altered 

niche, and a dynamics conservation strategy for yellow-cedar in the North Pacific coastal 

rainforest.” BioScience 62: 147-158. Available online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5368632.pdf (accessed May 16, 

2016).

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

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

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

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr917.pdf (accessed May 16, 2016).

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

Western Oregon and Associated Fisheries Implication.” Water Resources Bulletin 27(2): 217-226. 

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

Seattle. 

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

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

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

Naturalist 92: 7-12.

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

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

Hodgkins, G. 2009. “Streamflow Changes in Alaska between the Cool Phase (1947-1976) and the Warm 

Phase (1977-2006) of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation: The Influence of Glaciers.” Water 

Resources Research Vol. 45.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 264

Hood, E., L. Berner. 2009. “Effects of changing glacial coverage on the physical and biogeochemical 

properties of coastal streams in southeastern Alaska.” Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 114.

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

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

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

Howle, S.A., and P. Krosse. 2014. Saddle Lakes Timber Sale, Climate Change Resource Report (V.2).

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

Hughes, J.H. 1985. Characteristics of standing dead trees in old-growth forests on Admiralty Island, 

Alaska. Master’s Thesis. Washington State University.

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

California. 

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

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

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

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

at: http://msb.unm.edu/isles/ (accessed May 9, 2016).

Jacobson, M.J., and J.I. Hodges. 1999. “Population trend of adult bald eagles in Southeast Alaska, 1967-

97.” Journal of Raptor Research 33(4):295-298.

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

collisions in Alaskan Waters: 1978-2008. Poster presentation. 

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

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

36(9): 2621-2642. 

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

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

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

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

p. 

Joy, J.B. 2000. “Characteristics of nest cavities and nest trees of the red-breasted sapsucker in coastal 

montane forests.” Journal of Field Ornithology 71(3): 525-530. 

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

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

Kirchhoff, M.D., and J.W. Schoen. 1987. “Forest cover and snow: implications for deer habitat in 

Southeast Alaska.” Journal of Wildlife Management 51(1): 28-33.

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

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

Workshop. Ketchikan, Alaska.

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

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

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

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

Forest.
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 265

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

Alaska. Unpublished report. 160 p.

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

(Brachyramphus marmoratus), relative to prey and habitat. Masters Thesis. University of 

Victoria, British Columbia.

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

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

National Forest.

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

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

Landwehr, D.J. et al. 2012. Soil Quality Monitoring on the Tongass National Forest. Unpublished report. 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

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

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

Tongass National Forest.

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

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

National Forest.

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

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

and Game. pp. 96-117. Available online at: 

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

10, 2016).

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

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

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

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

May 10, 2016).

Lowell, R.E. 2012. “Unit 3 wolf management.” In: Wolf management report of survey and inventory 

activities, 1 July 2008 – 30 June 2011. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. pp. 

39-46.

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

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

45-57. Available online at: 

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

May 10, 2016).

Lowell, R.E. 2014. “Unit 3.” In: Furbearer management report of survey and inventory activities, 1 July 

2009–30 June 2012. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. pp. 58-74.

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

Southwestern Biology, Special Publication 8: 1-191.

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

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

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 266

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

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

McCoy, K., G. Pendleton, D. Rabe, T. Straugh, and K. White. 2009. Sitka black-tailed deer harvest report 

Southeast, Alaska 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

McCune, and L.H. Geiser. 2009. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest, 2nd edition. Corvallis: Oregon 

State University Press. 400 p.

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

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

Meehl, G.A., C. Tebaldi and D. Nychka. 2004. “Changes in frost days in simulations of twenty first 

century climate.” Climate Dynamics 23: 495–511.

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

Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics. G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. 

Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, eds. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press.

pp. 708-734.

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

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

784. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Marine Fisheries Service. 325 p.

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

2016).

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

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

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

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

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

Reprint Corporation, New York. 

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

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

Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

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

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

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

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

University of California, Berkeley. 

Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 2013. Fact sheet. “Are Forests, Carbon And Climate Change Related?”
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 267

Parker, K.L., C.T. Robbins, and T.A. Hanley. 1984. “Energy expenditures for locomotion by mule deer 

and elk.” Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 474-488.

Parker, K.L., M.P. Gillingham, T.A. Hanley, and C.T. Robbins. 1999. “Energy and protein balance of freeranging black-tailed deer in a natural forest environment.” Wildlife Monographs 143: 3-48.

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

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

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

Olympic Valley, California. 6 p. 

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

landscape. Dissertation. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in Alaska.” In Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt Jr., M.G. 

Raphael, and J.F. Piatt, eds. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. pp. 285-294.

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

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

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

Survey. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1387 (accessed May 10, 2016).

Powell, J. 2014. Personal communication with Jason Powell, Transportation Planner, Ketchikan-Misty 

Ranger District.

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

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

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

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

Research Station. 

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

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

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

Ramanathan, V., and Y. Feng. 2009. “Air pollution, greenhouse gases and climate change: Global and 

regional perspectives.” Atmospheric Environment 43: 37–50. 

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

fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds.” Science 267: 1987-1900.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 268

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

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

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

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

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

Michigan State University.

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

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

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

redwood preserves.” In: Wilderness science in a time of change conference, volume 3: Wilderness 

as a place for scientific inquiry. S. McCool, D. Cole, W. Borrie, T. William, and J. O’Loughlin, 

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

Research Station.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. Link. 2015. “The North 

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

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

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

(accessed May 10, 2016).

Schoen and Gende. 2007. “Brown bear (Ursus arctos).” In: A conservation assessment and resource 

synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion in southeastern Alaska and the 

Tongass National Forest. Schoen and Dovichin, eds. Anchorage, Alaska: The Nature 

Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Available online at: 

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

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

resource synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion in southeastern Alaska and 

the Tongass National Forest. Schoen and Dovichin, eds. Anchorage, Alaska: The Nature 

Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Available online at: 

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

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

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

Schoen, J., R. Flynn, and B. Clark. 2007. “American Marten (Martes americana).” In: A conservation 

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

southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. Schoen, J.W. and E. Dovichin, eds. 

Anchorage, Alaska: The Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska. Available online at: 

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

ka/seak/era/cfm/Pages/RS-AKCFM.aspx (accessed May 10, 2016).

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

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

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

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

Molecular Ecology 12: 89-103.

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

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

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory.
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 269

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

Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service.

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

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

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

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

Zoologica Sinica 51(6): 973-988.

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

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

Forests, Research Program. Available online at: 

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/wp/wp01.pdf (accessed May 17, 2016).

Stensvold, M. 2011. “Alaska Region sensitive plant biological evaluation (BE) boilerplate.” Unpublished 

document. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

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

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

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

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

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

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

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

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

120: 327-335.

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

Program. 

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

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

262.

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

habitat management.” In: Martens, sables, and fishers biology and conservation. S.W. Buskirk, 

A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Turner, R. 2011. Conservation assessment for Cypripedium montanum (mountain lady’s slipper).

Unpublished report. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National 

Forest.

Turner, R. 2012. Habitat suitability models for five sensitive vascular plant and lichen species on the 

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

Region, Tongass National Forest. 

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

January 13, 2012, from http://arctos.database.museum/.

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

January 13, 2012, from http://www.pnwherbaria.org/data/search.php.

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

http://censusviewer.com/city/AK/Wrangell (accessed May 10, 2016).
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 270

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Preliminary Forest Plant Associations of 

the Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest. Technical Paper. R10-TP-72. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1992. Channel Type User Guide. Technical 

Publication. R10-TP-26. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for 

Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook #701. USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997a. Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, Parts 1 and 2. Management Bulletin 

R10-MB-338b. USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1997b. Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix, Volume 4. Management 

Bulletin R10-MB-338h. USDA Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1998. Wrangell Island Analysis. Management 

Bulletin R10-MB-371. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001a. Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook. 

Forest Service Handbook 2090.21. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?2090.21!r10_ALL

(accessed May 10, 2016).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001b. “Wrangell Island Bird Checklist.” 

Unpublished document. P. Roberston, compiler.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2003. Tongass National Forest, Forest-Level 

Roads Analysis. 145 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2006. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. 

Forest Service Handbook 2509.22.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007a. Wrangell Ranger District, Access and 

Travel Management Plan, Environmental Assessment. Wrangell, Alaska.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007b. Wrangell Ranger District Access and 

Travel Management Plan Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact. Wrangell, 

Alaska.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008a. Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Management Bulletin. R10-MB-603b.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008b. Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1. Management Bulletin R10-

MB-603c.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2008c. Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume II - Appendices. Management 

Bulletin R10-MB-603d.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009a. Alaska Region Sensitive Species list. 

