Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan Amendment

Final Environmental Impact Statement

June 2016

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Responsible Official: M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, 

Tongass National Forest

For Further Information: Visit the Forest Web site at: www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass

or Contact:

Susan Howle

Project Team Leader

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901 

(907) 228-6340

Abstract

Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast 

Alaska (issued July 2, 2013), and the 5-Year Forest Plan Review (completed in 

September 2013) indicated that conditions on the land and demands of the public require 

the Tongass to modify the 2008 Forest Plan. In the Memorandum, the Secretary of 

Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, asked the Forest Service to “Strongly consider whether to 

pursue an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an amendment would evaluate 

which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially young growth timber stands, 

which lands should be excluded, and additional opportunities to promote and speed 

transition to young growth management...” and to “...continue to seek input from and 

work with stakeholders in the region towards this transition.” The Tongass Advisory 

Committee (TAC) was established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and was 

approved by the Secretary to “...provide advice to the Forest Service on how to expedite 

the transition to young growth management.” The 5-Year Forest Plan Review also 

highlighted a need to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible. 

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) responds to the Secretary’s Memo 

and the 5-Year Forest Plan Review by analyzing five alternatives for amending the Plan,

including the No-Action alternative. A separate document, called the Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan), has been published with this FEIS to represent the 

Forest Plan under the preferred alternative (Alternative 5). Alternative 5 is based on the 

Tongass Advisory Committee’s underlying principles, general approach, and 

recommendations. Appendix F displays a side-by-side comparison of the alternatives to 

show how they differ from the preferred alternative. Four key issues are identified: 1) 

transitioning to young-growth-based timber management in 10 to 15 years in an 

ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable manner; 2) promoting the 

development of renewable energy projects where it is compatible with National Forest 

purposes; 3) the effects of potential timber harvest activities in roadless areas; and 4) the 

effects of forest management on wildlife habitat and the Conservation Strategy. The five

alternatives provide a range of options for addressing the issues. Direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects of the alternatives are compared and disclosed in Chapters 2 and 3, 

based on inventory data and modeling.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all 

bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper
Contents

Final EIS iii Contents

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................1-1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................1-1

Forest Planning History on the Tongass National Forest ........................................................1-2

Factors That Led to the Need for Change ...............................................................................1-4

Roadless area conservation ............................................................................................1-5

Litigation...........................................................................................................................1-5

Collaboration....................................................................................................................1-5

2012 Planning Rule..........................................................................................................1-6

Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan ......................................................................1-7

Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1044-009............................................................1-7

Congressional Action .......................................................................................................1-8

Change Determination .....................................................................................................1-8

Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................................1-8

Purpose............................................................................................................................1-8

Need.................................................................................................................................1-8

Forest Location and Description ..............................................................................................1-9

Public Issues ..........................................................................................................................1-11

Public Participation.........................................................................................................1-11

Significant Issues ...................................................................................................................1-13

The Four Significant Issues ...........................................................................................1-13

Issue 1 –Young Growth Transition ..........................................................................1-14

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy ..................................................................................1-14

Issue 3 –Inventoried Roadless Areas......................................................................1-14

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy .......................................1-15

Changes between the Draft EIS and Final EIS......................................................................1-15

Changes between Proposed Forest Plan and Forest Plan....................................................1-16

Chapter 1 – Introduction ................................................................................................1-16

Purpose ...................................................................................................................1-16

Relationship to Other Documents ...........................................................................1-16

Plan Organization....................................................................................................1-16

Forest Plan Management Direction.........................................................................1-16

Priority of Direction ..................................................................................................1-16

Forest Location and Description..............................................................................1-17

Chapter 2 – Goals and Objectives.................................................................................1-17

Introduction..............................................................................................................1-17

Forest Desired Conditions.......................................................................................1-17

Ecosystem Services ................................................................................................1-17

Forest-wide Multiple Use Goals and Objectives......................................................1-17

Chapter 3 – Management Prescriptions ........................................................................1-17

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................1-17

Chapter 4 – Standards and Guidelines..........................................................................1-18

Chapter 5 – Plan Content Developed Under the 2012 Planning Rule...........................1-18

Introduction..............................................................................................................1-18

Chapter 6 – Implementation...........................................................................................1-20

Chapter 7 – Glossary .....................................................................................................1-20

Appendices ....................................................................................................................1-20

Appendix A –Timber Resource Land Suitability......................................................1-20

Appendix B – Tongass Advisory Committee Recommendations............................1-20

Appendix C – Watershed Analysis ..........................................................................1-20

Appendix E – Communication Sites ........................................................................1-20

Appendix F – Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas...............................................1-20
Contents

Contents iv Final EIS

Appendix G – Log Transfer Facility Guidelines.......................................................1-21

Appendix H – Karst and Cave Resources...............................................................1-21

Appendix I – ROS Class Standards and Guidelines ...............................................1-21

Appendix J – Special Land Designations or Classifications....................................1-21

Appendix K – Old-growth Habitat Reserve Modification Procedures......................1-21

Appendix L – Special Interest Areas and Experimental Forests.............................1-21

Organization of the Document ...............................................................................................1-21

Organization of EIS and Associated Documents...........................................................1-21

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES..................................................................................................................2-1

Introduction...............................................................................................................................2-1

Alternative Development Process............................................................................................2-1

What a Forest Plan Includes............................................................................................2-1

How Alternatives are Described.......................................................................................2-2

Land Use Designations....................................................................................................2-2

How the 2012 Planning Rule applies...............................................................................2-2

Future Project Consistency with the Amended Plan........................................................2-3

Alternative Development..................................................................................................2-4

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study............................................................................2-5

Develop an Amendment using the 1982 Planning Rule Provisions ................................2-5

Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange....................................................................2-5

State of Alaska Alternative...............................................................................................2-5

Immediate End to Old-growth Logging ............................................................................2-6

Transition to Limited Young-Growth Logging in Five Years ............................................2-7

Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................................2-8

Alternative 1 (No Action)................................................................................................2-10

Framework and Expected Outputs..........................................................................2-10

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-12

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-12

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-13

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) .....................................................................................2-15

Framework and Expected Outputs..........................................................................2-15

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-16

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-17

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-17

Alternative 3 ...................................................................................................................2-21

Framework and Expected Outcomes ......................................................................2-21

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-22

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-23

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-23

Alternative 4 ...................................................................................................................2-27

Framework and Expected Outcomes ......................................................................2-27

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-28

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-29

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-29

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative)...............................................................................2-33

Framework and Expected Outcomes ......................................................................2-33

Land Use Designations ...........................................................................................2-35

Management Prescriptions......................................................................................2-35

Selected Outputs .....................................................................................................2-35

Comparison of the Alternatives..............................................................................................2-39

Issue 1 – Young-growth Transition..........................................................................2-39

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy ..................................................................................2-40
Contents

Final EIS v Contents

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas..................................................................... 2-41

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy ....................................... 2-41

CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENT AND EFFECTS......................................................................................... 3-1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3-1

Analyzing Effects.............................................................................................................. 3-1

Cumulative Effects..................................................................................................... 3-3

Geographic Information System Database and Quantification for this EIS .............. 3-5

Land Use Designation Groupings.................................................................................... 3-6

Land Divisions ........................................................................................................... 3-6

Watershed........................................................................................................ 3-7

Geographic Provinces ..................................................................................... 3-7

Biogeographic Provinces................................................................................. 3-7

Ecological Sections and Subsections.............................................................. 3-7

Value Comparison Units.................................................................................. 3-7

Wildlife Analysis Areas .................................................................................... 3-7

General Forest Description.............................................................................................. 3-7

Physical Setting ......................................................................................................... 3-7

Biological Setting....................................................................................................... 3-8

Socioeconomic Setting.............................................................................................. 3-9

Organization of Chapter 3.............................................................................................. 3-10

Physical and Biological Environment ..................................................................................... 3-11

Climate and Air............................................................................................................... 3-11

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-11

Climate........................................................................................................... 3-11

Climate Change ............................................................................................. 3-11

Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 3-16

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-19

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-19

Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 3-22

Geology, Karst, and Caves ............................................................................................ 3-27

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-27

Geology.......................................................................................................... 3-27

Karst and Caves ............................................................................................ 3-28

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-33

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-33

Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 3-35

Soils ............................................................................................................................... 3-37

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-37

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-41

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-41

Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 3-48

Mitigation........................................................................................................ 3-49

Water.............................................................................................................................. 3-51

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-51

Water Quantity............................................................................................... 3-51

Water Quality ................................................................................................. 3-54

Watershed Condition ..................................................................................... 3-60

Water Use...................................................................................................... 3-64

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 3-65

Direct and Indirect Effects.............................................................................. 3-65

Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................3-83

Wetlands ........................................................................................................................ 3-89

Affected Environment .............................................................................................. 3-89

Definition and Regulatory Aspects ................................................................ 3-89
Contents

Contents vi Final EIS

Wetland Mapping, Classification, and Distribution ........................................3-89

Past Wetland Impacts....................................................................................3-91

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................3-92

Direct and Indirect Effects..............................................................................3-92

Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................3-99

Fish ..............................................................................................................................3-103

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-103

Fish Habitat..................................................................................................3-108

Special Status and Invasive Species...........................................................3-118

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-122

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-122

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-137

Plants ...........................................................................................................................3-143

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-143

Plant Communities.......................................................................................3-143

Vegetation Classification .............................................................................3-144

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Rare Plants ................................3-146

Invasive Plants.............................................................................................3-149

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-154

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-154

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-169

Forest Health................................................................................................................3-175

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-175

Current Situation..........................................................................................3-175

Monitoring and Pest Management...............................................................3-178

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-179

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-179

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-180

Biodiversity...................................................................................................................3-183

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-183

Ecosystem Classification.............................................................................3-183

Cover Types ................................................................................................3-187

Overview of Existing Levels of POG Forest on NFS Lands ........................3-195

Landscape Connectivity and Fragmentation ...............................................3-198

Tongass Forest Plan Conservation Strategy...............................................3-200

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-203

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives...............................3-203

Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Each Alternative ..............................3-208

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-216

Wildlife..........................................................................................................................3-221

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-221

Old-Growth Habitat and the Conservation Strategy ....................................3-221

Landscape Connectivity and Fragmentation ...............................................3-222

Wildlife Species ...........................................................................................3-222

Endemism....................................................................................................3-247

Invasive Species..........................................................................................3-250

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-252

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-252

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-286

Human Uses and Land Management ..................................................................................3-297

Lands Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments..................................................................3-297

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-297

Land Ownership Adjustment........................................................................3-297

Land Use Authorizations..............................................................................3-302

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-304
Contents

Final EIS vii Contents

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-304

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-304

Transportation..............................................................................................................3-307

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-307

Regional Transportation System .................................................................3-307

National Forest System Roads....................................................................3-309

Log Transfer Facilities .................................................................................3-310

Transportation and Utility Systems in the Current Forest Plan ...................3-310

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-311

Direct, Indirect, Effects.................................................................................3-311

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-314

Renewable Energy.......................................................................................................3-315

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-315

Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan...............3-317

Current Trends.............................................................................................3-319

Renewable Energy Resources ....................................................................3-321

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-324

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-324

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-326

Timber..........................................................................................................................3-327

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-327

Introduction ..................................................................................................3-327

Current Condition of the Forest Land Base.................................................3-327

Current Condition of the Timber Resource..................................................3-329

Current Practices .........................................................................................3-333

Tongass Timber Sale Program....................................................................3-340

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-341

Suitable Timber Lands.................................................................................3-342

Silvicultural Systems and Practices.............................................................3-343

Projected Timber Sale Quantity...................................................................3-345

Future Conditions ........................................................................................3-348

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-349

Minerals........................................................................................................................3-351

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-351

Locatable Minerals.......................................................................................3-351

Leasable Minerals........................................................................................3-352

Salable Minerals ..........................................................................................3-353

Mineral Resource Inventory and Development Potential ............................3-353

Tongass Land Management for Minerals....................................................3-354

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-354

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-355

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-356

Recreation and Tourism...............................................................................................3-357

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-357

Supply of Recreation Opportunities.............................................................3-359

Existing Use Levels and Trends ..................................................................3-364

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-374

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-374

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-384

Risk and Uncertainty....................................................................................3-385

Scenery ........................................................................................................................3-387

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-387

Existing Scenic Integrity...............................................................................3-388

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-390

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Forest-wide Effects ..................................3-391

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-415
Contents

Contents viii Final EIS

Subsistence..................................................................................................................3-417

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-417

The Legal Context for Subsistence Use......................................................3-418

Subsistence Users.......................................................................................3-419

Economy......................................................................................................3-420

Subsistence Use Areas ...............................................................................3-424

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-425

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-426

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-430

ANILCA Determination ................................................................................3-431

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites.........................................................................3-433

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-433

Heritage Resources .....................................................................................3-433

Sacred Sites ................................................................................................3-435

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-436

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-436

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-438

Inventoried Roadless Areas.........................................................................................3-441

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-441

Current Situation..........................................................................................3-441

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-445

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ......................................................3-445

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-447

Wilderness ...................................................................................................................3-449

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-449

Introduction ..................................................................................................3-449

Wilderness Overview...................................................................................3-449

Wilderness in Alaska and the Tongass .......................................................3-451

Relative Contribution of Tongass Wilderness..............................................3-452

Wilderness Management in Alaska .............................................................3-457

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-460

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-460

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-461

Other Special Land Use Designations.........................................................................3-463

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-463

Land Use Designation II Management Areas..............................................3-463

Experimental Forests...................................................................................3-464

Research Natural Areas ..............................................................................3-465

Special Interest Areas..................................................................................3-467

Wild and Scenic Rivers................................................................................3-470

Environmental Effects............................................................................................3-473

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-473

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-476

Economic and Social Environment ......................................................................................3-477