Unpublished document. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009b. Survey Protocol for Sensitive, Rare and 

Invasive Plants for NEPA Analysis on the Tongass National Forest. Unpublished report.
Lists and References 4

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 271

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009c. “U.S. Forest Service History.” Available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/learn/our-history/ (accessed May 11, 2016).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010a. “Letter to the Tongass Futures 

Roundtable from Beth Pendleton, Alaska Regional Forester.” May 24. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska 

Region. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5445764.pdf (accessed May 10, 

2016).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010b. “Third Programmatic Agreement among 

the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory Council On Historic Preservation, and the 

Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Heritage Program Management on National 

Forests in the State of Alaska.”

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 2012. National Best Management Practices for 

Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands Volume 1: National Core BMP 

Technical Guide. FS-990a.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013a. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 

2012. Protection Report R10-PR-32. Anchorage, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

89 p.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2013b. Wrangell-Petersburg Integrated Weed 

Management Project. EA, DN, and FONSI. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2014. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2013. 

Anchorage, Alaska. Protection Report R10-PR-035. Anchorage, Alaska: USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region. 81 p.

USDA Forest Service 2015. Baseline Estimates of Carbon Stocks in Forests and Harvested Wood 

Products for National Forest System Units; Alaska Region. Unpublished document. 34 p. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/documents/AlaskaRegionCarbonAssessment.pdf (accessed 

May 19, 2016).

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2016. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2015. 

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

Forest Service, Alaska Region. 90 pp. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd491888.pdf (accessed May 10, 2016).

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. 

“PLANTS database.” Available online at: http://www.plants.usda.gov (accessed May 11, 2015).

United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary. 2013. “Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-

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

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

May 11, 2016).

United States Department of the Interior. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Queen Charlotte Goshawk 

Status Review. Juneau, Alaska: USFWS, Alaska Region, Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office. 

173 p.

United States Department of the Interior. US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation 

Concern. Arlington, Virginia: USFWS, Division of Migratory Bird Managements.
4Lists and References

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 272

United States Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 2013. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset 

(WBD). U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 11–A3, 4th edition. 63 p. Available 

online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm11a3/ (accessed May 17, 2016).

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

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

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

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

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/025 (accessed May 11, 2016).

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

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

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

Research Station. 265 p. 

Walters, E.L., E.H. Miller, and P.E. Lowther. 2002. “Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber).” The 

Birds of North America Online. A. Poole, ed. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/663a/articles/introduction (accessed 

May 11, 2016).

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

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

(6): 1195.

White, K.S., G.W. Pendleton, and E. Hood. 2009. “Effects of snow on Sitka black-tailed deer browse 

availability and nutritional carrying capacity in southeastern Alaska.” Journal of Wildlife 

Management 73(4): 481–487.

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

management in Fennoscandia?” Journal of Raptor Research 31(2): 107-113.

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

to a nationally continuous coverage. St. Paul, Minnesota: USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

308.
Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 273

Appendix A - Reasons for Scheduling the 

Environmental Analysis for the Wrangell Island 

Project FY2016

Reasons for Scheduling the Environmental Analysis of the Wrangell 

Island Project

Introduction

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

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and to provide an orderly flow of timber to local industry. To 

determine the volume of timber to offer each year, the Forest Service can look to current market 

conditions and the level of industry operations. However, the planning process for timber harvest projects 

requires the Forest Service to rely on projections of future harvest levels to decide how many timber 

harvest projects to begin each year. This document explains how the Forest Service uses information 

about future markets and past experience to determine the volume of timber that needs to be started 

through this process each year. This document relies on the annual timber demand analysis and the most 

recent project schedule.

The purpose of this document is twofold: first, to explain why this project was selected for inclusion into 

the Tongass National Forest (Tongass) Timber Program and second, to explain the basis and components 

of the Tongass Timber program. To accomplish this, the following questions are answered:

• How does the Wrangell Island Project fit into the Tongass Timber Program and How Does the 

Forest Service decide where Timber Harvest Projects are Located?

• Why is timber from the Tongass being offered?

• How does the Forest Service develop forecasts about future timber market demand?

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

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

How Does the Wrangell Island Project Fit into the Tongass Timber Program and 

How Does the Forest Service decide where Timber Harvest Projects are Located?

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

Memorandum 1044-009 (see subsequent discussion about Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast 

Alaska) by proposing the commercial harvest of old-growth timber, that will contribute to the supply of 

timber needed to maintain timber industry infrastructure and job skills during the transition to younggrowth management. 

This project contributes to the timber program planning objective of providing an orderly flow of timber 

from planning through harvest to meet timber supply requirements. A position statement regarding this 

project’s timber sale harvest plan (See subsequent discussion about the Gate 1 – Initial Planning of 

Timber Sale Projectwas completed to document that this project warrants additional investment of funds 

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

Anticipated budget allocations and resources are sufficient to prepare and offer this project as scheduled.

This project is currently in Gate 2, Project Analysis and Design (See subsequent discussion about the Gate 

2 – Project Analysis and Design (and Decision) and involves environmental analysis and public 

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

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

added to the volume available for offer. 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 274

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

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

Forest Plan and Record of Decision. 

Why is This Project Occurring in This Location?

Site-specific reasons the Wrangell Island Project is occurring in this location include:

• The project area contains sufficient acres of suitable and available forest land to contribute to a 

supply of timber from the Tongass which meets the annual market demand for each planning 

cycle.

• The project area is on Wrangell Island and the road system accesses all of the proposed timber 

harvest units, two existing log transfer facilities, and small mills located in the city of Wrangell. 

Because the project is connected to the same road system as the City of Wrangell it would help 

support direct and indirect employment through the supply of personnel, goods and services.

• The proposed harvest units are within development land use designations (LUDs) as allocated by 

the forest plan.

• The Wrangell Island project area contains sufficient acres of suitable and available forest land to 

make this timber harvest proposal reasonable. Areas with available timber need to be considered 

for harvest in order to seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which 

1) meets the annual market demand for such forest, and 2) meets the market demand from such 

forest for each planning cycle, pursuant to Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act 

(TTRA).

• Effect on subsistence resources from timber harvest are projected to have few differences based 

on the sequence in which areas are harvested. Harvesting other areas with available timber on the 

Tongass National Forest is expected to have similar potential effects on the resources, including 

subsistence resources, because of widespread distribution of subsistence use and other factors. 

Harvest within other areas is foreseeable under the Forest Plan.

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

National Legislation

On a national level, the legislative record is clear about the role of the timber program in the multiple-use 

mandate of the national forests. One of the original objectives for creation of national forests was to 

provide natural resources, including timber, for the American public. The Organic Administration Act of 

1897 (partially repealed in 1976) directed the agency to manage the forests in order to "improve and 

protect the forest ... [and] for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a 

continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States" (emphasis 

added). The Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 directs the Forest Service to administer federal 

lands for “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.”

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 states that “the Secretary of Agriculture...may 

sell, at not less than appraised value, trees, portions of trees, or forest products located on National Forest 

System Lands.” Although the heart of the Act is the land management planning process for national 

forests, the Act also sets policy direction for timber management and public participation in Forest 

Service decision making. Under NFMA, the Forest Service was directed to “limit the sale of timber from 

each national forest to a quantity equal to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest 

annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis.”

The NFMA directs the Forest Service to complete land management plans for all units of the National 

Forest System. Forest plans are developed by an interdisciplinary team to provide for the coordination of 

outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife and fish, and wilderness. Forest plans designate 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 275

areas of national forest where different management activities and uses are considered appropriate, 

including those areas suitable for timber harvest.

Alaska-Specific Legislation 

Timber volume from the Tongass is being offered as part of the multiple-use mission of the Forest Service 

identified in the public laws guiding the agency. In addition, Alaska-specific legislation and the Tongass 

Forest Plan direct the Forest Service to seek to provide timber to meet market demand, subject to certain 

limitations.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the Tongass Timber Reform Act 

(TTRA) provide direction on the issue of Tongass timber supply. TTRA, Section 101 deleted ANILCA, 

Section 705 (a), which mandated a fixed timber supply and fixed budget appropriations, and inserted the 

following :

Sec. 705. (a) Subject to appropriations, other applicable law, and the requirements of the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588); except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the Secretary 

shall, to the extent consistent with providing for the multiple use and sustained yield of all renewable 

forest resources, seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest which (1) meets the 

annual market demand for timber from such forest and (2) meets the annual market demand from such 

forest for each planning cycle.

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan 

The Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended, guides all natural resource 

management activities and establishes management standards and guidelines for the Tongass. It describes 

resource management practices, levels of resource production and management, and the availability and 

suitability of lands for different kinds of resource management. This Forest Plan embodies the provisions 

of the National Forest Management Act, the implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. The 

multiple-use goals and objectives, and the land use prescriptions and standards and guidelines, constitute 

a statement of the Forest Plan's management direction.

The Forest Plan was completed in 1979 and revised in 1997. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the 2008 

Forest Plan Amendment was signed by the Alaska Regional Forester on January 23, 2008. The Forest 

Plan incorporates new resource information and scientific studies and reflects an extensive public 

involvement process. The Forest Plan defines appropriate activities within each of 19 LUDs. 

Approximately 79 percent of the Tongass is allocated to LUDs where scheduled commercial timber 

harvest is not allowed (See the subsequent section How Does The Forest Service Decide Where Timber 

Harvest Projects Should Be Located?). 

The decision for the Forest Plan establishes the annual average Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) the 

maximum amount of timber that may be offered) at 267 million board feet (MMBF). This is the same as 

the ASQ established for the previous Forest Plan in 1997. While technically a limit on volume, in effect 

the ASQ also limits the amount of timber that may be harvested on the Tongass.

The environmental effects analysis in the Final EIS for the 2008 Forest Plan assumed the maximum 

timber harvest allowed under each alternative would occur annually over the next 100 to 150 years. In 

that way, the Forest Plan analysis displayed the maximum environmental effects that could be reasonably 

foreseen. However, substantially less timber volume and acres have actually been harvested than the 

maximum level allowed under the 1997 Forest Plan (See Figure 32). Thus, the effects on resources are 

expected to be less than projected in the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 276

Figure 32. Tongass Timber Volume Harvested (MMBF) for Fiscal Years 2001-2015

USDA Investment Strategy for Creating Jobs and Healthy Communities in Southeast 

Alaska

After consecutive decades of population loss, the Southeast region and its 32 communities have 

experienced some population stabilization in recent years. However, socioeconomic community 

conditions remain tenuous with declining school enrollments, high energy costs, and limited job 

opportunities in many rural communities. 

USDA agencies (Farm Service Agency, Forest Service, and Rural Development) and the U.S. Economic 

Development Administration (USEDA) have partnered to support community revitalization through 

investment in economic development planning, restoration-based job creation, and community capacity 

building. USDA investment strategy goals include: 

• creating quality jobs and sustainable economic growth; 

• promoting small business creation, expansion, and retention; 

• improving access to capital; and 

• promoting job training and educational opportunities. 

To do this, USDA agencies collaborated with local business and community leaders to implement an 

industry cluster-based approach to economic development – the Southeast Alaska Cluster Initiative. Over 

the past five years (2010 – 2015), the USDA invested $1,030,000 in the Southeast Alaska Cluster 

Initiative via Forest Service and Rural Development agencies. June 2015 marks a significant milestone 

for the Southeast Cluster Initiative project as it signifies nearly five years of USDA investment in 

implementing a strategic approach to regional economic development including economic research, asset 

mapping, cluster work group facilitation, and consult regarding regional economic development 

opportunities. 

While the Forest Service discontinued funding for the Southeast Cluster Initiative in 2015, significant 

staff resources remain invested to ensure the long-term sustainability of the overall effort. The USDA

agencies continue to work together to align resources, focus investments, and collaborate to encourage 

economic diversification and community well-being across Southeast Alaska. 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 277

Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska

The timber industry’s long term survival in Southeast Alaska requires a transition from a dependence on 

old-growth timber to a program that is primarily supported by young growth. The goal is to transition 

from the dependence on harvest of old-growth forest to young growth forest management in a manner that 

allows the timber industry to adapt to these changed conditions to provide jobs and economic support for 

the communities of Southeast Alaska. 

Transition to Young Growth Timber

On July 2, 2013, the Secretary of Agriculture issued Memorandum 1044-009 (Addressing Sustainable 

Forestry in Southeast Alaska) to support the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting towards a 

forest industry based on the utilization of young growth timber. The memorandum states that “To 

conserve the Tongass National Forest under the principles of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 

1960, Tongass Timber Reform Act and other relevant statutes, we must speed the transition away from 

old-growth timber harvesting and towards a forest industry that utilizes second growth – or young growth 

– forests. Moreover, we must do this in a way that preserves a viable timber industry that provides jobs 

and opportunities for residents of Southeast Alaska.”

Retaining the existing industry is critical to this approach, therefore the transition to young growth will be 

managed at a pace that allows operators to adjust, adapt, and develop markets for new products. The 

maintenance of the timber industry in Southeast Alaska will contribute to the diversity of the economy 

with the on-going development of other economic sectors such as tourism, recreation, fishing and 

mariculture and renewable energy.

The long term goal is that the majority of active forest management on the Tongass will be comprised of 

ecological restoration, young growth forest management, small and microsale old-growth timber sales and 

pre-commercial thinning. These projects would in turn supply local and regional wood products markets.

Old-growth “Bridge Timber”

Pursuant to the Secretary’s memorandum, the Forest Service is asked to seek opportunities to supply 

sufficient old growth “bridge timber” while the industry re-tools for processing young growth. To achieve 

this, a supply of old-growth will continue to be offered while commercial young growth timber 

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

workforce and retain local knowledge and experience as businesses retool toward smaller diameter wood 

utilization. 

The amount of old-growth “bridge timber” harvested will decrease as more young growth timber becomes 

economically viable to harvest. The duration and scale at which old-growth “bridge timber” will be 

needed is unclear. Factors such as the role of State and private land in contributing wood supply to a 

viable industry; the availability of suitable young growth that is mature and economic to harvest; export 

and domestic processing policies; and fluctuations in domestic and world markets for forest products 

must be considered, are unpredictable, and will influence the timeframe for transition. 

Integration of Work

Integrating forest management activities from individual resource schedules for timber offers, watershed 

restoration and habitat improvement, and road decommissioning and maintenance incorporates 

community and collaborative input and priorities; aligns staff and budgets to increase efficiencies and 

effectiveness at the district and project-level and integrating multiple programmatic activities in larger 

landscapes. This also utilizes the existing industry and workforce capacity and provides a stable and 

consistent program of work to encourage new business investment. Declining budgets and unpredictable 

markets will likely make it difficult to implement every project as currently planned.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 278

The efforts by several USDA entities and other stakeholders to explore and support economic 

diversification and job creation in Southeast Alaska with regards to the forestry and restoration, is 

important for two reasons: 1) it maintains current infrastructure in Southeast Alaska and therefore jobs, 

and 2) uses that infrastructure as a springboard to diversify the forestry sector, creating even more jobs.

How Does the Forest Service Develop Forecasts about Future Timber Market 

Demand?

Consistent with the provisions of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the Forest Service makes two types of 

forecasts of market demand for timber from the Tongass. The first, “planning cycle market demand,” 

forecasts the long-term demand for timber from the Tongass over the life of the Forest Plan, derived from 

trends in international demand for end products manufactured from such timber. Based on these long-term 

projections, the Forest Service also estimates annual market demand in order to determine how much 

timber to plan to offer.

Market Demand for the Planning Cycle

Research economists with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest (PNW) Research Station have prepared 

several studies of “planning cycle market demand” for Tongass timber, including three General Technical 

Reports by Brooks and Haynes (1990, 1994, and 1997). In 2006, the PNW Research Station published 

new harvest projections (Brackley et al. 2006). This report and an addendum to it (Brackley and Haynes

2008) provided key information for the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment analysis.

The Brackley et al. 2006 projections include four scenarios: 1) limited lumber production, which 

represents the situation the timber industry in Southeast Alaska has faced over the last several years; 2) 

expanded lumber production, which assumes some form of demand stimulus occurs; 3) medium 

integrated industry, which assumes sufficient demand stimulus occurs to cause an expansion of the current 

industry capacity and better utilization of forest products removed from public timber contracts; and 4) 

high integrated industry, assumes some kind of additional demand stimulation to result in full utilization 

of all types of forest products available from the Tongass. More detailed information about these 

scenarios and their assumptions is in the Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS and ROD (January 2008), and 

in Brackley and Haynes 2008.