Introduction ..................................................................................................................3-477

Regional and National Economy..................................................................................3-478

Affected Environment ............................................................................................3-478

Regional Economic Overview......................................................................3-478

Natural Resource-Based Industries.............................................................3-481

Environmental Consequences ..............................................................................3-506

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................3-506

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-523

Subregional Overview and Communities.............................................................................3-525

Introduction ..................................................................................................................3-525

Subregional Overview..................................................................................................3-525

Population..............................................................................................................3-526
Contents

Final EIS ix Contents

Age ........................................................................................................................3-527

Employment...........................................................................................................3-528

Income and Poverty...............................................................................................3-532

Communities ................................................................................................................3-537

Community Assessments......................................................................................3-538

Analyzing Impacts to Communities .......................................................................3-541

Population and School Enrollment ........................................................................3-541

Energy Generation and Use..................................................................................3-543

Potential Effects by Resource Area.......................................................................3-545

Wood Products ............................................................................................3-545

Renewable Energy ......................................................................................3-545

Recreation and Tourism...............................................................................3-545

Subsistence .................................................................................................3-545

Individual Community Assessments......................................................................3-546

Angoon.........................................................................................................3-546

Coffman Cove..............................................................................................3-551

Craig ............................................................................................................3-556

Edna Bay .....................................................................................................3-561

Elfin Cove.....................................................................................................3-566

Gustavus......................................................................................................3-570

Haines..........................................................................................................3-575

Hollis ............................................................................................................3-581

Hoonah ........................................................................................................3-585

Hydaburg .....................................................................................................3-590

Hyder ...........................................................................................................3-595

Juneau and Vicinity......................................................................................3-598

Kake.............................................................................................................3-602

Kasaan.........................................................................................................3-607

Ketchikan .....................................................................................................3-612

Klawock........................................................................................................3-616

Metlakatla.....................................................................................................3-621

Meyers Chuck..............................................................................................3-626

Naukati Bay .................................................................................................3-628

Pelican .........................................................................................................3-633

Petersburg and Kupreanof...........................................................................3-637

Point Baker ..................................................................................................3-643

Port Alexander.............................................................................................3-648

Port Protection .............................................................................................3-651

Saxman........................................................................................................3-655

Sitka.............................................................................................................3-659

Skagway ......................................................................................................3-664

Tenakee Springs..........................................................................................3-668

Thorne Bay ..................................................................................................3-673

Whale Pass..................................................................................................3-678

Wrangell.......................................................................................................3-683

Yakutat.........................................................................................................3-688

Environmental Justice ...........................................................................................3-693

CHAPTER 4 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................4-1

CHAPTER 5 LIST OF DOCUMENT RECIPIENTS AND THOSE NOTIFIED ...........................................5-1

Federal Agencies .....................................................................................................................5-1

Federal Advisory Committee....................................................................................................5-2

State and Federal Congressional Representatives .................................................................5-3

Alaska Native Tribes and Corporations ...................................................................................5-3

State Agencies .........................................................................................................................5-4

City and Borough Agencies, Libraries, and Schools................................................................5-4
Contents

Contents x Final EIS

Other Organizations .................................................................................................................5-6

Individuals ................................................................................................................................5-8

CHAPTER 6 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................6-1

CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY..........................................................................................................................7-1

CHAPTER 8 INDEX...................................................................................................................................8-1

VOLUME II

APPENDIX A SCOPING AND COMMENT SUMMARY REPORT

APPENDIX B MODELING AND ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

APPENDIX D EVALUATING INTEGRITY OF THE TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST OLD-GROWTH 

HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGY

APPENDIX E INTERAGENCY OLD GROWTH RESERVE REVIEW

APPENDIX F COMPARISON OF DIRECTION BY ALTERNATIVE

APPENDIX G TIMBER DEMAND AND SUPPLY

APPENDIX H ALASKA LIMITED EXPORT 

APPENDIX I DEIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Contents

Final EIS xi Contents

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model and 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF) 2-8

Table 2-2 Key Elements of Alternative 1 2-12

Table 2-3 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 1 2-13

Table 2-4 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 1 2-15

Table 2-5 Key Elements of Alternative 2 2-18

Table 2-6 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 2 2-19

Table 2-7 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 2 2-21

Table 2-8 Key Elements of Alternative 3 2-24

Table 2-9 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 3 2-25

Table 2-10 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 3 2-27

Table 2-11 Key Elements of Alternative 4 2-30

Table 2-12 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 4 2-31

Table 2-13 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 4 2-33

Table 2-14 Key Elements of Alternative 5 2-36

Table 2-15 Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for Alternative 5 2-37

Table 2-16 Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 5 2-39

Table 2-17 Comparison of Key Elements of the Alternatives 2-44

Table 2-18 Comparison of Alternatives 2-45

Table 3-1 Land Use Designation Groupings Used to Discuss Effects 3-6

Table 3.1-1 Criteria Pollutants, National Ambient Air Quality Standards 3-17

Table 3.2-1 Estimated Maximum Future Tongass Harvest (acres) on Karst Lands under the 

Alternatives after 100 Years 3-34

Table 3.3-1 Estimated Percent of the Productive Forestland on the Tongass by Site Index 

Category 3-38

Table 3.3-2 Estimated Percent of the Tongass National Forest, POG, and Young Growth by 

Slope Category 3-40

Table 3.3-3 Estimated Maximum Cumulative Acreage Covered by Road Surfaces on NFS 

Lands after the first 25 Years and after 100 Years by Alternative 3-44

Table 3.3-4 Estimated Maximum Road Miles to be Constructed or Reconstructed over 25 

Years by Alternative 3-44

Table 3.3-5 Estimated Maximum Increase in Landslide Frequency over the First 25 Years 

of Forest Plan Implementation 3-45

Table 3.3-6 Estimated Maximum Road Density on NFS Lands and Non-NFS Lands after 

100 Years under Existing Conditions and by Alternative 3-49

Table 3.4-1 Mapped Stream Miles by Process Group and Stream Class for Each Ranger 

District Group on NFS Lands 3-53

Table 3.4-2 Percent of Subwatersheds on the Tongass National Forest with Waterbodies 

within 300 Feet of Roads 3-61

Table 3.4-3 Total Riparian Management Area (RMA), Productive Old Growth (POG) in 

RMA, and Past Harvested Areas in RMA by Stream Channel Process Group on 

NFS Lands 3-62

Table 3.4-4 Estimated Maximum Acres of Timber Harvest after 100 Years of Full Forest 

Plan Implementation 3-68

Table 3.4-5 Estimated Harvest (acres) of Young-Growth by All Harvest Methods (e.g., even 

aged, group selection, commercial thin) in Beach Fringe and Riparian 

Management Area (RMA) after 100 Years by Alternative 3-68
Contents

Contents xii Final EIS

Table 3.4-6 Estimated Road Miles and Percent of 6th Field Subwatersheds in Road Density 

Categories on NFS Lands under Existing Conditions and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation 3-70

Table 3.4-7 Estimated Road Construction and Reconstruction (miles) in Beach/Estuary 

Fringe and Riparian Management Area (RMA) after 100 Years by Alternative 3-71

Table 3.4-8 Estimated Maximum Road Miles on Potentially Unstable Soils Based on Slopes 

Greater Than 67 Percent over the Length of the Project (approximately 100 

years) 3-74

Table 3.4-9 Riparian Management Area (RMA) Acres and Past and Future Young-Growth 

Harvest (see note) by Process Group by Alternative 3-80

Table 3.4-10 Percent of Original POG Remaining on All Lands within the Tongass Forest

Boundary and Percent of All Lands inside the Boundary that are Not Directly

Disturbed by Timber Harvest after Full Implementation of the Forest Plan 

(approximately 100+ years) 3-84

Table 3.4-11 Estimated Number of Road Miles on All Lands within the Tongass Forest

Boundary for Each Alternative after Full Implementation of the Forest Plan for 

approximately 100 years 3-85

Table 3.4-12 Estimated Average Total Road Density on Tongass NFS Lands and Non-NFS 

Lands within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by Alternative over 100+ 

years 3-86

Table 3.4-13 Estimated Road Miles and Percent of Watersheds in Road Density Categories 

on NFS Lands and on All Lands Combined within the Tongass National Forest 

Boundary by Alternative after 100+ years of Full Implementation 3-86

Table 3.5-1 Mapped Acres of Wetlands on the Tongass National Forest by Wetland System 

and Class 3-91

Table 3.5-2 Past Acres of Timber Harvest and Existing Miles of Roads in Wetlands on the 

Tongass 3-91

Table 3.5-3 Alternatives that Allow for Harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe and RMAs 3-97

Table 3.5-4 Maximum Harvest Area in Mapped Wetlands by Alternative after 100+ Years of 

Full Implementation 3-98

Table 3.5-5 Maximum Miles of New Roads in Wetlands by Alternative after 100+ Years 3-98

Table 3.5-6 Estimated Cumulative Percent of each Wetland Category Harvested on All 

Ownerships within the Forest Boundary under each Alternative after 100 Years 3-100

Table 3.5-7 Existing and Estimated Future Maximum Road Density (miles per square mile) 

for NFS Lands and for All Ownerships within the Forest Boundary by 

Alternative after 100+ Years 3-101

Table 3.6-1 Mapped Amount of Streams, Lakes and Ponds on the Tongass National Forest 

Lands 3-104

Table 3.6-2 Commonly Caught or Harvested Sport, Subsistence, and Commercial Fish 3-105

Table 3.6-3 Tongass National Forest Fish Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Projects 

Completed During 1996-2014 3-114

Table 3.6-4 Estimated Number of Existing and Maximum New Stream Crossings for New 

Roads and Reconstructed Roads Stream Crossing by Alternative over the 

Length of the Project (approximately 100+ years) 3-124

Table 3.7-1 2009 Alaska Region Sensitive Plants Known or Suspected to Occur on the 

Tongass National Forest 3-147

Table 3.7-2 Number of Invasive Plant Species on the Tongass National Forest by District 3-151

Table 3.7-3 Invasive Plants on the Tongass: Number of Occurrences and Invasiveness 

Ranking 3-151

Table 3.7-4 Maximum Acres of Harvest and Maximum Miles of Road Construction by 

Alternative 3-156
Contents

Final EIS xiii Contents

Table 3.7-5 Projected Harvest of Young Growth and Old Growth in Beach Buffers, RMAs, 

Old-Growth Reserves, other Non-Development LUDs, and 2001 Roadless 

Areas by Alternative 3-157

Table 3.7-6 Proportion of Known Occurrences of Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential 

to be in Old-Growth or Young-Growth Harvest Units after 100 Years 3-159

Table 3.7-7 Cumulative Percent of Original POG Remaining on All Ownerships in 2015 and 

Estimated Minimum Percent Remaining after 100+ Years for All Lands within 

the Tongass Forest Boundary 3-170

Table 3.7-8 Existing and Estimated Future Maximum Road Density (miles per square mile) 

for NFS Lands and for All Ownerships within the Forest Boundary by 

Alternative after 100+ Years 3-171

Table 3.9-1 Biogeographic Provinces in Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest 3-184

Table 3.9-2 Major Cover Types on the Tongass National Forest by Biogeographic Province 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-188

Table 3.9-3 Distribution of Productive Old-Growth Forest on the Tongass National Forest by 

Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only) 3-191

Table 3.9-4 Distribution of Old-Growth Forest on the Tongass National Forest by Elevation 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-192

Table 3.9-5 Forest-wide Distribution of Young Growth (NFS Lands Only) 3-194

Table 3.9-6 Original and Percent Remaining Total POG, High-Volume POG (SD5S, SD5N, 

SD67) Total and Below 800 feet, and Large-Tree POG (SD67) Total and Below 

800 feet by Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only) 3-196

Table 3.9-7 Number and Acreage of Existing Intact VCUs, Comparable to Large 

Watersheds, on the Tongass National Forest by Biogeographic Province (NFS 

and non-NFS lands) 3-197

Table 3.9-8 Distribution of Existing POG and Young Growth within the Reserve System and 

Matrix Lands (NFS Lands Only) 3-201

Table 3.9-9 Existing Productive Old-Growth Forest within Reserves and Matrix Lands 

(minimum protected vs. maximum harvested) by Alternative 3-203

Table 3.9-10 Existing Young Growth in Reserves and in Matrix Lands (minimum protected 

vs. maximum harvested) by Alternative 3-205

Table 3.9-11 Projected Harvest of Young-growth and Old-growth in Beach Buffers, RMAs, 

Old-Growth Habitat LUD, other Non-Development LUDs, and 2001 Roadless 

Areas by Alternative 3-207

Table 3.9-12 Estimated Percent of Original POG Remaining (Total and in Reserves) after 

100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS lands only) 3-209

Table 3.9-13 Estimated Percent of Original High-Volume POG Remaining (Total and in 

Reserves) after 100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS 

lands only) 3-210

Table 3.9-14 Estimated Percent of Original Large-Tree POG Remaining (Total and in 

Reserves) after 100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS 

lands only) 3-211

Table 3.9-15 Number and Acreage within Intact VCUs, Comparable to Large Watersheds , 

after 100+ Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and NonNFS lands) 3-212

Table 3.9-16 Cumulative Percent of Original Total POG Remaining on All Landownerships 

after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by Biogeographic Province and 

Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) 3-217

Table 3.9-17 Cumulative Percent of Original High-Volume POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) 3-218
Contents

Contents xiv Final EIS

Table 3.9-18 Cumulative Percent of Original Large-tree POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands) 3-219

Table 3.10-1 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Candidate Species 

Under the ESA, and Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species and 

Potential for Occurrence on the Tongass National Forest 3-224

Table 3.10-2 Existing Forest-wide Deer Habitat Capability Using the Interagency Deer Model 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-231