The Brackley et al. 2006 study displays alternative projections of derived demand for timber from the 

Tongass. For the first two scenarios, which assume no market for low-grade sawlogs and utility volume, 

the estimates of planning cycle demand include sawtimber only. For the two integrated industry scenarios, 

the projections include total volume, including both sawlogs and utility. Utility volume must be cut along 

with higher-quality timber even if there is no demand for it. It is the total volume of timber cut on the 

Tongass that is of most interest, in part because environmental effects result from total volume cut. In 

addition, any comparison of scenarios must be based on comparable figures. Table 98 shows annualized 

Brackley et al. 2006 projections for all four scenarios in terms of total volume.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 279

Table 98. Tongass volume necessary to supply derived demand for decked log volume and chips, in million 

board feet (MMBF) (Alexander 20081)

Year Scenario 1 Limited

lumber

Scenario 2

Expanded lumber

Scenario 3 Medium

integrated

Scenario 4 High 

integrated

2007 49.8 61.9 67 67

2008 49.8 66.4 139 139

2009 51.3 72.4 151 151

2010 52.8 78.5 166 166

2011 52.8 84.5 184 184

2012 54.3 90.5 204 286

2013 55.8 98.1 204 291

2014 57.3 105.6 204 295

2015 58.9 113.2 204 299

2016 58.9 122.2 204 303

2017 60.4 131.3 204 308

2018 61.9 140.3 204 312

2019 63.4 150.1 204 317

2020 64.9 163.0 204 325

2021 66.4 175.0 204 333

2022 67.9 187.1 204 342

2023 69.4 200.7 204 351

2024 70.9 215.8 204 360

2025 72.4 230.9 204 370

1 Annualized calculation to fulfill derived demand scenarios from Brackley et al. (2006). This table was created using annualized

values provided by Dr. Allen Brackley (personal communication, Nov 29, 2006) from the model used to develop derived demand 

estimates in Brackley et al. (2006). The values for Limited Lumber Scenario and Expanded Lumber scenarios reported in this table 

have been adjusted to include low-quality material not included in the demand projections and include saw logs, cedar export, and 

utility (chip) volumes available from sawmill production. The Medium and High Integrated Scenarios are not adjusted and includes 

sawlogs, cedar exports, chip volumes, low-grade material, and utility in Brackley et al. (2006). 

Draft Planning Cycle Market Demand for the ongoing Forest Plan Amendment for 

Transition to Young Growth 

The PNW Research Station has drafted new timber harvest projections (2015-2030) with final publication 

still in progress (Daniels et al., in press) – the fifth such analysis performed since 1990. New timber 

demand projections do not require changes in the basic methodology for timber offer calculations in the 

procedure outlined by Morse (2000). Similar to prior long-term projections, projections of Alaska timber 

products output, the derived demand for logs, lumber, residue, and niche product, and timber harvest by 

owner were developed using a trend-based analysis. 

While PNW Research Station developed these new long-term timber demand projections to inform the 

analysis for the 2015 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment Draft EIS, all data and 

analysis remains in draft form until the manuscript is published. Planning for the Wrangell Island Project 

occurred under the 2008 Forest Plan and uses those demand assumptions as discussed above. Daniels et 

al. (in press) developed a baseline demand model, projecting from 2015 to 2030, to construct three 

scenarios representing alternative futures for timber harvest – all incorporating a transition from 

predominantly old growth to young growth timber harvest. The baseline demand model assumes 

projected trends in imports, consumption, and market share will remain constant.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 280

Table 99. 2015 Forest Plan Amendment DEIS Table 3.22-15. Estimated annual maximum timber harvest on the Tongass by alternative, Year 1 to 100

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

5-Year 

Period Years YG OG Total YG OG Total YG OG Total YG OG Total YG OG Total

1 1-5 6.3 39.7 46.0 23.8 22.2 46.0 20.8 25.2 46.0 8.4 37.6 46.0 9.0 37.0 46.0

2 6-10 6.3 39.7 46.0 23.8 22.2 46.0 20.8 25.2 46.0 9.0 37.0 46.0 9.4 36.6 46.0

3 11-15 11.1 34.9 46.0 47.5 5.0 52.5 41.8 5.0 46.0 24.6 21.4 46.0 25.0 21.0 46.0

4 16-20 11.1 34.9 46.0 114.5 5.0 119.5 112.0 5.0 117.0 60.2 5.0 65.2 66.0 5.0 71.0

5 21-25 11.1 34.9 46.0 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

6 26-30 23.4 22.6 46.0 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

7 31-35 41.6 5.0 46.6 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

8 36-40 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

9 41-45 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

10 46-50 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

11 51-55 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

12 56-60 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

13 61-65 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

14 66-70 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

15 71-75 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

16 76-80 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

17 81-85 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

18 86-90 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

19 91-95 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

20 96-100 129.4 5.0 134.4 114.6 5.0 119.6 112.0 5.0 117.0 84.4 5.0 89.4 88.4 5.0 93.4

Notes:

YG = young growth; OG = old growth

1 The shaded cells indicate the 5-year increment when the transition to young-growth harvest is expected to be completed.

2 These volumes are maximum harvest levels and include grade 1, 2, and 3 logs only.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 281

Demand for Tongass National Forest timber currently depends on markets for sawn wood and exports of 

softwood logs. Therefore, the model was most sensitive to changes in Pacific Rim log demand. Areas of 

uncertainty include the prospect of continuing changes in markets and competition, the impact of the 

transition to young-growth timber, and the rates of investment in manufacturing in Alaska. While 

transitioning to young-growth management is the purpose of the Forest Plan Amendment, any alternative 

selected for the decision for the Amendment would still need an old-growth component with an annual 

range of 22 to 39 MMBF for at least the first 10 years (See Table 99). However, the rate at which this 

transition will occur is uncertain. The rate would depend on level of investment and, under any scenario, 

would require a “bridge” strategy to continue to allow some old-growth harvest to sustain communities 

and jobs through this transition. A major step, following the example of successful mills in the lower 48,

would be for industry in Southeast Alaska to retool its equipment to process smaller logs from younger 

trees. To do so, however, requires substantial investment over several years.

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

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

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

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

can switch to a stable supply of young growth

Annual Market Demand 

The annual market demand forecast is a methodology used to set the short-term goals for the Tongass 

Timber Program – volume the Forest plans to offer in the current year, pending sufficient funding and 

sufficient NEPA-cleared volume.

The formulas and procedures used in forecasting annual market demand are described in a Forest Service 

report titled Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber (Morse, 2000). These procedures, 

which have become known as the “Morse methodology,” are based on the premise that:

• Forest product markets are volatile, especially in the short run.

• Timber purchasers in Southeast Alaska have few alternative suppliers of timber if they cannot 

obtain it from the Tongass. Oversupplying this market has relatively few adverse economic 

effects; undersupplying it can have much greater negative economic consequences.

• It takes years to prepare National Forest timber for sale, including completion of environmental 

impact statements.

• It is difficult to estimate demand for timber from the Tongass, even a year or two in advance.

• Industry must be able to respond to rapidly changing market conditions in order to remain 

competitive.

Accordingly, the Morse methodology establishes a system that considers factors such as mill capacity and 

utilization of that capacity, and seeks to build and maintain sufficient volume of timber under contract 

(i.e., timber purchased but not yet harvested) to allow the industry to react promptly to market 

fluctuations. Industry actions such as annual harvest levels are monitored and timber program targets are 

developed by estimating the amount of timber needed to replace volume harvested from year to year. The 

methodology is adaptive, because if harvest level drop below expectations and other factors remain 

constant, future timber offerings would also be reduced to levels needed to maintain the target level of 

volume under contract. Conversely, if harvest levels rise unexpectedly, future timber volume targets 

would also increase sufficiently to ensure that the inventory of volume under contract is not exhausted. 

By dealing with uncertainty in a flexible, science-based fashion, the Morse methodology is an example of 

adaptive management.

The Morse methodology originally used the projected harvest from the final 1997 Brooks and Haynes 

report. These procedures were updated (Alexander 2008) to use the annual projected harvest figures from 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 282

Brackley et al. 2006 in calculations of annual timber offer targets. No further changes to the Morse 

methodology were required as a result of the updated long-term demand projections contained in the 

Brackley et al. study.

In 2008, due to the Region 10 shipment policy, the Ketchikan veneer mill, and the success of Alaska 

producers in niche or specially markets, Brackley et al. 2008 determined that demand for National Forest 

timber in Alaska was on a trajectory most similar to scenario 2 (expanded lumber production). In 2011, 

due to the sharp downturn in wood products markets, the ‘Limited Lumber’ scenario was used. However, 

due to the export policy and good overseas markets, this projection is back to being based on the 

‘Expanded Lumber, Scenario 2’.

For FY 2014, the goal for volume of timber to be offered is 142 MMBF. The next demand will be 

calculated after the decision on the Forest Plan is finalized. This number is not intended to represent 

actual timber purchases. Rather, it reflects the estimated volume of timber the Forest Service needs to 

offer to replace the volume expected to be harvested and help build a 3 year supply of timber under 

contract, which allows the industry to respond to market fluctuations. The actual volume of timber offered 

in any given year, however, reflects a combination of factors, such as final budget appropriations; 

completing the NEPA process; the practice of offering smaller sales for smaller operators rather than all 

the volume from a NEPA decision; the statutory requirement that timber sales offered in the Alaska 

Region appraise positive; and volume affected by litigation. Due to these factors, the amount of timber 

that is offered and sold may be less than the expected timber purchases as predicted in the annual demand 

calculations. The document displaying the most recent annual demand calculation and the factors used in 

these calculations are in the project record and on the Alaska Region public website 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5447816.pdf).

The planned annual timber volume offer could include a combination of new, previously offered, and 

reconfigured timber sales. Both green timber and salvage sales will be components of this program. 

Offerings will consist of those targeted for Small Business qualified firms, as well as a portion of the 

volume being made available for the open market. 

For planning and scheduling purposes, the Tongass uses a 5-year timber sale plan, which is consistent 

with Forest Service Manual 2430. This 5-year plan is based on completed and ongoing environmental 

analyses and contains information to purchasers and other interested parties, and provides a plan that can 

be adjusted in response to changing market conditions. This plan is also located on the Alaska Region 

timber management public website after it is approved by the Forest Supervisor (See subsequent reference 

section for the internet address).

Both the “annual market demand” and the “planning cycle market demand” projections are important for 

timber program planning purposes. They provide guidance to the Forest Service to request budgets, to 

make decisions about workforce and facilities, and to indicate the need to begin new environmental 

analysis for future program offerings. They also provide a basis for expectations regarding future harvest, 

and thus provide an important source of information for establishing the schedule of probable future 

offerings. The weight given to the projections will vary depending on a number of factors, such as how 

recently they were done and how well they appear to have accounted for recent, site-specific events in the 

timber market. More information on timber demand on the Tongass is presented in Appendix G of the 

Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008d).

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

The Tongass timber program is complex. A number of projects are underway at any given point in time, 

each of which may be in a different stage of planning and preparation. A system of checkpoints, or 

“gates”, helps the Forest Service track the accomplishments of each stage of a project from inception to 

contract termination (See Forest Service Handbook 2409.18 – Timber Sale Preparation).
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 283

Gate 1 – Initial Planning of Timber Sale Project

A timber sale project plan, often referred to as a position statement, is a brief analysis of the project area 

with the intent of determining the feasibility of a potential timber sale. After the position statement is 

developed, the Forest Service decides whether the project area merits continued investment of time and 

funds for completion (See Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 20). 

Gate 2 – Project Analysis and Design (and Decision) 

This stage is commonly referred to as the “NEPA” phase and includes field work, public scoping, 

analysis, draft disclosure of the effects of the project on the environment, public comment, final analysis 

and disclosure, decision, and potentially administrative appeals and litigation. Gate 2 activities must be 

completed before a contract is awarded. Legislation, policy changes, and appeals and litigation have 

recently extended completion of some projects, often doubling the desired time frame (See Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 30).

Gate 3 – Sale Plan Implementation and Appraisal (Preparation of a Timber Harvest 

Contract) 

During this stage, the sale plan information and direction included in the decision document from Gate 2 

is used to layout units and design roads on the ground. This step includes a timber sale appraisal that 

initiates Gate 4. Additional site-specific information is collected at this time. In order to maintain an 

orderly flow of timber volume, Gate 3 activities need to be complete before a contract is offered for bid 

(See Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 40).

Gate 4 – Final Package Preparation, Review, Appraisal, and Offering (Advertise a 

Contract) 

The costs and value associated with the timber volume designed in Gate 3 are appraised and packaged in 

a contract. The contract is a legally binding document that tells a prospective contractor how the timber 

must be harvested to conform to the project decision document. This step occurs during the final year of 

the project development and culminates with the advertisement of the project for sale (See Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 50).

Gate 5 – Bid Opening 

Gate 5 is completed with the opening of bids for the project. If a bid is submitted, contractual provisions 

govern when the award of the contract takes place, the contract length and operation season, and how 

timber removal is to occur (See Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 60).

Gate 6 – Award a Contract 

Gate 6 is the formal designation of a contract between a bidder and the Forest Service (See Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 70).

How Does the Forest Service Maintain an Orderly and Predictable Timber 

Program? 

Pools of Timber (Pipeline Volume) 

As discussed earlier, the Forest Service tracks the accomplishment of the different steps of development 

of each timber harvest contract with the Gate System. From a timber program standpoint, it is also 

necessary to track and manage multiple projects as they move through the Gate System. Because of the 

timeframes needed to accomplish a given timber harvest project and the complexities inherent in that 

project and program development, it is necessary to track various timber program volumes from Gate 1 

through Gate 6.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 284

The goal of the Tongass is to provide an even flow of timber offerings on a sustained-yield basis to meet 

market demand. In recent years, this has been difficult to accomplish due to a combination of 

uncertainties such as delays related to appeals and litigation; changing economic factors, such as rapid 

market fluctuations; and industry-related factors, such as changes in timber industry processing 

capabilities. To achieve an even flow of timber volume offerings, ‘pools’ of volume in various stages of 

the Gate System are maintained so volume offered can be balanced against current year demand and 

market cycle projections.

Today, upward trends in demand are resolved by moving out-year timber projects forward, which may 

leave later years not capable of meeting the needs of the industry. In other instances, a number of new 

projects are started based on today’s market but will not be available for a number of years. By the time 

the added projects are ready for offer, the market and demand for this volume may have changed. Three 

pools of timber volume are tracked to achieve an even flow of timber harvest offerings.

The objective of the timber pools concept is to maintain sufficient volume in preparation and under 

contract to be able to respond to yearly fluctuations in a timely manner. Table 99 displays the current 

estimated volume in each pool, as well as the goal which the Tongass has established for the volume to be 

maintained in each pool, based on historic patterns. Appeals and litigation can cause timber harvest 

projects to be reevaluated, which can cause delays in making projects available to move through the 

pools, thereby not fully meeting the goals for volumes in each pool.

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

Volume in Gate 1, the initial planning step, represents a large amount of volume, but represents a 

relatively low investment in each project. This relatively low investment level offers the timber program 

manager a higher degree of flexibility and thus, does not greatly influence the flow of volume through the 

pipeline. A signed Project Plan (Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 20) is the completion of this 

gate. Areas being considered at this time are Kuiu Island, Mitkof Island, Shrimp Bay, and Zarembo 

Island. A Gate 1 will be considered for Prince of Wales Island after inventory work has been completed. 

The amount of the volume at Gate 1 is subject to change during the Gate 2 analysis.

Gate 2, timber volume under environmental analysis, includes projects being analyzed and undergoing 

public comment through the NEPA process. This pool includes any project that has started the scoping 

process through those projects ready to have a decision issued. In addition, tracking how much volume is 

involved in appeals or litigation may be necessary to determine possible effects on the flow of potential 

timber projects. A signed NEPA decision (Forest Service Handbook 2409.18, Chapter 30) is the 

completion of this gate. Volume affected by appeals and litigation is tracked as a subset of this pool (Table 

100). Areas under analysis at this time, in addition to this project, are Kosciusko Island, Wrangell Island, 

and Saddle Lakes on Revillagigedo Island. 

Based on historic patterns, the Tongass has established a goal for the pipeline volume to be maintained in 

each of the timber pools. The goal for Pool 1 is to be maintained at approximately 4.5 times the amount of 

the projected harvest to account for projects at various stages of analysis. That goal reflects a number of 

factors which can lead to a decrease in volume available, such as a decision in Gate 1 to drop further 

analysis in a particular planning area (called the “no go” decision), a falldown in estimated volume 

between Gate 1 and Gate 2, and volume not available for harvest due to litigation.