Table 3.10-3 Existing Habitat Conditions Using the FRESH Deer Model (NFS Lands Only) 3-233

Table 3.10-4 Existing Estimated Average Road Densities and Percentage of WAAs in Road 

Density Categories on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined for All Roads and 

Open Roads Only within the Tongass National Forest Boundary (All Elevations) 3-236

Table 3.10-5 Modeled Deer Habitat Capability Using the Interagency Deer Model for 

Comparison to Forest Plan 18 Deer per Square Mile Standard and Guideline 

(NFS Lands Only) 3-239

Table 3.10-6 Migratory and Resident Birds Identified as Species of Concern in Southeast 

Alaska 3-244

Table 3.10-7 Endemic Wildlife Species Documented on the Tongass National Forest 3-248

Table 3.10-8 Productive Old-Growth Acreage in Reserves, Protected/Unscheduled in the 

Matrix, and Scheduled for Timber Harvest over 100 years (NFS lands only) 3-253

Table 3.10-9 Young-Growth Acreage in Reserves, Protected/Unscheduled in the Matrix, and 

Scheduled for Timber Harvest over 100 Years (NFS Lands Only) 3-253

Table 3.10-10 Relative Changes in Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by Biogeographic Province 

by Alternative in 25 years and 100 years based on the Interagency Deer 

Habitat Capability Model (NFS Lands Only) 3-264

Table 3.10-11 Habitat Conditions Resulting from Each Alternative Using the FRESH Deer 

Model in 25 years and 100 years (NFS Lands Only) 3-265

Table 3.10-12 Estimated Average Road Density and Percent of WAAs in Road Density 

Categories on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined for All Roads and for Open 

Roads Only within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by Alternative after 

100 Years 3-269

Table 3.10-13 Estimated Harvest (acres) of High-Volume (SD5N, SD5S, and SD67) and 

Large-Tree (SD67) Productive Old-Growth by Elevation Category and 

Alternative after 100 years (NFS lands only) 3-271

Table 3.10-14 Comparison of Alternatives in terms of their Long-term Ability to Meet the Wolf 

Guideline of Providing Sufficient Habitat to Support 18 Deer per Square Mile 

after 25 and 100+ Years of Forest Plan Implementation 1 (NFS Lands Only) 3-275

Table 3.10-15 Estimated Road Miles and Average Road Density below 1,200 ft. in Elevation 

on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined for All Roads and for Open Roads by 

Alternative after 100 Years 3-277

Table 3.11-1 Land Ownership Distribution, Tongass National Forest 3-297

Table 3.12a-1 Estimated Number of Road Miles (includes Decommissioned Roads) on All Lands

within the Tongass Forest Boundary for Each Alternative after Full

Implementation of the Forest Plan for 100 Years 3-311

Table 3.12a-2 Estimated Miles of Road Construction and Reconstruction by Alternative after 

100 Years 3-312

Table 3.12b-1 Existing Renewable Energy Projects 3-316

Table 3.12b-2 Transportation and Utility System Window and Avoidance Areas by LUD 

(acres) 3-318

Table 3.12b-3 Active Proposed and Unconstructed Renewable Energy Projects on or likely to 

affect National Forest System Lands 3-323

Table 3.13-1 Land Classification of Suitable Lands 3-328
Contents

Final EIS xv Contents

Table 3.13-2 Estimated Age Class Distribution of All Productive Forest Land and Suitable 

Productive Forest Land (acres) 3-329

Table 3.13-3 Estimated Age Class Distribution of Even-aged Young-Growth Stands (acres) 3-330

Table 3.13-4 Tongass National Forest Strata Characteristics–Productive Old-Growth Forest 3-332

Table 3.13-5 Timber Harvest and Imports for Southeast Alaska, 1997-2011 (MMBF) 3-341

Table 3.13-6 Land Classification, Suitable Lands, Projected Harvest, and PTSQ for OldGrowth and Young-Growth Harvest under Each Alternative 3-343

Table 3.13-7 Timber Management Practices as Modeled 3-345

Table 3.13-8 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (Decades 1 – 4, Annual) 3-346

Table 3.13-9 Projected Timber Sale Quantity and Sustained Yield Limit (MMBF) 3-348

Table 3.13-10 Forest-wide Stand Structures Existing and after 100 Years (thousands of acres) 3-349

Table 3.13-11 Maximum Estimated Annual Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska during the 

First Decade (MMBF) 3-350

Table 3.15-1 Tongass Recreation Facilities, 2015 3-358

Table 3.15-2 Comparison of ROS Classes 3-359

Table 3.15-3 Forest-wide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Acres, 2015 3-361

Table 3.15-4 Forest-wide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Acres by LUD Group, 2015 3-362

Table 3.15-5 Distribution of Recreation Place Acres by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Class 3-363

Table 3.15-6 Distribution of Recreation Places by General Use 3-363

Table 3.15-7 Important Recreation Places by Category 3-364

Table 3.15-8 Activities Participated in by Visitors to Southeast Alaska, Summer 2011 3-367

Table 3.15-9 Southeast Alaska Visitation, 1990 to 2013 3-369

Table 3.15-10 Alaska Arrivals by Transport Type and Visitor/Resident, Summer 2011 3-370

Table 3.15-11 Juneau Icefield and Mendenhall Glacier Visitation, 2000 to 2014 3-371

Table 3.15-12 Helicopter Tour Locations by Client and Group, 2014 3-373

Table 3.15-13 Outfitter/Guide Use by Ranger District, 2013 3-373

Table 3.15-14 Estimated Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested after 100 Years by ROS 

Setting 3-374

Table 3.15-15 Approximate Maximum Acres Potentially Harvested after 100 Years by LUD 

Group and LUD 3-376

Table 3.15-16 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Home Range Recreation Places, by 

LUD Group 3-377

Table 3.15-17 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Facilities, by LUD Group 3-378

Table 3.15-18 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Marine Recreation, by LUD Group 3-378

Table 3.15-19 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Hunting, by LUD Group 3-379

Table 3.15-20 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Fishing, by LUD Group 3-379

Table 3.15-21 Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for 

Tourism, by LUD Group 3-380

Table 3.15-22 Number of Developed Recreation Facilities within 0.5-mile of Suitable OldGrowth and Young-Growth Stands, by LUD Group 3-380

Table 3.16-1 The Existing Scenic Integrity of the Tongass National Forest (percent) 3-389

Table 3.16-2 Adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives for the Tongass (percent) 3-390

Table 3.16-3 Scenery Integrity Objectives for Suitable Young Growth by LUD, Distance 

Zone, and Alternative (percent) 3-392
Contents

Contents xvi Final EIS

Table 3.16-4 SIO Changes in Estimated Suitable Young Growth Forest Land for Each 

Alternative 3-394

Table 3.16-5 SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 3-399

Table 3.17-1 Deer Harvest by Game Management Unit and Transportation Type, 2011 3-428

Table 3.18-1 Approximate Suitable Acres Under 100 Feet Elevation Likely to be Harvested 

over 25 Years 3-437

Table 3.18-2 Approximate Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested and Maximum Road Miles 

to be Constructed/Reconstructed over 25 Years 3-438

Table 3.18-3 Approximate Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested and Maximum Road Miles 

to be Constructed/Reconstructed over 100 Years 3-438

Table 3.19-1 Roadless Characteristics and Discussion Sections 3-442

Table 3.19-2 Tongass National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas Covered by the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule 3-443

Table 3.19-3 Estimated Old-Growth and Young-Growth Harvest After 100 Years within 

Current Inventoried Roadless Areas by Alternative 3-446

Table 3.20-1 Existing Wildernesses on the Tongass National Forest 3-451

Table 3.20-2 Percentage of Biogeographic Province in Existing Wilderness or Natural Setting 

LUDs 3-457

Table 3.21-1 National Forest System Land and Non-National Forest System Land within 

LUD II Areas 3-463

Table 3.21-2 Rivers (Segments) Recommended for Inclusion in National Wild and Scenic 

River Program in miles 3-471

Table 3.22-1 Southeast Alaska Economic Overview 3-479

Table 3.22-2 Southeast Alaska Employment by Sector, 2001 and 2013 3-480

Table 3.22-3 Natural Resource-Based Employment by Sector, 2013 3-481

Table 3.22-4 Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002-2014 3-485

Table 3.22-5 Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2002–2014 3-486

Table 3.22-6 Forest Service Mill Survey: Estimated Mill Capacity, Production, and Utilization, 

2013 3-488

Table 3.22-7 Additional Sawmills in Southeast Alaska Based on a Review of Business 

Licenses, 2015 3-489

Table 3.22-8 Projected Baseline Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Product Type 

(MMBF) all owners 3-492

Table 3.22-9 Projected Baseline Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Owner (MMBF) 3-493

Table 3.22-10 Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model and 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF) 3-494

Table 3.22-11 Potential Non-Lumber Applications of Young Growth Timber in Southeast 

Alaska 3-497

Table 3.22-12 Seafood Processing Workforce by Borough, 2012 3-503

Table 3.22-13 Components of Per Capita Income 2013 3-504

Table 3.22-14 Components of Per Capita Transfer Payments, 2013 3-506

Table 3.22-15 Estimated Maximum Timber Harvest on the Tongass by Alternative, Year 1 to 

100 3-508

Table 3.22-16 Discounted Net Revenues by Alternative for 15, 25, and 100 Years 3-516

Table 3.22-17 Discounted Net Revenues by Alternative for 5-Year Increments (Years 1 to 25) 3-517

Table 3.22-19 Estimated Timber Industry Employment and Income by Alternative (First 

Decade, Annual Average) 3-519

Table 3.23-1 Borough/Census Area Population, 2000, 2010, and 2014 3-526

Table 3.23-2 Age by Borough 3-528
Contents

Final EIS xvii Contents

Table 3.23-3 Employment by Sector by Borough 2013 3-529

Table 3.23-4 Annual Unemployment Rates, 2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-530

Table 3.23-5 Components of Per Capita Income, 2013 3-533

Table 3.23-6 Median Household Income and Poverty, 2013 3-534

Table 3.23-7 School Enrollment and Number of Students Eligible for Free and ReducedPrice Lunch by Borough, 2015 3-535

Table 3.23-8 Southeast Alaska Community Statistics 3-540

Table 3.23-9 School Enrollment by Community, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014 3-542

Table 3.23-10 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Angoon’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-549

Table 3.23-11 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Angoon Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-551

Table 3.23-12 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Coffman Cove’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-554

Table 3.23-13 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Coffman Cove Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual 

Deer Harvest 3-556

Table 3.23-14 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Craig’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-560

Table 3.23-15 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Craig 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-561

Table 3.23-16 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Edna Bay’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-565

Table 3.23-17 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Edna 

Bay Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-565

Table 3.23-18 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Elfin 

Cove Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-570

Table 3.23-19 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Gustavus’ Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-573

Table 3.23-20 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Gustavus Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-574

Table 3.23-21 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Haines’ Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-578

Table 3.23-22 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Haines 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-580
Contents

Contents xviii Final EIS

Table 3.23-23 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hollis’ Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-583

Table 3.23-24 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Hollis 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-584

Table 3.23-25 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hoonah’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-589

Table 3.23-26 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Hoonah Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-589

Table 3.23-27 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hydaburg’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-593

Table 3.23-28 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Hydaburg Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer

Harvest 3-594

Table 3.23-29 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hyder’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-597

Table 3.23-30 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Juneau’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-601

Table 3.23-31 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Kake’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-605

Table 3.23-32 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Kake 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-606

Table 3.23-33 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Kasaan’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-610

Table 3.23-34 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Kasaan Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-611

Table 3.23-35 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Ketchikan’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-615

Table 3.23-36 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Klawock’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-619

Table 3.23-37 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Klawock Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-621

Table 3.23-38 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Metlakatla’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-624

Table 3.23-39 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Metlakatla Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-626
Contents

Final EIS xix Contents

Table 3.23-40 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Meyers Chuck’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-628

Table 3.23-41 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Naukati Bay’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-631

Table 3.23-42 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Naukati Bay Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual 

Deer Harvest 3-632

Table 3.23-43 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Pelican’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-636

Table 3.23-44 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Pelican Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-637

Table 3.23-45 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Petersburg’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-641

Table 3.23-46 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Petersburg Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-643

Table 3.23-47 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Point Baker’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-646

Table 3.23-48 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Point 

Baker Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-647

Table 3.23-49 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Port Alexander’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-651

Table 3.23-50 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Port 

Alexander Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-651

Table 3.23-51 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Port Protection’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-654

Table 3.23-52 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Port 

Protection Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-655

Table 3.23-53 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Saxman’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-658

Table 3.23-54 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Sitka’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative 3-663

Table 3.23-55 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Sitka 

Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest 3-664

Table 3.23-56 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Skagway’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-667
Contents

Contents xx Final EIS

Table 3.23-57 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Skagway Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-668

Table 3.23-58 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Tenakee Spring’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-671

Table 3.23-59 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Tenakee Springs Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual 

Deer Harvest 3-672

Table 3.23-60 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Thorne Bay’s 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-676

Table 3.23-61 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Thorne 

Bay Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-677

Table 3.23-62 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Whale Pass’ 

Community Use Area by Alternative 3-681

Table 3.23-63 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Whale 

Pass Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-682

Table 3.23-64 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Wrangell’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-686

Table 3.23-65 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Wrangell Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-687

Table 3.23-66 Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Yakutat’s Community 

Use Area by Alternative 3-692

Table 3.23-67 Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 

2014 and After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where 

Yakutat Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer 

Harvest 3-692

Table 3.23-68 Race/Ethnicity by Borough/Census Area, 2010 3-694
Contents

Final EIS xxi Contents

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Tongass National Forest Vicinity Map 1-10

Figure 2-1 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 1 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by OldGrowth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 2-12