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

Timber volume available for sale includes projects for which environmental analysis has been completed, 

and have had any administrative appeals and litigation resolved. Timber in this pool can include a 

combination of new offers, previously offered unsold contracts, and remaining volume from cancelled 

contracts. The goal is to maintain Pool 2 at approximately 1.3 times the amount of the projected harvest to 

allow flexibility in offering contracts.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 285

Enough volume in this pool is needed to be maintained to be able to schedule future offerings of the size 

and configuration that best meets market needs in an orderly manner. Although projects may meet the 

above criteria, contracts may not be offered if the volume appraises deficit or if changed circumstances 

would affect the ability to offer them. Whether an offering appraises deficit may change over time 

depending on the market and other factors. Also, some projects are either designed for small sales, or 

otherwise slated for small sales, as part of the decision or as part of an informal appeal resolution. 

The size of timber sale contracts are based on the needs of Tongass-wide sawmills. The goal is to match 

sale sizes to the needs of potential bidders in the area of interest while providing for cost-efficient 

operations (Forest Service Manual 2431.13). The Forest Service will plan sale offerings to encourage 

competitive bidding in a range of sizes and species that provides opportunities for businesses in Southeast 

Alaska. 

The amount of volume to be offered as small sales is based on a determination of the need of mills in the 

vicinity of the project area. Also taken into consideration is the amount of volume under contract. Small 

volume contracts are generally offered in situations where: 1) the project is designed to be specifically 

allocated to small operators; 2) an allocation of volume for smaller offers has made during the decision or 

during informal appeal or objection resolution meetings; and 3) the harvest is within Phase 2 lands as 

determined by the Forest Plan (Forest Plan Record of Decision, p. 66). There is currently about 69 MMBF

slated for small sales, however, much of this volume (about 53 MMBF) is located in the north end of 

Tongass where there are fewer mills. 

The Pool 2 timber volume for sale (Table 99) does not identify that volume which, through a decision by 

the Responsible Official, is slated only for small sales because this volume is metered out and not all 

available in the current year (even though it has a completed Gate 2 NEPA). The average volume under 

contract for small sales for fiscal years 2005 through 2014 was approximately 19 MMBF, with a range of 

about 13 to 24 MMBF of volume under contract annually. 

Delays at Gate 2 have affected preparation (Gate 3) and have made scheduling of offers uncertain. At 

Gate 4, contracts have been fully prepared and appraised, and are available to managers to advertise for 

bid. This allows potential purchasers an opportunity to do their own evaluations of these offerings to 

determine whether to bid, and if so, at what level.

Pool 3 - Timber Volume under Contract (Gate 6)

Timber volume under contract contains the volume that has been sold and a contract awarded to a 

purchaser, but which have not yet been fully harvested. Contract length is based on the amount of timber 

in the contract and the accessibility of the area for mobilization. The longer the contract period, the more 

flexibility the operator has to remove the timber based on market fluctuations. Timber contracts typically 

give the purchaser initially 3 years to harvest and remove the timber purchased; however, they can be 

extended under certain circumstances, such as inoperable periods of weather, injunctions, and other 

contractual delays.

The Tongass attempts to maintain roughly 3 years of remaining volume under contract to the industry as a 

whole. This volume of timber is the industry’s dependable timber supply, which allows adaptability for 

business decisions. This practice is not limited to the Alaska Region, but is particularly pertinent to Alaska 

because of the nature of the land base. The relative absence of roads, the island geography, the steep 

terrain, and the consequent isolation of much of the timber land means that timber purchasers need 

longer-than-average lead times to plan operations, stage equipment, set up camps, and construct roads 

prior to beginning harvest.

A combination of projected harvest and projected demand is used to estimate the volume needed to 

maintain an even-flow timber program. As purchasers harvest timber, they deplete the volume under 

contract. Timber harvest is then planned and offered to give the industry the opportunity to replace this 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 286

volume and build or maintain their working inventory. Although there will be variation for practical 

reasons from year to year, in the long-run over both the high points and low points of the market cycle, 

the volume harvested should equal the timber volume sold.

The goal for Pool 3, volume under contract, is to maintain timber volume at approximately three times the 

amount of annual projected harvest. This allows the purchasers to have a continuous supply of timber 

volume available for harvest so they can plan their operations and be flexible to allow for weather 

conditions and market fluctuations.

Table 100. Accomplishments in Gate System and Timber Pools (MMBF)

Pipeline Pool Volume FY 2014 Goal March 2016

Pool 1

Volume Under Analysis (Gate 1 

and 2)

639 1 156 to 2332

Pool 2

Volume Available for Sale (Gate 3, 

Gate 4 and Gate 5)

185 3 754

Pool 3

Volume Under Contract (Gate 6) 426 5 906

1 The goal for volume under analysis is approximately 4.5 times the projected harvest for the current year (based on 142 MMBF for 

the 2014 timber demand). 

2 Volume under analysis includes all timber volume in projects with a completed project plan (Gate 1) through completion of the 

environmental analysis (Gate 2). This figure includes about 19 to 30 MMBF of young-growth timber. A range is shown to display the 

range of volume for the alternatives for the on-going Gate 2 projects.

3 The goal for volume available for offer is to have at least 1.3 times the projected harvest for the current year (based on 142 MMBF 

in projects that have approved NEPA and completion of timber contract preparation.

4 This only includes the volume that is available to offer which needs to have gone through the NEPA process. This figure does 

include volume involved with on-going litigation. It does not include that volume slated only for small sales, which is currently about 

69 MMBF. 

5 The goal for volume under contract is for purchasers to have three times the volume under contract (based on 142 MMBF).

6 Estimated volume under contract available for harvest as of March 2016 not including settlement contracts as described by 36 

CFR §223.12 and those contracts which are in the process of being terminated. (Source: USDA Forest Service Alaska Region

public website).

How Objections and Litigation Affect the Tongass Timber Program

Timber harvest projects require site-specific environmental analysis that usually is documented in an 

environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). The public is notified of the 

analysis and is provided the opportunity to comment on project proposals. 

This project will go through a pre-decisional administrative review process (36 CFR §218), which 

became effective March 27, 2013. This pre-decisional administrative review process is commonly 

referred to as an objection process. Under this process, individuals and entities may file objections after 

an environmental analysis document is completed but before a decision document is signed. This process 

builds on early participation and collaboration efforts, with the intention of resolving concerns before a 

decision is made. Often, to resolve those points made during the objections process, the Objections 

Decision officer requests that additional analysis is performed which may delay the scheduling of timber 

volume offers from the project.

After a project has advanced through the objection process, the project can still be litigated. Although 

litigation does not always preclude offering timber volume, the Forest Service and potential purchasers 

are often reluctant to enter into a contract where the outcome is uncertain. Since litigation can be a 

lengthy process, litigation can also affect the Forest’s ability to provide a reliable timber supply. Often 

with an unfavorable decision, the court will vacate the project’s decision and no volume can be offered 
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 287

from that project. As of March 3, 2016, the NEPA volume under litigation is 258.4 MMBF and involves 

the Scott Peak, Overlook, Soda Nick, Traitors Cove and Big Thorne projects.

How Does The Forest Service Decide Where Timber Harvest Projects Should Be 

Located?

A primary consideration for where timber harvest projects should be located is the suitability of the land 

for timber production. The Forest Plan identifies the suitable land base for timber production, and the 

process for determining this suitability (Appendix A, Timber Resource Land Suitability). 

Land Suitability for Timber Harvest

Many acres on the Tongass are not forested, therefore unsuitable for timber production. Of the forested 

lands, some of this land has been withdrawn for timber production by Congress for further consideration 

for resource management. On the Tongass, these lands include Wilderness and National Monuments. 

Other forested lands are not physically suitable for timber production due to non-forest vegetation, poor 

soils or steep slopes as determined by NFMA. These non-productive forested lands and non-forested 

lands provide other uses such as wildlife habitat for some species and various recreation uses. Figure 33

depicts the percentages of these land classifications within the Tongass.

Figure 33. Tongass land suitability classification

Non-Forested land (41 percent) – Land that has never 

supported forests, e.g. muskeg, rock and ice.

Withdrawn Forested Lands (25 percent) – Lands designated 

by Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or Chief of Forest 

Service for purposes that preclude timber harvest, e.g.

Wilderness Areas, LUD II areas.

Productive Forest (20 percent) – Forest land that meets all 

the criteria for timber production suitability over the planning 

horizon.

Non-Productive Forest (14 percent) – Forest land not 

capable of producing commercial wood on a sustained yield 

basis.

Forest Plan Land Use Designations

The Forest Plan identifies a suitable land base for timber harvest called the “development” LUDs which 

primarily includes the Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Many of the 

acres within these “development” LUDs are unsuitable for commercial timber production because of 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, such as stream and estuary buffers, and other laws and regulations. 

District-level Planning 

The Forest Supervisor for the Tongass is responsible for the overall management of the Forest’s timber 

program. Included within these responsibilities is making the determination on the amount of timber 

volume to be made available to industry. Whether or not sufficient funding is appropriated to attain the 

program is the responsibility of the Congress and the President.

Non-productive Forest 

14%
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 288

District Rangers develop a multi-year plan of potential timber harvest projects. The goal of the plan is to 

attain the targeted offer level for the current year, based on the estimated annual market demand, and to 

develop a timber program for several years of the planning cycle. The offer level for the current year is 

based, to the extent possible, on the forecasted annual market demand. Actual demand may fluctuate from 

year to year due to short-term market fluctuations. Actual offer levels vary year to year depending on 

several factors, including volume in Gates 2 through 3, and current market conditions.

The District Ranger is responsible for identifying and recommending the project areas for the 5-year 

schedule of integrated resource activities (TIP). The Ranger’s role is to develop and recommend to the 

Forest Supervisor timber harvest projects that meet Forest Plan goals and objectives. Districts work on 

various timber harvest projects simultaneously, resulting in continual movement of projects through the 

stages of the timber program pipeline. This schedule allows the necessary time to complete preliminary 

analysis, resource inventories, environmental documentation, field layout preparations and permit 

acquisition, appraisal of timber resource values, advertisement of contract characteristics for potential 

bidders, bid opening, and physical award of the contract. Project delays through the completion of Gate 2 

attributable to legal injunctions and litigation have affected the offer level in recent years. Once all of the 

Rangers’ recommendations are made and compiled into a consolidated schedule, the Forest Supervisor is 

responsible for the review and approval of the final timber harvest plan and prioritization of projects as 

necessary. 

Considerations the District Ranger takes into account for each project include:

• If the project area contains a sufficient number of suitable timber production acres allocated to 

development land use designations. Consideration includes if the timber volume being considered 

for harvest can be achieved while meeting Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards and 

guidelines.

• Other resource uses and potential future uses of the area and of adjacent areas and of nonNational Forest System lands.

• Areas where the investment necessary for project infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) is achievable 

with the estimated value of timber volume in the project area. Where infrastructure already exists 

the contract would allow any maintenance and upgrade of the facilities necessary for removal of 

timber volume.

• Areas where investments for the project coincide with long-term management based on Forest 

Plan direction. 

The implementation of the timber projects depends in part on the final budget appropriation to the agency. 

In the event insufficient budget is allocated, or resolution of pending litigation or other factors delay 

projects, timber harvest projects are selected and implemented on a priority basis. Generally, the higherpriority projects where investments such as road networks, camps or log transfer facilities have already 

been established or where land management status is not under dispute. The distribution of projects across 

the Tongass is also taken into account to distribute the effects and to provide timber volume in proximity 

to timber processing facilities. Timber harvest projects scheduled for the current year that are not 

implemented, or the remaining volume of projects that are only partially implemented, are shifted to 

future years in the plan. The multi-year plan becomes very dynamic in nature due to the number of 

influences on each district.

Conclusion

There is a long legislative recognition that timber harvest is one of the appropriate activities on national 

forests, starting with the founding legislation for national forests in 1897. The Organic Administration Act 

provides that national forests may be established “to improve and protect the forest within the boundaries, 

or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of 

timber for the use and necessities of the citizens of the United States.”
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 289

Congress’ policy for national forests, as stated in the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, is “the 

national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, 

and wildlife and fish purposes.” Accordingly, Congress has authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to sell 

trees and forest products from the national forests “at no less than appraised value.” The National Forest 

Management Act directs that forest plans shall “provide for multiple use and sustained yield, and in 

particular, include coordination of outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, wildlife, fish and 

wilderness.” ANILCA provided for timber harvest from the Tongass as well as other uses such as 

subsistence. Effects on subsistence resources from timber harvest Tongass-wide are projected to have few 

differences based on the sequence in which areas are harvested. Because of the multiple use mandate and 

other requirements of the laws, these effects to subsistence are necessary, consistent with sound 

management of public lands. 

In addition to nationwide statutes, Section 101 of the Tongass Timber Reform Act directs the Forest 

Service to seek to meet market demand for timber from the Tongass, subject to certain qualifications. It is 

the goal of the Tongass to provide an even-flow of timber on a sustained-yield basis and in an 

economically efficient manner. The amount of timber offered each year is based on the objective of 

offering enough volume to meet the projected annual demand. That annual demand projection starts with 

installed mill capacity, and then looks to industry rate of capacity utilization under different market 

scenarios, the volume under contract, and a number of other factors, including anticipated harvest and the 

range of expected timber purchases.

As described by Morse (April 2000), in terms of short-term economic consequences, oversupplying the 

market is less damaging than undersupplying it. If more timber is offered than purchased in a given year, 

the unsold volume is still available for re-offer in future years. Conversely, a short fall in the supply of 

timber can be financially devastating to the industry.

References Cited

Alexander, S. 2008. Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Procedures: Using Updated Information about 

Market Demand to Schedule FY 2006 Timber Offerings. USDA Forest Service Region 10, Juneau 

AK. 10 p. On file with: Regional Economist, Alaska Region, PO Box 21628, Juneau AK 99802.

Brackley, A.M.; T.D. Rojas, and R.W. Haynes. 2006. Timber products output and timber harvests in 

Alaska: projections for 2005-25. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-677. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.

Brackley, A.M. and R.W. Haynes. 2008. Timber Products Output and Timber Harvests in Alaska: An 

Addendum. Res. Note PNW-RN-559. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Brooks, D.J. and R.W. Haynes. 1997. Timber products output and timber harvests in Alaska: projections 

for 1997-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-409. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17 p.

Daniels et al., in press. Tongass National Forest Timber Demand, Projections for 2015 to 2030. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 69 p.

Morse, K.S. 2000a. Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber: Using Adaptive Management 

to Implement Sec. 101 of the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. April 2000. Manag. Bull. R10-

MB-413. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region. 43 p.

Morse, K.S. 2000b. Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Procedures: Using Information About Market 

Demand to Schedule FY2001 Timber Sale Offerings. October 2000. On file with: Regional 

Economist, Ecosystem Planning. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Alaska Region. 17 p.
Appendix A

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 290

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision, January 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Forest Plan, January 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2008c. Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, January 

2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Juneau, Alaska: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. R10-MB481a.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in 

Southeast Alaska.

USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest website, Forest Five Year Timber Sale Schedule and 

Contract Plan (2015-2019). 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3795232.pdf (accessed May 11, 

2016).

USDA Forest Service. Tongass National Forest website, (5-Year) Tongass Integrated Plan (TIP): 2015-

2019 Projects. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5419613.pdf

(accessed May 11, 2016).
Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 291

Index

A

Alaska rein orchid, 187, 188, 190, 191

Alaska yellow-cedar, 66, 153, 214, 215, 220, 222

decline, 154, 156, 157, 217, 218, 222, 263

regeneration, 156

Aleutian holly fern, 184

annualized jobs, 63, 64, 65

B

biogeographic province, 71, 72, 93

black bear, 67

brown bear, 67, 76, 98

brown creeper, 67, 77, 100, 263, 268

C

Canada goose, 67, 79, 106

carbon sequestration, 31, 154, 155, 156, 157, 260

clearcutting, vi, vii, viii, ix, 4, 10, 18, 19, 63, 65, 77, 95, 108, 

116, 117, 137, 158, 191, 205, 206, 211, 212, 219, 222, 

227, 247, 249, 250

climate change, xiii, 62, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 260, 

264, 266

common hawkweed, 195

conservation strategy, 264, 267

corridors (old-growth connectivity), vii, viii, ix, 17, 18, 19, 

20, 72, 73, 95, 103, 248, 250

D

decay fungi, 216

deer, 67, 73, 75, 79, 104, 235, 236, 240, 258, 262, 266, 

268, 272

deer model, 28, 237

distance zones, xv, 56, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116

Dungeness crab, 176, 235

dwarf mistletoe, 216, 219, 222, 224, 262

E

Earl West, 6, 9, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, 63, 65, 89, 96, 99, 101, 

103, 105, 113, 116, 140, 141, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 