Figure 2-2 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 1 2-14

Figure 2-3 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 2 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by OldGrowth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 2-17

Figure 2-4 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 2 2-20

Figure 2-5 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 3 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by Old 

Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG) 2-23

Figure 2-6 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-Growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 3 2-26

Figure 2-7 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 4 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by Old 

Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG) 2-29

Figure 2-8 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 4 2-32

Figure 2-9 Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 5-

Year Periods under Alternative 5 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed by OldGrowth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 2-35

Figure 2-10 Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and 

Development LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 5 2-38

Figure 3.6-1 Commercial Harvest of Chinook, Sockeye and Coho Salmon in Southeast 

Alaska 1960–2013 3-105

Figure 3.6-2 Commercial Harvest of Pink, Chum, and Total Salmon in Southeast Alaska 

1960-2013 3-106

Figure 3.6-3 Commercial Harvest and Wholesale (Ex-vessel) CPI Adjusted Value of Salmon 

Produced from the Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska (1984-2013) 3-107

Figure 3.9-1 Map of Biogeographic Provinces of Southeast Alaska 3-186

Figure 3.9-2 Tree Size and Density Model used to Describe Forested Conditions across the 

Tongass National Forest 3-190

Figure 3.15-1 Southeast Alaska Cruise Passengers, 2000-2014 3-368

Figure 3.15-2 Southeast Alaska Visitation, 2000 to 2014 3-370

Figure 3.17-1 Native/Non-Native Components of Southeast Communities, 2010 3-421

Figure 3.17-2 Per Capita Subsistence Harvest by Community and Resource Type 3-423

Figure 3.20-1 Acres of Wilderness by State 3-453

Figure 3.20-2 Percent of Total Acres in the National Wilderness Preservation System by State 3-454

Figure 3.20-3 Percentage of Land Area in Wilderness by State 3-455

Figure 3.22-1 Natural Resource-Based Employment by Sector, 2013 3-482

Figure 3.22-2 2013 Nonresident Share of Direct Employment in Southeast Alaska. 3-483

Figure 3.22-3 Average Annual Seasonal Variation in Employment 2013 (percent) 3-484

Figure 3.22-4 Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002-2014 3-486

Figure 3.22-5 Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2002-2014 3-487
Contents

Contents xxii Final EIS

Figure 3.22-6 Volume under Contract by Owner, 2016 3-490

Figure 3.22-7 Projected Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2015-2030 3-493

Figure 3.22-8 Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model and 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 3-495

Figure 3.22-9 Seafood Harvesting and Fish Processing Employment in Southeast Alaska, 

2000 to 2013 3-502

Figure 3.22-10 Components of Per Capita Income 2013 3-505

Figure 3.22-11 Estimated Maximum Young-Growth Timber Supply on the Tongass by 

Alternative, Year 1 to 100 3-509

Figure 3.22-12 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 1 3-512

Figure 3.22-13 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 2 3-513

Figure 3.22-14 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 3 3-514

Figure 3.22-15 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 4 3-515

Figure 3.22-16 Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 5 3-515

Figure 3.22-17 Net Revenues for Old Growth by Alternative for 5-Year Increments (Years 1 to 

25) 3-517

Figure 3.22-18 Net Revenues for Young Growth by Alternative for 5-Year Increments (Years 1 

to 25) 3-518

Figure 3.23-1 Southeast Alaska Population, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 through 2014 3-526

Figure 3.23-2 Annual Unemployment Rates in Southeast Alaska, Alaska, and the United 

States, 2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-531

Figure 3.23-3 Annual Unemployment Rates in the Northern Boroughs of Southeast Alaska, 

2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-531

Figure 3.23-4 Annual Unemployment Rates in the Southern Boroughs of Southeast Alaska, 

2005 to 2014 (Percent) 3-532

Figure 3.23-5 Components of Per Capita Income, 2013 3-533

Figure 3.23-6 Angoon Population 1970 to 2014 3-547

Figure 3.23-7 Angoon’s Community Use Area 3-549

Figure 3.23-8 Coffman Cove Population 1980 to 2014 3-552

Figure 3.23-9 Coffman Cove’s Community Use Area 3-554

Figure 3.23-10 Craig Population 1970 to 2014 3-557

Figure 3.23-11 Craig’s Community Use Area 3-559

Figure 3.23-12 Edna Bay Population 1970 to 2014 3-562

Figure 3.23-13 Edna Bay’s Community Use Area 3-564

Figure 3.23-14 Elfin Cove Population 1970 to 2014 3-566

Figure 3.23-15 Elfin Cove’s Community Use Area 3-569

Figure 3.23-16 Gustavus Population 1970 to 2014 3-571

Figure 3.23-17 Gustavus’ Community Use Area 3-573

Figure 3.23-18 Haines Population 1970 to 2014 3-576

Figure 3.23-19 Haines’ Community Use Area 3-578

Figure 3.23-20 Hollis Population 1990 to 2014 3-581

Figure 3.23-21 Hollis’ Community Use Area 3-583

Figure 3.23-22 Hoonah Population 1970 to 2014 3-586

Figure 3.23-23 Hoonah’s Community Use Area 3-588

Figure 3.23-24 Hydaburg Population 1970 to 2014 3-591

Figure 3.23-25 Hydaburg’s Community Use Area 3-593

Figure 3.23-26 Hyder Population 1970 to 2014 3-595

Figure 3.23-27 Hyder’s Community Use Area 3-597
Contents

Final EIS xxiii Contents

Figure 3.23-28 Juneau Population 1970 to 2014 3-599

Figure 3.23-29 Juneau’s Community Use Area 3-601

Figure 3.23-30 Kake Population 1970 to 2014 3-603

Figure 3.23-31 Kake’s Community Use Area 3-605

Figure 3.23-32 Kasaan Population 1970 to 2014 3-608

Figure 3.23-33 Kasaan’s Community Use Area 3-610

Figure 3.23-34 Ketchikan Population 1970 to 2014 3-613

Figure 3.23-35 Ketchikan’s Community Use Area 3-615

Figure 3.23-36 Klawock Population 1970 to 2014 3-617

Figure 3.23-37 Klawock’s Community Use Area 3-619

Figure 3.23-38 Metlakatla Population 1970 to 2014 3-622

Figure 3.23-39 Metlakatla’s Community Use Area 3-624

Figure 3.23-40 Meyers Chuck’s Community Use Area 3-627

Figure 3.23-41 Naukati Bay Population 1990 to 2014 3-629

Figure 3.23-42 Naukati Bay’s Community Use Area 3-631

Figure 3.23-43 Pelican Population 1970 to 2014 3-634

Figure 3.23-44 Pelican’s Community Use Area 3-636

Figure 3.23-45 Petersburg Population 1970 to 2014 3-638

Figure 3.23-46 Petersburg’s Community Use Area 3-641

Figure 3.23-47 Point Baker Population 1970 to 2014 3-644

Figure 3.23-48 Point Baker’s Community Use Area 3-646

Figure 3.23-49 Port Alexander Population 1970 to 2014 3-648

Figure 3.23-50 Port Alexander’s Community Use Area 3-650

Figure 3.23-51 Port Protection Population 1980 to 2014 3-652

Figure 3.23-52 Port Protection’s Community Use Area 3-653

Figure 3.23-53 Saxman Population 1970 to 2014 3-656

Figure 3.23-54 Saxman’s Community Use Area 3-658

Figure 3.23-55 Sitka Population 1970 to 2014 3-660

Figure 3.23-56 Sitka’s Community Use Area 3-662

Figure 3.23-57 Skagway Population 1970 to 2014 3-665

Figure 3.23-58 Skagway’s Community Use Area 3-667

Figure 3.23-59 Tenakee Springs Population 1970 to 2014 3-669

Figure 3.23-60 Tenakee Springs’ Community Use Area 3-671

Figure 3.23-61 Thorne Bay Population 1970 to 2014 3-674

Figure 3.23-62 Thorne Bay’s Community Use Area 3-676

Figure 3.23-63 Whale Pass Population 1970 to 2014 3-679

Figure 3.23-64 Whale Pass’ Community Use Area 3-681

Figure 3.23-65 Wrangell Population 1970 to 2014 3-684

Figure 3.23-66 Wrangell’s Community Use Area 3-686

Figure 3.23-67 Yakutat Population 1970 to 2014 3-689

Figure 3.23-68 Yakutat’s Community Use Area 3-691
Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations xxiv Final EIS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAC Alaska Administrative Code

ABC Islands Admiralty, Baranof, and Chicagof Islands

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ACS American Community Survey

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

ADED Alaska Department of Economic Development

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

ADOT&PF Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

AEA Alaska Energy Authority

AEL&P Alaska Electric Light & Power 

AF Alluvial Fan

AFHA Anadromous Fisheries Habitat Assessment

AKEPIC Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse

Alaska DCRA Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs

AMHS Alaska Marine Highway System

AMS Analysis of the Management Situation

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971

ANHP Alaska Natural Heritage Program

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980

AP&T Alaska Power & Telephone

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee

ASQ allowable sale quantity

ATM access and travel management

AVSP Alaska Visitor Statistics Program

BBER Bureau of Business and Economic Research

BCR Bird Conservation Region

BE biological evaluation

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BP before present

°C degrees Celsius

CA Census Area

CDP Census Designated Places 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMAI culmination of mean annual increment

CO carbon monoxide

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CUA Community Use Area

DBH diameter at breast height

DCCED Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Contents

Final EIS xxv Acronyms and Abbreviations

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DOL Department of Labor

DPS distinct population segment

EA environmental assessment

EFH essential fish habitat

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESI Existing Scenic Integrity

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FCRPA Federal Cave Resources Protection Act

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FEIS Final Enviromental Impact Statement

FIA FHM Forest Inventory and Analysis-Forest Health Monitoring

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act

FORPlan Previous Forest Planning Model

Forest Plan Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

FP Flood Plain

FPA Federal Power Act

FRESH Forest Resource Evaluation System for Habitat

FR Federal Register

FRPL free and reduced-price lunch

FSM Forest Service Manual

FY fiscal year

GCRP (U.S.) Global Change Research Program

GIS geographic information system

GMU Game Management Unit

GSA General Services Administration

HC High Gradient Contained 

HCA Habitat Conservation Area

HSI Habitat Suitability Index

IDT Interdisciplinary Team

IFA Inter-Island Ferry Authority

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

IPEC Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 

IRA Inventoried Roadless Area

IRP Integrated Resource Plan 

km kilometer

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt hour

LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations xxvi Final EIS

LSTA Logging System and Transportation Analysis

LTF log transfer facility

LTSP Long-Term Soil Productivity 

LTSY long-term sustained yield

LUD Land Use Designation

LWD large woody debris

MAP mean annual precipitation 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MBF thousand board feet

MIS Management Indicator Species

MM Moderate Gradient Mixed Control 

MMBF million board feet

MMI Mass Movement Index

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MVUM Motor Vehicle Use Map 

MW megawatt

MWh megawatt hour

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

National Register National Register of Historic Places

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act of 1976

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOA notice of availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NPS National Park Service

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council

NRIS Natural Resource Information System 

NSLP National School Lunch Program

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit

NVCS National Vegetation Classification Standard

NVUM National Visitor Use Monitoring

NWI National Wetland Inventory

OGR old-growth reserve

OHV off-highway vehicle

P Primitive

PCE Power Cost Equalization 

PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Imapct Statement

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns in size 

PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5 microns in size 

PNW Pacific Northwest

POG productive old growth
Contents

Final EIS xxvii Acronyms and Abbreviations

ppm parts per million

PTSQ projected timber sale quantity 

PWSQ projected wood sale quantity

R Rural

RARE Roadless Area Review and Evaluation

RAW reasonable assurance of windfirmness 

RM Roaded Modified

RMA Riparian Management Area 

RN Roaded Natural

RNA Research Natural Area

Roadless Rule Roadless Area Conservation Rule

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for 

Users

SATP Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan

SDEIS Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement

SDM Size-Density Model

SEACC Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

SEAPA Southeast Alaska Power Agency

SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIO Scenic Integrity Objective

SMS Scenery Management System

SNAP Scenarios Network for Alaska & Arctic Planning 

SO2 sulfer dioxide

SOC Statement of Concern

SPM Semi-Primitive Motorized

SPNM Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized

SPTH site potential tree height 

SYL sustained yield limit

T77 Tongass 77

TAC Tongass Advisory Committee 

TRUCS Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey

TSC Transportation Systems Corridor

TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990

TUS Transportation and Utility System

TWYGS Tongass-wide Young-Growth Studies

U Urban

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VCU Value Comparison Unit

VMS Visual Management System 

VPR Visual Priority Route
Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations xxviii Final EIS

WAA Wildlife Analysis Area

WCF Watershed Condition Framework 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-1 Executive Summary

Chapter 1.

Executive Summary

Introduction

Forest land and resource management planning is a process for developing, 

amending, and revising land and resource management plans for each of the 

National Forests in the National Forest System (NFS). Forest plans are required 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] parts 1600-1687). The 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest was 

the first forest to complete a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

under the NFMA in 1979. That Forest Plan was amended in 1986 and 1991 and

revised in 1997. A final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

was completed in 2003, which further evaluated roadless areas for their 

wilderness potential. The Forest Plan was amended again in 2008 in response 

to a Ninth Circuit Court ruling and a 5-Year Plan Review completed in 2005. The 

revised Plan was amended 24 times between the 1997 revision and the 2008 

amendment, primarily to adjust small old-growth habitat reserve boundaries and 

for electronic/communication site designations. Since the 2008 amendment, the 

plan has been amended to establish the Héen Latinee Experimental Forest, 

disestablish the Young Bay Experimental Forest, add communication sites to the 

list in Appendix E, modify small old-growth habitat reserves, and make minor 

corrections to the plan.