169, 172, 173, 174, 176, 192, 194, 195, 196, 200, 206, 

212

ecosystem services, 225, 262

Edible thistle, 187, 188, 190, 191

elevational corridor (wildlife), ix, 20, 221, 222

employment, 27

endemic species, 67, 264

Environmental Justice, xiii, 14, 62, 184, 252, 260

essential fish habitat (EFH), 2, 175, 176, 177, 178, 253

F

fish passage, 142, 143, 147, 175, 176

fish species, 158, 176

fisheries, 2, xi, 7, 14, 73, 176, 253, 255, 257, 263, 266

floodplains, 14, 55, 167, 177, 252

forest health, 154, 214, 215, 217, 218, 221, 222, 223, 264, 

271

forest health and productivity, 221, 222, 223

G

game management unit (GMU), 57, 235

goshawk, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 87, 91, 261, 266, 271

great blue heron, 67, 80, 107, 108, 262, 272

greenhouse gasses, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157

H

hairy woodpecker, 67, 77, 78, 100, 260, 268

Highbush Lake, 7, 113, 116, 200, 206, 212

humpback whale, 67, 68, 73, 84, 85, 86

I

income, 31, 184, 252, 294

incomplete and unavailable information, 61, 225

invasive plants, 22, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198

inventoried roadless area (IRA), 2, 32, 58, 244

irreversible and/or irretrievable commitments, v, 1, 61, 

178, 229, 230

K

karst, 62, 71, 179

Kunk Creek, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 

172, 173, 174, 175

L

land ownership, xiv, xv, xvi, 5, 7, 28, 29, 62, 71, 89, 90, 91, 

93, 97, 99, 102, 105, 108, 109, 118, 191, 237, 238, 239

land use designation (LUD), 2, vii, xvii, 5, 11, 18, 55, 56, 57, 

58, 103, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 137, 147, 192, 214, 

274, 287, 288

landings, ii, xii, 21, 117, 189, 225, 228, 246, 248, 249

landslides, 227, 228, 229

Lesser roundleaved orchid, 187, 188, 190, 191

log storage, 21, 140, 141

log transfer facility (LTF), 22, 140

logging systems, vii, viii, ix, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 197, 222, 

250, 255
Index

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 292

Long Lake, 6, 13, 18, 20, 113, 116, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 

169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 200, 211, 212, 213, 246, 248

loon, 67, 68, 74, 86, 87, 259, 261

Lung lichen, 187, 188, 190, 191

M

management indicator species (MIS), 2, xiv, 67, 69, 72, 75, 

76, 77, 78, 79

marbled murrelet, 67, 83, 108, 260, 267

marine access facilities, xii, 21, 84, 85, 86, 140, 141, 176, 

178, 200, 253

marine environment, 176

marten, 29, 67, 72, 75, 78, 94, 259, 262, 268, 269

mass wasting, 225, 227

McCormack Creek, xii, 6, 24, 113, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 

168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 248

meadow hawkweed, 195, 196

Midpoint, 199, 206, 212

migratory birds, 70, 84, 110

Mill Basin, 2, 18, 19, 20, 116, 206, 213

minerals, 141

mitigation and monitoring, 183

Mountain lady’s slipper, 187, 188, 190, 269

N

Nemo Point, 113, 116, 212

Nemo-Skip Loop, 113, 116, 200, 206, 212

North Wrangell, 58, 199, 205, 206, 212

O

Old Hermit, 6, 199, 206, 212

old-growth reserves (OGR), 75, 96, 262

orange hawkweed, 195, 196

otter, 67, 78, 103

oxeye daisy, 195, 196

P

patch size, 94

Pats Creek, 6, 63, 65, 140, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 168, 

169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 194, 233

present activities, 191

productive old-growth (POG), ix, 20, 23, 69, 213

public involvement, 1, 6, 55, 275

Q

Queen Charlotte goshawk, 67, 68, 69, 72, 74, 87, 91, 261, 

266, 271

R

rare plants, 188, 190

recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS), 205

recreation places, 6, 58, 113, 116, 199, 200, 205, 206, 212

red squirrel, 67, 78, 102

red-breasted sapsucker, 67, 77, 78, 100, 268

reed canary grass, 195, 196

Regeneration and Species Composition, 221, 222, 223

riparian management areas, 2, 21, 111, 167, 177, 178

road

National Forest Sytem, xv, 7, 138, 142, 191

temporary, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xvi, 5, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 

26, 30, 99, 138, 139, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 

150, 151, 152, 168, 169, 178, 197, 225, 228, 229, 

230, 233, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244

unauthorized, 138, 139

road construction, x, xi, xii, 24, 27, 66, 228

road maintenance, 61, 115, 138, 139, 144, 146, 151, 152, 

189, 196, 198, 250

road maintenance and reconditioning, 139

rock quarries, 21, 117, 142, 189, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 

230, 249

S

Salamander Creek, xii, 24, 113, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 

168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 200

Salamander Ridge, xvii, 6, 113, 135, 200, 206, 212

salmon, 72, 75, 98, 175, 176, 181, 182, 234, 235, 244, 269

scenic integrity objective (SIO), xv, 29, 112, 113, 115, 116, 

117, 118

sedimentation and turbidity, 84, 157, 178, 183, 229, 230

short-term use, 139

Silver Bay Mill, 141

silvicultural systems, 214, 218, 220, 221, 222, 223

even-aged management, 117, 218, 219, 222

intermediate treatments, 219

uneven-aged management, 104, 117, 218, 220, 221, 

222

silviculture

species composition, 58, 189, 190, 213, 214, 215, 218, 

219, 221, 247

stand structure, 215

size-density model, 70, 264

small sales, vii, viii, 18, 19, 20, 63, 115, 285, 286

soil productivity, 61, 225, 226, 227, 230, 247

soils

landslides, xvii, 138, 158, 177, 189, 225, 227, 228, 229, 

230, 231, 233, 269

mass wasting, 225, 227

slopes greater than 67 percent gradient, 233, 234

slopes greater than 72 percent gradient, 225, 233

unstable slopes, 225, 233

Steller Sea Lion, 67, 68, 71, 72, 74, 85, 86, 266

stream buffers, 23, 97, 103, 107, 244

stream class, 158, 177

stream crossing, xvi, 31, 142, 146, 157, 158, 168, 170, 171, 

172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 195, 196, 197

streamflow, 157, 158, 161, 162, 263

subsistence, 13, 55, 63, 79, 138, 183, 234, 236, 240, 241, 

242, 244, 245, 251, 265, 274
Index I

Wrangell Island Project DEIS ♦ 293

deer, 67, 73, 75, 79, 104, 235, 236, 240, 258, 262, 266, 

268, 272

suitable and available forest land, 274

suitable forest land, 4, 114

T

Thoms Creek, 6, 9, 113, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167, 169, 173, 

181, 192, 200, 211

Thoms Lake, 9, 192, 200, 211, 212, 246, 247

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, xiv, 67, 68, 

73, 74

plants, xiii, 8, 62, 184, 185

rare plants, 188, 191

sensitive plants, 187, 188, 190, 191, 269

threeleaf foamflower, 188, 191

timber availability, 8, 9, 55

timber economics, xii, 8, 9, 55, 62, 64, 255

timber market, xiii, 62, 273, 278, 282

trail

temporary, 138

unauthorized, 139

travel management, 2, ii, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xiii, xiv, xvii, 

1, 7, 9, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 92, 138, 

143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 150, 198, 206, 211, 213

costs, 148, 149, 150

Tribal consultation, 178

U

unavoidable adverse impacts, 178

V

value comparison unit (VCU), 2, xiv, xv, xvii, 11, 29, 57, 71, 

87, 88, 90, 101, 102, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 137, 159, 

214

vegetation, 63, 66, 100, 213, 214, 215

visual priority route (VPR), 2, 112, 219

visual sensitivity, 137

vole, 67, 83, 109

W

water quality, 14, 20, 21, 57, 68, 69, 84, 103, 107, 138, 

157, 158, 160, 167, 176, 178, 228, 247, 248, 251, 257, 

271

wetlands, xvi, 22, 33, 55, 58, 73, 106, 107, 153, 167, 175, 

187, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253

effects, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250

wildlife analysis area (WAA), 2, xiv, xv, xvi, 28, 57, 71, 72, 

87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 

104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 

241, 242, 243, 244

windthrow, 21, 178, 186, 189, 190, 214, 215, 216, 217, 

219, 221, 222, 223, 226, 227, 258, 269

wolf, 67, 75, 91, 259, 267

Y

yellow-billed loon, 67, 68, 74, 86, 87, 259, 261

young growth, 62, 65, 66, 72, 84, 92, 107, 108, 220, 223, 

224, 277, 279, 280, 281

Yunshookuh, 200, 212

Z

Zimovia Strait, xvii, 1, 13, 58, 77, 78, 116, 133, 159, 160, 

161, 162, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 

200, 206
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA 

(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov . 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.