On July 2, 2013, Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, issued Memorandum 

1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2013), which expressed the Secretary’s intent

to transition the Tongass National Forest to a young growth–based timber 

program in 10 to 15 years, more rapidly than considered in the 2008 Forest Plan. 

The Secretary asked that the Forest Service “[s]trongly consider whether to 

pursue an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an amendment would 

evaluate which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially young growth 

timber stands, which lands should be excluded, and additional opportunities to 

promote and speed transition to young-growth management.” Recognizing the 

importance of retaining expertise and infrastructure, the Secretary also stated 

that the Forest Service “will continue to offer a supply of old growth timber while 

increasing the supply of young growth to provide industry in Alaska the 

opportunity to develop new markets, learn new skills, and acquire new 

equipment.” The Secretary also asked that a determination of whether to initiate 

an amendment be completed by September 30, 2013.

The Forest Service completed a Five-Year Review of the Forest Plan in 

September 2013. The results of the Five-Year Review and the Secretary’s 

Memorandum led to the Tongass Forest Supervisor making a determination that 

“...conditions on the land and demands of the public require the Tongass to 

modify the 2008 Forest Plan” (USDA Forest Service 2013a). A Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2014 

(79 Federal Register [FR] 30074) initiating a 30-day scoping period. Among the 

comments from the Five-Year Review and from scoping were those that
Executive Summary

Executive Summary ES-2 Final EIS

requested a transition to young-growth timber harvesting, ways to make 

renewable energy projects easier to implement, and a review of the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) inventoried roadless areas 

(IRAs). All comments were taken into consideration in identifying the scope of 

this Forest Plan amendment.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is a programmatic analysis 

prepared by the Forest Service that describes and analyzes changes to the 

Forest Plan to accomplish the transition to young-growth management as 

provided in the Secretary’s Memorandum. This FEIS evaluates which lands will 

be suitable for timber production, especially young-growth timber stands, and any 

changes or additions to management direction needed to promote and speed the 

transition to young-growth management while maintaining a viable timber 

industry in Southeast Alaska. This FEIS also describes and analyzes changes 

related to renewable energy development. The scope of the analysis is limited to 

these changes. 

This FEIS analyzes in detail four action alternatives for amending the Plan, in 

addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). The analysis is published in 

two volumes. Volume 1 contains the FEIS, and Volume 2 contains the FEIS 

appendices. A complete Forest Plan Land Use Designation (LUD) map is 

provided for each of the alternatives in the Map Packet which accompanies the 

FEIS.

A separate document titled Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (i.e., 

the Forest Plan) is published along with the FEIS and represents the selected 

alternative (Alternative 5). Chapter 2 and Appendix F in the FEIS describe how 

the other alternatives compare to Alternative 5. Instead of repeating all of the 

changes in management direction common to Alternatives 1-4 and Alternative 5, 

management direction of the alternatives is displayed in a side-by-side 

comparative format to demonstrate how and where direction differs from 

Alternative 5.

This FEIS describes and analyzes changes to the 2008 Forest Plan and tiers to

and incorporates by reference the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan 

Revision FEIS (1997 FEIS), the 2003 Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for 

Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations (2003 FSEIS), and the 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment FEIS (2008 

FEIS), and the 2008 Record of Decision (2008 ROD). Where appropriate, 

information in these documents that is relevant to analysis in this FEIS is cited and

incorporated by reference.

Purpose and Need

The Forest Service determined that it is necessary to amend the 2008 Forest 

Plan. Amending the Forest Plan originates from the July 2013 memo from the 

Secretary of Agriculture directing the Tongass National Forest to transition its 

forest management program to be more ecologically, socially, and economically 

sustainable, while also being responsive to comments from the Five-Year Review

of the Forest Plan. The purpose of this plan amendment is to:

• Review lands within the plan area to determine suitability for timber 

production, especially young-growth timber stands.

• Identify the projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ) and the sustained yield 

limit (i.e., the ecological yield of timber that can be removed annually on a 

sustained yield basis).
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-3 Executive Summary

• Establish plan components (e.g., standards and guidelines) for young-growth 

forest management and renewable energy development to guide future 

project decision-making.

• Consolidate modifications made to the Forest Plan since its approval.

An amendment is necessary for responding to the July 2013 direction from 

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined in the Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-

009. The memorandum directs management of the Tongass National Forest to 

expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting and towards a 

forest products industry that uses predominantly second-growth – or younggrowth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum also directs that the 

transition must be implemented in a manner that preserves a viable timber 

industry that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. 

USDA's goal is to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that 

at the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be 

young growth. This timeframe will conserve old-growth forests while allowing the 

forest industry time to adapt. The 2008 Forest Plan provides for a transition to 

young growth over time, but there are challenges in establishing an economically 

viable young-growth forest management program due to the relatively young age 

of the available stands, market conditions, and other factors. Secretary Vilsack’s 

direction requires Forest Plan amendments to guide future management of NFS 

lands and allocation of resources on the Tongass National Forest under the 

multiple-use and sustained yield mandate. 

The need to amend the plan is further corroborated by the Five-Year Review of 

the Forest Plan, completed in 2013, which concluded that conditions on the land 

and demands of the public necessitate the Tongass National Forest to make 

changes to the Forest Plan. Concerns were consistently expressed during the 

Five-Year Review regarding the impact of rising fossil fuel prices and increasing 

climate change on the quality of life in Southeast Alaska. Changes to the Forest 

Plan are needed to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible, including considering access and utility corridors to stimulate 

economic development in Southeast Alaska communities, and provide lowcarbon energy alternatives, thereby displacing the use of fossil fuel.

Significant issues

The Forest Service used the scoping process to determine the scope of issues to 

be addressed and identify the significant issues related to a proposed action.

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping.

Issue 1 –Young Growth Transition

The Secretary of Agriculture asked the Forest Service to transition to a younggrowth-based timber management program on the Tongass National Forest in 10 

to 15 years, which is more rapid than planned. This transition is intended to 

support the Tongass managing its forest for an ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable forest management program and reduce old-growth 

harvest while still providing economic timber to support the local forest products 

industry.

The issue concerns financial efficiency, salability, and volume of future timber 

sales. It also relates to the potential local employment and revenues generated 

for communities in the local area. Young-growth stand growth rates, sustainable 

harvest rates, the amount of old-growth harvest needed during transition to 

sustain the timber industry, also known as “bridge timber,” and the locations 
Executive Summary

Executive Summary ES-4 Final EIS

where young-growth harvest would take place are some of the factors to be 

considered.

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

The development of renewable energy projects on the Tongass would help 

Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel dependence, stimulate 

economic development, and lower carbon emissions in the Region.

This issue relates to comments received during the Five-Year Review of the 

Forest Plan. The Forest Service should promote the development of renewable 

energy projects to help Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil energy 

dependence, where it is compatible with National Forest purposes and to ensure 

that the planning, construction, and operation of projects protect and effectively 

use NFS lands and resources. 

Issue 3 –Inventoried Roadless Areas

Timber harvest and road building that occurred in roadless areas before the 2001

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) was enacted and during the 

Tongass exemption period changed the values or features that often characterize 

inventoried roadless areas in some locations.

Issues and concerns received during scoping as well as during the Five-Year 

Review process expressed concerns about roadless areas on the Tongass; both 

in favor of protections afforded under the 2001 Roadless Rule as well as 

requesting that the forest plan be amended to address the significant changes 

brought about by its re-instatement on the Tongass. 

Some people believe roadless areas on the Tongass should be allowed to evolve

naturally through their own dynamic processes and should be afforded protection 

that ensures this will occur. Others believe that limiting road construction and 

reconstruction or other management actions in roadless areas might restrict the 

delivery of goods, services, and activities that these areas might otherwise 

provide. 

Roadless areas are considered important because they support a diversity of 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats, species, and communities, and play an important 

role in helping to conserve native plant and animal communities and biological 

diversity. They also provide people with unique recreation opportunities. 

During the Tongass exemption period and before the 2001 Roadless Rule was 

enacted, road construction, reconstruction, and the cutting, and sale of timber in 

some IRAs occurred. As a result, these activities in some IRAs may have altered 

the roadless characteristics. 

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy

Old-growth timber harvest has changed the composition and spatial patterns of 

terrestrial wildlife habitats. How the resulting young-growth is managed may 

influence the future ecological integrity of the landscape at various scales. 

Changes made to suitable lands designated for development, and to plan 

components (e.g., standards and guidelines) may affect old-growth habitat for 

wildlife and the Tongass Old-growth Habitat Conservation Strategy and 

contributing elements to old-growth reserves (e.g., riparian, beach and estuary 

habitats).
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-5 Executive Summary

The Tongass National Forest supports an important assemblage of wildlife many 

of which are associated with or at least partially dependent on old-growth forest 

including one of the largest populations of brown bears in the world, high 

densities of breeding bald eagles, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, species of 

high importance for subsistence (e.g., Sitka black-tailed deer), an extensive array 

of endemic mammals, and other species that are dependent on old-growth 

habitats (e.g., marten and goshawk). The Tongass Old-growth Habitat 

Conservation Strategy is considered important for the continued health of oldgrowth associated wildlife populations in Southeast Alaska. 

Timber harvest, minerals and renewable energy development, and road 

development can have effects on the habitat and populations of many of these 

species and the diversity and integrity of Southeast Alaska ecosystems. Less 

than 10 percent of the productive old-growth habitat on the Tongass has been 

converted to young growth, the percentage is much higher for certain types of old 

growth, such as lowland and large-tree old growth. In addition, non-NFS old 

growth has generally been harvested at a much higher rate. Therefore, the 

consideration of harvest and road building on wildlife in Southeast Alaska are 

greater than the effects for the Tongass by itself.

Alternatives 

Forest Plan 

The current 2008 Forest Plan is associated with the No- Action alternative 

(Alternative 1). However, a number of changes to the Forest Plan text are being 

proposed. These changes are incorporated into a Forest Plan (Land and 

Resource Management Plan), which accompanies the EIS. The Forest Plan was 

developed based on the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5).The individual 

alternative descriptions on the following pages identify the major changes in the 

Forest Plan.

Timber Demand

In past Forest Plan revisions and amendments, varying demand scenarios were 

used to develop alternatives, including scenarios that allowed for growth and 

expansion of the current industry. In this amendment, the purpose and need 

identifies the need to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber 

harvesting and towards a forest products industry that uses predominantly 

second-growth – or young-growth – forests. Therefore, examination of 

alternatives at levels above projected demand is not warranted because these 

would require expansion of old-growth harvest levels, at least during the next 10 

to 15 years. However, over the longer term, expansion of the timber industry is 

an option as more and more young growth becomes economic to harvest. 

Therefore, Alternatives 1 through 5 were designed to correspond with current 

demand projections and produce a projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ)1 of 

about 46 MMBF per year during the next 15 years, with old growth making up a 

decreasing percentage of the total. Old-growth volume would continue to 

decrease until it reaches about 5 MMBF per year and it would remain at that 

level, to support limited small timber operators. As more young growth becomes 

economic to harvest, the PTSQ would be allowed to increase. In no case, would 

 1 PTSQ is a new term defined in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 60. The term allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) is not used with the 2012 planning rule. 
Executive Summary

Executive Summary ES-6 Final EIS

the harvest level be allowed to exceed the sustained yield limit (SYL) (see 

Glossary and the Timber section of this EIS).

Even though Alternative 1 (no action) represents current management, it is 

modeled to follow the same volume production pattern. The July 2013 

Secretary’s memo identified a need to change direction in the 2008 Forest Plan 

(see Purpose and Need in Chapter 1) and without this amendment, the Tongass 

would be transitioning toward young-growth and away from old-growth harvest. 

Provisions Common to all Alternatives

Under all alternatives, there is flexibility in terms of when young-growth stands 

may be harvested. Under Public Law 113-291, up to 15,000 acres of young 

growth may be harvested from 2016 through 2025, in stands less than 95 

percent of CMAI. This CMAI flexibility may continue after 2025 (with annual 

maximums); however, the total acreage harvested at less than 95 percent of 

CMAI cannot exceed 50,000. In addition, young-growth sales under this 

provision may not be offered unless they represent non-deficit sales.

2 There is 

flexibility in NFMA to allow a continuation of harvesting at younger ages beyond 

2025.

LUD Changes Common to the Action Alternatives

The LUD allocations for each alternative are described in the following 

alternative-specific descriptions. The LUDs for Alternative 1 (no action) are the 

same as the LUDs of the current Forest Plan. The LUDs of the action 

alternatives are different from Alternative 1 LUDs because of Old-growth Habitat 

LUD changes. Under Public Law 113-291, approximately 70,000 acres of NFS 

land were conveyed to Sealaska Corporation and an additional 152,000 acres 

were converted to LUD II. As a result of the land conveyance, old-growth 

reserves (OGRs) in 16 VCUs were affected. Beginning in February 2015, an 

interagency review team of biologists worked to develop a biologically preferred 

option for modifying these OGRs that meets Forest Plan Appendix K criteria and 

to document why other proposals are not recommended. In September 2015, 

the interagency review team produced a biologically preferred option (see 

Appendix E), which was incorporated into each of the action alternatives. 

Therefore, the Old-growth Habitat LUD acres vary between Alternative 1 and the 

action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5).

In addition, the Transportation and Utility Systems LUD would be removed under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. The LUD management prescription would be 

replaced by plan components under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 and would provide 

management direction for renewable energy and transportation systems 

corridors (see Chapter 5 in the proposed Forest Plan). 

Alternative 1 (No Action)

The no action alternative represents current management direction (2008 Forest 

Plan) and includes the application of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule) (36 CFR 294 Subpart B). As noted above, it also follows the 

direction provided in the July 2013 Secretary’s memo, which identified a need to 

 2

Any sale of trees pursuant to the authority granted under subparagraph (A) shall not—

(iii) be advertised if the indicated rate is deficit (defined as the value of the timber is not 

sufficient to cover all logging and stumpage costs and provide a normal profit and risk 

allowance under the appraisal process of the Forest Service) when appraised using a 

residual value appraisal.
Executive Summary

Final EIS ES-7 Executive Summary

transition away from old-growth harvest. Under this alternative, timber harvest 

would follow the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy 

(USDA Forest Service 2008c). A color map showing the phases in this strategy 

is provided along with the FEIS. Timber harvest is currently restricted to areas 

within Phase 1 of the strategy and timber harvest would have to reach 100 

MMBF for two years before harvest could occur in Phase 2 areas. Timber 

management would be restricted to the development LUDs and would remain 

outside of inventoried roadless areas. No commercial harvest would be allowed 

in beach and estuary fringe or RMAs. All other 2008 Forest Plan management 

direction would be followed.

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. However, beyond that, the minimum harvest age would 

return to 95 percent of CMAI except under exemptions provided by the NFMA. 

Alternative 1 would result in the most old-growth harvest among the alternatives 

over both 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-2 summarizes the key 

elements of Alternative 1 and Table 2-3 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped 

suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young 

growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce about 8 MMBF of young 

growth and 38 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-

1). From Year 10 through Year 25, it is projected to produce about 15 MMBF of 

young growth and 31 MMBF of old growth per year. At about Year 32, the 

young-growth harvest is expected to increase to about 41 MMBF and the oldgrowth harvest would decrease to 5 MMBF per year. The young-growth harvest 

is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 32 and is expected 

to reach an upper limit of about 133 MMBF in about Year 38. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

As in Alternative 1, this alternative would follow the existing timber sale program 

adaptive management strategy for old-growth harvest (USDA Forest Service 

2008c) (see color map accompanying the FEIS); as a result, all old-growth 

harvest would come from Phase 1, at least during the first 15 years or so. After 

harvest volume exceeds 100 MMBF for two years, it is possible that limited oldgrowth harvest could occur in Phase 2 areas. Young-growth harvest could come 

from any phase of the strategy at any time. The portions of inventoried roadless 

areas (IRAs) that were roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 

2001 Roadless Rule exemption period for the Tongass would be available for 

young-growth and old-growth harvest. This would require rulemaking to modify 

36 CFR 294.13(b)(4). If selected, no harvest could occur in IRAs until 

rulemaking is completed. No Roadless Area harvest outside of these roaded 

areas would be allowed.

Alternative 2 would differ substantially from Alternative 1 in terms of lands 

identified as suitable for young-growth timber production. Young-growth 

management would be allowed in both development and natural setting LUDs 

(except for Congressionally designated and administratively withdrawn areas, 

such as Wilderness, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), in beach and 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-8 Final EIS

estuary fringe, RMAs outside of Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) buffers, and 

high-vulnerability karst. 

Young-growth management may include clearcutting in all areas, except in 

RMAs and on high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial thinning (up to 33 

percent basal area removal) would be allowed. After 15 years, clearcutting 

would no longer be allowed in the beach and estuary fringe and only commercial 

thinning would be allowed. In addition, in beach and estuary fringe, the intent is 

to maintain an approximate 1,000-ft wide protected corridor adjacent and inland 

of any even-aged harvest unit to function as an alternate, low elevation, natural 

habitat corridor. 

Scenery standards for young-growth management would be relaxed. The SIOs 

would be designated as Very Low for all LUDs and distance zones. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. Scenery 

standards for renewable energy development would be relaxed to Very Low for 

all LUDs and distance zones. 

Among the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would provide the largest amount of 

timber volume (old growth and young growth combined), including the largest 

amount of young-growth volume from lands suitable for timber production. It 

would result in the smallest amount of old growth timber volume over both 25-

year and 100-year periods. Table 2-5 summarizes the key elements of 

Alternative 2 and Table 2-6 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, 

and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and old 

growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1), 

emphasizing young growth and minimizing old growth. As such, it is expected to 

produce an average of about 22 MMBF of young growth and 24 MMBF of old 

growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-3). From Years 11 through 

15, Alternative 2 is projected to produce an average of 61 MMBF of young 

growth and 5 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 2 would likely reach a full 

transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 12. Young-growth 

harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 12 and is 

expected to reach an upper limit of about 120 MMBF in Year 17. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales. 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 of the existing 

timber sale program adaptive management strategy (USDA Forest Service 

2008c) (see color map accompanying this FEIS) but would allow young-growth 

harvest in all phases. This alternative would allow young-growth and old-growth 

harvest in 2001 Roadless Rule IRAs. If this alternative were selected, harvest in 

IRAs would be deferred until agency rulemaking modifies 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) 

(2001). 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it identifies lands as suitable for 

young-growth timber production in both development and natural setting LUDs 
Executive Summary 

Final EIS ES-9 Executive Summary

(except for Congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness, 

administratively withdrawn areas, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), as 

well as in beach and estuary fringe and high-vulnerability karst, but not in RMAs. 

Young-growth management may include clearcutting in all areas, except in 

beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial 

thinning is allowed. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that 

have had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the 

young growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be 

described as a Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

Scenery standards for young growth management would be reduced by one level 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. SIOs would be reduced as follows: High would 

be reduced to Moderate, Moderate would be reduced to Low, and Low and Very 

Low would become Very Low. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO 

(scenery standard) for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs 

and distance zones. 

Alternative 3 would provide the second largest amount of timber volume (old 

growth and young growth combined). It would result in the second lowest 

harvest of old growth over both the 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-8 

summarizes the key elements of Alternative 3 and Table 2-9 summarizes the 

LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this 

alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 20 

MMBF of young growth and 26 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 

years (Figure 2-5). From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an 

average of 50 MMBF of young growth and about 5 MMBF of old growth per year. 

Alternative 3 would likely reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young 

growth at about Year 13. Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to 

increase at a rapid rate after Year 13 and is expected to reach an upper limit of 

about 117 MMBF in Year 17. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 

MMBF per year to support small and micro sales. 

Alternative 4 

Like Alternative 3, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 

of the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see color 

map accompanying this FEIS), but in contrast with Alternative 3, it would also 

limit young-growth harvest to only Phase 1. Similar to Alternative 1, this 

alternative includes the application of the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Alternative 4 would allow young-growth management only in the development 

LUDs. Harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-10 Final EIS

karst, but only commercial thinning is allowed. No harvest is allowed in RMAs. 

Young growth management may include clearcutting in other areas. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that 

have had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the 

young growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be 

described as a Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

No change would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO 

(scenery standard) for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs 

and distance zones. 

Alternative 4 would provide the smallest amount of timber volume (old growth 

and young growth combined) and the smallest amounts of young-growth volume. 

It would result in the second highest harvest of old growth during both the 25-

year and 100-year periods. Table 2-11 summarizes the key elements of 

Alternative 4, and Table 2-12 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable 

acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and 

old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 11 

MMBF of young growth and 35 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 

years (Figure 2-7). From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an 

average of 26 MMBF of young growth and about 20 MMBF of old growth per 

year. Alternative 4 would likely reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of 

young growth about Year 16. Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to 

increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and is expected to reach an upper limit of 

87 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF 

per year to support small and micro sales. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative) 

Alternative 5 is the Preferred Alternative. This alternative is based on the 

recommendations from the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC), a formally 

established Federal Advisory Committee (see Appendix B of the Forest Plan). 

The establishment of the TAC represents a turning point in Tongass 

management seeking new approaches, practices, and responses. The TAC 

offers a regionally focused, collaborative path toward an innovative opportunity 

for a viable young growth timber industry while honoring the suite of values – 

economic, ecological, social, and cultural – inherent in the Forest. 

Like Alternatives 3 and 4, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only 

within Phase 1 of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see 

color map accompanying this FEIS). As in Alternatives 1 and 4, the 2001 

Roadless Rule would apply and no old-growth or young-growth harvest would 

occur in roadless areas. In addition, old-growth harvest is excluded from all 
Executive Summary 

Final EIS ES-11 Executive Summary

Tongass 77 (T77)3 watersheds and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas 

(Albert and Schoen 2007). These old-growth harvest exclusion areas are shown 

on the large color map for Alternative 5 that accompanies this FEIS. 

As in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, Alternative 5 would allow young-growth harvest in 

all three phases of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy. It 

would allow young-growth management in development LUDs and in the Oldgrowth Habitat LUD including harvest in beach and estuary fringe and RMAs 

outside of TTRA buffers within these same LUDs. However, young-growth 

harvest in the Old-growth Habitat LUD, beach and estuary fringe, and RMAs 

outside of TTRA buffers would be allowed only during the first 15 years after Plan 

approval, and created openings for commercial harvest (up to 10 acres and a 

maximum removal of up to 35 percent of the acres of the original harvested 

stand) or commercial thinning would be allowed. In beach and estuary fringe, a 

200-foot no-commercial harvest buffer adjacent to the shoreline would be 

required. Along lake shorelines, a 100-foot no-cut commercial harvest buffer 

would be established. Scenery standards (SIOs) for young growth management 

would be reduced to Very Low for all distance zones in the development LUDs 

only. This standard would also apply when young-growth and old-growth 

harvests are planned in the same Viewshed. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for 

determining the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 

acres of young-growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to 

be flexible under exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves 

flexibility in renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO 

(scenery standard) for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs 

and distance zones. 

Alternative 5 would provide the second smallest amount of timber volume (old 

growth and young growth combined) among the alternatives, but the second 

largest amount of old-growth volume among the action alternatives. Table 2-14 

summarizes the key elements of Alternative 5 and Table 2-15 summarizes the 

LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this 

alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent 

to the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It 

would emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 

MMBF per year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 12 

MMBF of young growth and 34 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 

years (Figure 2-9). From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an 

average of 28 MMBF of young growth and about 18 MMBF of old growth per 

year. Alternative 5 would likely reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of 

young growth about Year 16. Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to 

increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and is expected to reach an upper limit of 

 

3

 The Tongass 77 (T77) refers to value comparison units (VCUs), which approximate 

major watersheds located on National Forest System lands that Trout Unlimited, Alaska 

Program identified as priority salmon watersheds. As a result of the Sealaska Land 

Entitlement Finalization in the Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), there was a net 

reduction in the T77 watersheds from 77 to 73. To provide clarity and consistency, the 

T77 nomenclature will continue to be used in this document when referring to these 

priority watersheds. 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-12 Final EIS

98 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF 

per year to support small and micro sales. 

Comparison of the Alternatives 

This section briefly compares the environmental consequences of the five 

alternatives with respect to the significant issues described in Chapter 1. This 

comparison is based on the effects analyses presented in Chapter 3. 

Issue 1 – Young-growth Transition 

The purpose and need for this project is primarily based on a memorandum from 

the Secretary of Agriculture (see Chapter 1) that directs management of the 

Tongass National Forest to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber 

harvesting and towards a forest products industry that utilizes predominantly 

second-growth – or young-growth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum 

also guides that the transition should be implemented in a manner that preserves 

a viable timber industry that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska 

residents. USDA's goal is to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 

years, so that at the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the 

Tongass will be young growth. This timeframe will conserve old growth forests 

while allowing the forest industry time to adapt. 

Because of the Secretary’s memorandum, the existing condition emphasizes a 

transition to young growth and minimizes old-growth harvest, but does this within 

the constraints of the 2008 Forest Plan. Alternative 1 (no action) would result in 

full transition to a predominantly young-growth-based industry in about 32 years, 

well beyond the 15 year goal presented in the Secretary’s memorandum. In 

contrast, all of the action alternatives would result in a full transition in about 12 to 

16 years. Because these timeframes represent full transition, the period in which 

the “vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth” is 

expected to be about 10 to 15 years for the action alternatives. Of the action 

alternatives, the fastest transition (12 years) would occur with Alternative 2 and 

the slowest transition (16 years) would occur with Alternatives 4 and 5. 

All of the alternatives are expected to support from 184 to 231 annualized direct 

jobs during the first decade, depending on the portion of total harvest that is 

exported. Total estimated jobs are very similar across the alternatives, with the 

highest number of direct jobs supported by Alternative 2 and the lowest number 

of direct jobs supported by Alternative 1. In addition, each alternative is expected 

to meet the projected demand for Tongass timber. Therefore, each alternative is 

expected to meet the criterion of maintaining a viable industry. However, it is 

unclear how quickly industry will be able to “retool” mills and harvesting 

equipment and how markets will react to changing from old-growth to younggrowth forest products; thus, this criterion is associated with a relatively high 

degree of uncertainty. 

Under all alternatives, the harvest of old growth would diminish over time and the 

harvest of young growth would increase. Therefore, all of the alternatives would 

“conserve old-growth forests.” The largest old-growth harvest in the first 25 

years would be about 39,000 acres with Alternative 1. Each of the action 

alternatives would harvest less old growth, ranging from 15,000 acres with 

Alternative 2 to 24,000 acres with Alternative 5. The same pattern among the 

alternatives occurs with the 100-year harvest as well. 
Executive Summary 

Final EIS ES-13 Executive Summary

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy 

Another important part of the purpose and need for this project is the purpose of 

establishing new direction in the Forest Plan so that renewable energy 

development is more permissible. There is a need to stimulate economic 

development in Southeast Alaska communities, and provide low-carbon energy 

alternatives, thereby displacing the use of fossil fuel. Under the 2008 Forest 

Plan, siting of energy projects is limited in certain LUDs, and it would remain that 

way under Alternative 1. Under each of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 

4, and 5), changes would be made to the Forest Plan that would result in 

improved flexibility in siting and development of renewable energy projects. 

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas 

Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 IRAs are withdrawn from timber production and 

not suitable for timber production (FSH 1909.12, chapter 60, section 61.11). In 

Alternative 2, IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for road 

construction and timber harvest and in Alternative 3, all IRAs would be available 

for road construction and timber harvest. In both Alternatives 2 and 3, entry into 

IRAs would not be permitted without rulemaking or, in the case of Alternative 3, if 

the 2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated. Estimated acres of 

timber harvest in IRAs over 100 years would range from 0 acres for Alternatives 

1, 4, and 5, to 11,000 acres for Alternative 2, to 29,000 acres for Alternative 3. 

The protection of roadless characteristics would be directly proportional to the 

projected acres of timber harvest with Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 providing the most 

protection, Alternative 2 providing the second most protection, and Alternative 3 

providing the least protection. 

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy 

Relative to old-growth habitat conservation, Alternative 1 would have the highest 

harvest (1.3 percent of existing POG), followed by Alternative 4 (0.9 percent of 

existing POG), followed by Alternative 5 (0.8 percent of existing POG), followed 

by Alternatives 2 and 3 (0.7 percent of existing POG). The change in the percent 

of original POG remaining after 100 years would follow the same pattern. 

Currently, 92 percent of original POG is remaining; under all alternatives this 

percentage would drop by about 1 percent after 100 years. Alternative 1 would 

result in about 90 percent remaining and the action alternatives would each result 

in about 91 percent remaining. This same pattern would continue for the percent 

reduction in high-volume POG. The existing 86 percent of original high-volume 

POG remaining would be reduced to about 85 percent for all alternatives after 

100 years. For large-tree POG, about 79 percent of the original acres exist. 

Alternative 1 would result in about 78 percent remaining after 100 years, while 

the action alternatives would maintain about 79 percent. 

Young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary fringe would be lowest under 

Alternative 1 (no harvest). Under the action alternatives, no harvest of POG 

would occur, but impacts resulting from young growth harvest would be highest 

under Alternative 2, which would include the second highest amount of younggrowth acres and would allow clearcutting. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, 

considerable young-growth acreage would be harvested, but using commercial 

thinning, which would result in less effects than clearcutting. Alternative 5 would 

have the lowest effect on beach and estuary fringe among the action alternatives 

because young-growth acreage would be lowest and only patch cutting (with 

created openings up to 10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 35 percent of 

the acres of the original harvested stand) or commercial thinning would be 
Executive Summary 

Executive Summary ES-14 Final EIS

allowed and only during the first 15 years after Forest Plan approval with a onetime entry restriction. 

For RMAs, the lowest effects would be associated with Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, 

which would permit no harvest in RMAs. Alternative 2 would have the greatest 

harvest impacts in RMAs because it would include the highest amount of 

acreage and would allow clearcutting during the first 15 years of Forest Plan 

approval and commercial thinning thereafter. Effects to RMAs would be lower 

under Alternative 5 due to a lower amount of acres harvested and only patch 

cutting or commercial thinning would be permitted and only during the first 15 

years after Forest Plan approval with a one-time entry restriction. 

In the Old-growth Habitat LUD, Alternatives 1 and 4 would allow no young-growth 

harvest. The greatest amount of young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat 

LUD would occur under Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3 and 5. Effects 

would be greatest under Alternative 2 because it would allow clearcutting and 

have the largest harvest acreage, and less under Alternative 3 because only 

commercial thinning would be allowed, followed by Alternative 5 which would 

allow only patch cutting or thinning and only during the first 15 years after Forest 

Plan approval and with a one-time entry restriction. 

Average total road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) under all 

alternatives would be approximately 0.23 mile per square mile after 100 years, 

an increase of 0.03 to 0.04 mile per square mile above existing levels. 

Approximately 83 percent of WAAs would have total road densities ranging 

between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square mile under all alternatives. Total roads are 

conservatively defined to include open roads, closed roads, and decommissioned 

roads. Average open road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) would be 

approximately 0.09 mile per square mile, an increase of approximately 0.005 mile 

per square mile under all alternatives. Approximately 96 percent of WAAs would 

have open road densities ranging between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square mile 

under all alternatives. Therefore, any potential increase in hunter access or risk 

of overharvest for wildlife species would be minor and localized, and would not 

be measurable at the forest-wide scale under any of the alternatives. 

The transition to young-growth management would slow the long-term decrease 

in deer habitat capability due to the reduction in POG harvest. Based on 

Interagency Deer Habitat Capability model outputs, deer habitat capability under 

all of the alternatives would decline about 1 percent over 100 years. Forest-wide 

all alternatives would maintain about 99 percent of the existing deer habitat 

capability. Results based on the Forage Resource Evaluation System for Deer 

(or FRESH deer model) are very similar; Forest-wide, the existing level of habitat 

quality would be decline about 1 percent after 100 years under all alternatives. 

Cumulative POG harvest on all landownerships would be greatest under 

Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (in that order). Cumulative 

effects would be least under the alternatives that propose the shortest younggrowth transition time. After 100 years of Forest Plan implementation and nonNFS harvests, approximately 83 percent of the original (1954) total POG forest, 

about 76 percent of the original high-volume POG, and 63 to 64 percent of the 

original large-tree POG would be maintained on all landownerships under all of 

the alternatives. 

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships) would be similar among 

alternatives (about 0.45 mile per square mile), representing an increase of about 

0.11 to 0.12 miles per square mile above current conditions. Open road 

densities for all land ownerships would increase from about 0.22 mile per square 

mile to about 0.24 mile per square mile after 100 years under all alternatives. 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-1 Purpose and Need

Chapter 1.

Purpose and Need

Introduction

Forest land and resource management planning is a process for developing, 

amending, and revising land and resource management plans for each of the 

National Forests in the National Forest System (NFS). Forest plans are required 

by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) (16 United States Code 

[U.S.C.] parts 1600-1687). The 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest was 

the first forest to complete a Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

under the NFMA in 1979. That Forest Plan was amended in 1986 and 1991 and

revised in 1997. A final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

was completed in 2003, which further evaluated roadless areas for their 

wilderness potential. The Forest Plan was amended again in 2008 in response 

to a Ninth Circuit Court ruling and a 5-Year Plan Review completed in 2005. The 

revised Plan was amended 24 times between the 1997 revision and the 2008 

amendment, primarily to adjust small old-growth habitat reserve boundaries and 

for electronic/communication site designations. Since the 2008 amendment, the 

plan has been amended to establish the Héen Latinee Experimental Forest, 

disestablish the Young Bay Experimental Forest, add communication sites to the 

list in Appendix E, modify small old-growth habitat reserves, and make minor 

corrections to the plan.

On July 2, 2013, Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, issued Memorandum 

1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2013), which expressed the Secretary’s intent

to transition the Tongass National Forest to a young growth–based timber 

program in 10 to 15 years, more rapidly than considered in the 2008 Forest Plan. 

The Secretary asked that the Forest Service “[s]trongly consider whether to 

pursue an amendment to the Tongass Forest Plan. Such an amendment would 

evaluate which lands will be available for timber harvest, especially young growth 

timber stands, which lands should be excluded, and additional opportunities to 

promote and speed transition to young-growth management.” Recognizing the 

importance of retaining expertise and infrastructure, the Secretary also stated 

that the Forest Service “will continue to offer a supply of old growth timber while 

increasing the supply of young growth to provide industry in Alaska the 

opportunity to develop new markets, learn new skills, and acquire new 

equipment.” The Secretary also asked that a determination of whether to initiate 

an amendment be completed by September 30, 2013.

The Forest Service completed a Five-Year Review of the Forest Plan in 

September 2013. The results of the Five-Year Review and the Secretary’s 

Memorandum led to the Tongass Forest Supervisor making a determination that 

“...conditions on the land and demands of the public require the Tongass to 

modify the 2008 Forest Plan” (USDA Forest Service 2013a). A Notice of Intent 

(NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2014 

(79 Federal Register [FR] 30074) initiating a 30-day scoping period. Among the 

comments from the Five-Year Review and from scoping were those that
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-2 Final EIS

requested a transition to young-growth timber harvesting, ways to make 

renewable energy projects easier to implement, and a review of the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) inventoried roadless areas 

(IRAs). All comments were taken into consideration in identifying the scope of 

this Forest Plan amendment.

This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is a programmatic analysis 

prepared by the Forest Service that describes and analyzes changes to the 

Forest Plan to accomplish the transition to young-growth management as 

provided in the Secretary’s Memorandum. This FEIS evaluates which lands will 

be suitable for timber production, especially young-growth timber stands, and any 

changes or additions to management direction needed to promote and speed the 

transition to young-growth management while maintaining a viable timber 

industry in Southeast Alaska. This FEIS also describes and analyzes changes 

related to renewable energy development. The scope of the analysis is limited to 

these changes. 

This FEIS analyzes in detail four action alternatives for amending the Plan, in 

addition to a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). The analysis is published in 

two volumes. Volume 1 contains the FEIS, and Volume 2 contains the FEIS 

appendices. A complete Forest Plan Land Use Designation (LUD) map is 

provided for each of the alternatives in the Map Packet which accompanies the 

FEIS.

A separate document titled Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (i.e., 

the Forest Plan) is published along with the FEIS and represents the selected 

alternative (Alternative 5). Chapter 2 and Appendix F in the FEIS describe how 

the other alternatives compare to Alternative 5. Instead of repeating all of the 

changes in management direction common to Alternatives 1-4 and Alternative 5, 

management direction of the alternatives is displayed in a side-by-side 

comparative format to demonstrate how and where direction differs from 

Alternative 5.

This FEIS describes and analyzes changes to the 2008 Forest Plan and tiers to

and incorporates by reference the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan 

Revision FEIS (1997 FEIS), the 2003 Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for 

Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations (2003 FSEIS), and the 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment FEIS (2008 

FEIS), and the 2008 Record of Decision (2008 ROD). Where appropriate, 

information in these documents that is relevant to analysis in this FEIS is cited and 

incorporated by reference.

Forest Planning History on the 

Tongass National Forest

The NFMA, enacted in 1976, requires each national forest to develop a land and 

resource management plan and revise its plan every 10 to 15 years. The 

Tongass became the first National Forest to complete a Forest Plan under NFMA 

in April 1979. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

was signed into law December 2, 1980 (Public Law 96-187) and provided varying 

degrees of protection to over 157,000,000 acres of public lands in Alaska, 

including NFS lands. The 1979 Forest Plan was amended in 1986, reflecting 

changes mandated by ANILCA. The Forest Plan revision process began in 1987 

and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in June 1990. 

On November 28, 1990, the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) (Public Law 

101-626) was enacted. The TTRA amended ANILCA to protect certain lands in 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-3 Purpose and Need

the Tongass National Forest in perpetuity, to modify certain long-term timber 

contracts, to provide for protection of riparian habitat, and for other purposes. 

The 1979 Forest Plan was amended in February 1991 to incorporate the TTRA 

changes. The Forest Plan revision process continued with a Supplement to the

DEIS published in September 1991, which incorporated all changes required by 

TTRA and evaluated new alternatives. Following completion of the June 1990 

DEIS, TTRA designated five new wilderness areas and incorporated additional 

acres into an existing wilderness area. Therefore, the Forest Service did not 

reconsider roadless areas for potential wilderness recommendation. The Forest 

Service prepared an FEIS in the fall of 1992, but did not publish an associated 

ROD. The Regional Forester found there was new information that should be 

collected to respond to the 1982 National Forest Planning Regulations (36 Code 

of Federal Regulations [CFR] 219.19 (1982)). That process led to the 1997 FEIS 

and the Forest Plan Revision ROD (1997 ROD).

The 1997 Forest Plan was the subject of 33 appeals by organizations and 

individuals. In 1999, the Under Secretary of Agriculture affirmed the Regional 

Forester’s decision regarding all 33 appeals, based on the 1997 Tongass Forest 

Plan Revision FEIS and planning record. The Under Secretary issued a new 

ROD (1999 ROD) for the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision.

Two lawsuits challenged the 1997 and 1999 RODs in the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Alaska. The Alaska Forest Association and some Southeast 

Alaska communities challenged many aspects of the 1997 Plan and the process 

by which the 1999 ROD was issued. The Sierra Club and other conservation 

groups challenged the lack of wilderness area consideration and potential 

recommendations in the 1997 Plan Revision FEIS and ROD. The Court issued a 

single opinion for both cases in March 2001.

In the Alaska Forest Association case (Alaska Forest Association v. United 

States Department of Agriculture No. J99-0013 CV [JKS] [D. Alaska]), the U.S. 

District Court upheld the 1997 ROD against all challenges, but held that the 1999 

ROD was not properly adopted. The Court vacated the 1999 ROD and enjoined 

the Forest Service from implementation. The Court further directed the Forest 

Service to prepare a SEIS addressing the changes from the 1997 Tongass 

Forest Plan. Because of the extensive public involvement and scientific review in 

the 1997 ROD, and its thorough policy and legal review of the administrative 

appeal process and by the District Court, the Forest Service did not propose 

changes to the 1997 ROD similar to those enjoined by the District Court. 

In the Sierra Club challenge of the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan Revision FEIS 

(Sierra Club v. Lyons, No. J00-0009 CV [JKS] [D. Alaska]), the Ninth Circuit 

Court found the 1997 Tongass Forest Plan should have considered making 

wilderness recommendations in the FEIS. The Court ordered the Forest Service 

to prepare a SEIS evaluating wilderness recommendations for roadless areas on 

the Tongass and provide the relative contribution to the National Wilderness

Preservation System in its Analysis of the Management Situation. The Forest 

Service issued a Final SEIS and ROD for Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness 

Recommendations in February 2003, and no new wilderness areas were 

recommended in the ROD.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit (referred to as 

NRDC I) in the U.S. District Court of Alaska in December 2003 challenging the 

1997 Forest Plan and six timber sales. In January 2004, the NRDC filed a 

separate lawsuit on a seventh timber sale (referred to as NRDC II) and another 

lawsuit challenging an eighth sale in March 2004 (referred to as NRDC III). The 

District Court upheld the 1997 Forest Plan ROD and related National 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-4 Final EIS

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents on all claims in September 2004. 

NRDC appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth 

Circuit Court issued a ruling on NRDC I and NRDC II in August 2005 (Natural

Resources Defense Council, et al., v. United States Forest Service, et al., 421 

F.3d 797 [9th Cir.2005])). The Court found inadequacies primarily relating to the 

NEPA process for the 1997 Forest Plan. These inadequacies dealt with the 

timber demand estimates, the range of alternatives related to timber demand, 

and the cumulative effects analysis related to activities on non-NFS lands. While 

this process was taking place, the Forest completed a Five-Year Review of the 

Forest Plan. This review identified a number of items that could lead to 

adjustments to the Plan.

The 2008 Forest Plan was the subject of 15 appeals by organizations and 

individuals; however, one of those appeals was subsequently dismissed because 

its content did not meet the requirements of appeals (36 CFR 217.9). In August 

2008, the Chief of the Forest Service affirmed the Regional Forester’s decision 

regarding all appeals. 

On May 24, 2011, the Alaska District Court vacated the Tongass exemption1 and 

reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest (Organized 

Village of Kake, et al. v. USDA, et al.). As a result, the Tongass National Forest 

was subject to the provisions of the 2001 Roadless Rule. The State of Alaska 

subsequently appealed the District Court’s decision and the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the 

lower court for further consideration. On July 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals issued its en banc decision in Organized Village of Kake v. U.S. Dept. of 

Agriculture, 11-35517, upholding the Alaska District Court’s reinstatement of the 

Roadless Rule. Thus, the Tongass has been subject to the Roadless Rule since 

2011 and remains so today.

The 2012 planning rule for land management planning for the National Forest 

System was published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21162),

and it became effective on May 9, 2012. It was developed through the most 

collaborative rulemaking effort in Agency history to ensure an adaptive land 

management planning process that is inclusive, efficient, collaborative and 

science-based to promote healthy, resilient, diverse and productive National 

Forests and Grasslands. In January 2015, the Forest Service published the final 

planning directives, the key set of agency guidance documents that direct 

implementation of the 2012 planning rule.

This proposed plan amendment was developed under the provisions in the 2012 

Rule and changes made to the 2008 Forest Plan are presented in Chapter 5 of 

the proposed Forest Plan. Only those changes that were made to the 2008 

Forest Plan are described and analyzed in this FEIS.

Factors That Led to the Need for 

Change

Since approval of the Forest Plan in January 2008, management of the Tongass 

National Forest has been very challenging due to a number of factors, including 

administrative and judicial proceedings. Many of these factors were highlighted 

as concerns in the Five-Year Review of the Forest Plan (36 CFR 219.10(g) 

 1 The Roadless Rule was promulgated by the Department of Agriculture in 2001, limiting road 

construction and timber harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas. In 2003, the Department exempted 

the Tongass from the rule (68 FR 75136). 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-5 Purpose and Need

(1982)) that was conducted in 2013 (USDA Forest Service 2013h). Based on the 

Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan and challenges in carrying out projects 

since 2008, the Tongass Forest Supervisor determined that conditions on the 

land and demands of the public require the Tongass to change the 2008 Forest 

Plan (USDA 2013i). He also determined that stakeholder input would be used for 

making changes to forest management on the Tongass. This section provides 

the context for the factors that led to a need for change.

Roadless area conservation 

In January 2001, USDA published the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (36 

CFR 294 Subpart B), which generally prohibits cutting trees and building roads in 

inventoried roadless areas on NFS lands. Since its adoption in 2001, the 

Roadless Rule has been the subject of litigation concerning how it is to be 

applied to the Tongass. Stakeholders with an interest in these lands, such as 

utility companies, timber and mining interests, and local communities, have 

raised questions about how the Roadless Rule will affect permits, contracts and 

other special uses involving access, road construction and road maintenance in 

inventoried roadless areas within Alaska’s National Forests. The State of Alaska 

in 2001 filed a complaint in the United States District Court, District of Alaska, 

challenging the application of the Roadless Rule to the Chugach and Tongass 

National Forests. The Forest Service and the State of Alaska reached a 

settlement in 2003, and the Forest Service then published a rule temporarily 

exempting the Tongass National Forest from the Roadless Rule (68 FR 75136). 

In May 2011, the Alaska District Court vacated the Tongass exemption and 

reinstated the 2001 Roadless Rule on the Tongass National Forest (Organized 

Village of Kake, et al. v. USDA, et al.). After additional judicial proceedings, the 

Ninth Circuit Court issued an en banc decision in Organized Village of Kake v. 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 11-35517, upholding the Alaska District Court’s 

reinstatement of the Roadless Rule. In another court case, the State of Alaska 

has challenged the Roadless Rule in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia. Briefing in that case is currently being adjudicated. Thus, the Tongass 

has been subject to the Roadless Rule since 2011 and remains so today. 

Litigation

Timber harvesting is one of the many uses of the Tongass, and the timber 

resource is managed to produce sawtimber and other wood products on lands 

identified as suitable for timber production on an even-flow, long-term sustained 

yield basis and in an economically efficient manner. Harvest of old-growth trees 

has become increasingly controversial. Since 2008, litigation filed on individual 

Tongass timber sales is hindering the ability of the Forest to accomplish the 

objective of providing a reliable Federal timber supply. The decline in timber sale 

volume between 2008 and 2012 is based on a variety of factors including 

demand, economic conditions, harvest costs, policy changes and litigation. 

Annual harvest volumes averaged 36 MMBF between 2002 and 2014 (USDA 

Forest Service 2015a).

Collaboration

The Forest Service prepared the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment and the 

associated EIS in response to the Ninth Circuit court’s decision (Natural 

Resources Defense Council, et al. v. United States, Case No. 04-35868) and in 

response to the Five-Year Review of the 1997 Forest Plan that was completed in 

early 2005, which recommended several updates to the Plan. In the fall of 2006, 

while work was underway on the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan Amendment, The 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-6 Final EIS

Nature Conservancy formed the Tongass Futures Roundtable in an effort to bring 

stakeholders together to find practical solutions for industry, the Forest Service, 

communities, and conservation. The Roundtable brought together a diverse 

group of people and organizations long active in Tongass policy matters with the 

ultimate goal of developing consensus recommendations regarding where timber 

harvest should be allowed on the Tongass, and where timber harvest should be 

prohibited. The Roundtable also supported more diversified and sustainable 

local economies in communities across Southeast Alaska, including efforts to 

reduce the high energy costs that impede economic diversification by promoting 

development of renewable energy in communities that currently depend on diesel 

generators to provide electrical power. Although the Roundtable dissolved in 

2011, several important relationships were established that laid the groundwork 

for the “Transition Framework” discussed below. Building on the efforts of the 

Roundtable, including supporting more diversified and sustainable economies in 

the communities of Southeast Alaska, representatives of the Forest Service, 

USDA Rural Development, and the Economic Development Administration 

conducted a series of listening sessions in the fall of 2009 in all 32 communities 

in Southeast Alaska to solicit ways to stimulate job creation and economic 

diversification throughout the region.

The 2008 Forest Plan decision acknowledged the “...expected increase in 

young-growth management over the next few planning cycles...and the 

increasing public interest in this conversion, which will ultimately reduce the need 

for old-growth timber resources and the associated need for development in 

roadless areas” (USDA 2008a). In 2010, the Forest Service, in partnership with 

other agencies within the USDA, announced a “Transition Framework” for 

Southeast Alaska (Alexander et al. 2010). The Transition Framework was 

developed as a strategy for developing economic opportunities in renewable 

energy, forest restoration, fisheries and mariculture, tourism and recreation, and 

subsistence. The goal of the Transition Framework is to conserve the Tongass 

National Forest while providing economic opportunity and stability to Southeast 

Alaska communities. The high cost of energy was soon identified as a major 

barrier to sustainable economic development in the region. As the Transition 

Framework continued to progress in 2011, the USDA agencies, working with the 

Juneau Economic Development Council, collaborated with over 120 business 

and community leaders to develop economic diversification initiatives through the 

creation of business clusters that, by 2013, included clusters for Ocean Products, 

Visitor Products, Renewable Energy, Mining Services and Supply, and Research 

and Development, as well as the Working Forest Group to address timber 

management issues.

2012 Planning Rule 

While these collaborative efforts were underway in Southeast Alaska, the USDA 

was also pursuing similar approaches for planning across the National Forest 

System. These efforts resulted in publishing the 2012 planning rule for land 

management planning on April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21162). The 2012 Planning Rule 

was developed through the most collaborative rulemaking effort in Agency history 

to ensure an adaptive land management planning process that is inclusive and 

science-based to promote healthy, National Forests and Grasslands. In addition, 

the Secretary of Agriculture established an advisory committee under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to provide recommendations on how to carry out 

the Planning Rule. 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-7 Purpose and Need

Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan

In 2013, the Tongass conducted a Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan to 

provide the Forest Supervisor with insight into views about the Forest Plan and 

projects carried out under the plan to assist in determining whether any actions 

are needed to change the plan. As part of this review, the results from and data 

evaluated in the Monitoring and Evaluation Reports (2008 to 2012) was 

considered. The Tongass staff engaged internal and external stakeholders and 

the public to obtain feedback on how the plan is working since 2008 (i.e., what is 

working well, what is not working, what is not addressed in the plan, whether 

changes are needed), and held public meetings in seven communities in 

Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest Service, 2013h). There were 152,182 

comments submitted by individual citizens, Federal and state agencies, tribal 

governments, local governments, businesses, special interest groups, and nongovernmental organizations. The comment period generated 3,104 coded 

comments, which were grouped into 24 Statement of Concern (SOC) Topics. 

The five SOC Topics with the most comments received were: 1) Tongass 

National Forest Management issues (644); 2) Timber (323); 3) Land Use 

Designations (285); 4) Socio-economics (281); and 5) Energy (239). 

Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1044-009 

It was in the context of sustained collaborative efforts to promote more 

sustainable economic diversification and a more sustainable timber management 

program on the Tongass National Forest that the Secretary of Agriculture issued 

Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska, 

on July 2, 2013. The memorandum focused on speeding the transition to 

management of second-growth (previously harvested) forests. In addition to 

speeding the transition to management of second-growth, the memorandum 

references the increased support USDA had provided over the previous three 

years under the Transition Framework to support “alternative economic 

development opportunities for communities across the region in the recreation, 

tourism, fishing and renewable energy sectors,” and directs such collaborative 

efforts to continue “to help strengthen and diversify local economies.”

An outgrowth of the Transition Framework, the Secretary’s memorandum directs 

management of the Tongass National Forest to “expedite the transition away 

from old-growth timber harvesting and towards a forest products industry that 

uses predominantly second-growth – or young-growth – forests.” It also affirmed 

that “this transition to a more ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable 

forest management is a high priority for USDA, the Forest Service, and the 

Tongass National Forest.” The memorandum directs the transition to be carried 

out in a manner that preserves a viable timber industry that provides jobs and 

opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents, with the goal of carrying out the 

transition over the next 10 to 15 years, so that at the end of this period the vast 

majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth. It also directed the 

Forest Service to continue working with Congress to provide some flexibility with 

regard to culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) requirements, which is 

essential to permit the development of economically viable young growth projects 

within the timeframe set as a goal for the transition. The Secretary’s 

memorandum also announced that USDA would establish an advisory committee 

under the FACA to provide recommendations to the Forest Service on ways to 

expedite the young-growth transition. In February 2014, this committee was 

designated as the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC). 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-8 Final EIS

Congressional Action

In December 2014, Congress passed legislation – Carl Levin and Howard P. 

“Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 – that 

authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to allow the harvest of trees before the 

culmination of mean annual increment of growth to facilitate the transition from 

timber harvest of old growth stands. 

Change Determination

After completion of the Five-Year Review of the 2008 Forest Plan, the Tongass 

Forest Supervisor concluded that conditions on the land and demands of the 

public had changed and therefore the Tongass National Forest should make 

changes to the Forest Plan (USDA 2013). Concerns were consistently 

expressed during the Five-Year Review about the impact of high fossil fuel 

prices; the adverse effect of high energy costs on economic diversification and 

sustainable economic development; and increasing climate change on the quality 

of life in Southeast Alaska. Concerns were also expressed that the 2008 Plan’s 

direction regarding transportation and utility systems (TUS), including the TUS 

overlay LUD, were overly complex, confusing, and difficult to implement, creating 

an impediment to development of hydropower, other types of renewable energy, 

and transmission lines needed to connect communities to sources of electric 

power. Based on this review, the Forest Supervisor determined to propose 

changes to the Forest Plan to make the development of renewable energy 

resources more permissible – including allowing greater project-level 

consideration of transportation and utility corridors and removing the TUS LUD –

to stimulate renewable energy development in Southeast Alaska communities, 

provide low-carbon energy alternatives, and reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Purpose and Need

Purpose 

The Forest Service determined that it is necessary to amend the 2008 Forest 

Plan. Amending the Forest Plan originates from the July 2013 memo from the 

Secretary of Agriculture directing the Tongass National Forest to transition its 

forest management program to be more ecologically, socially, and economically 

sustainable, while also being responsive to comments from the Five-Year Review

of the Forest Plan. The purpose of this plan amendment is to:

• Review lands within the plan area to determine suitability for timber 

production, especially young-growth timber stands.

• Identify the projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ) and the sustained yield 

limit (i.e., the ecological yield of timber that can be removed annually on a 

sustained yield basis).

• Establish plan components (e.g., standards and guidelines) for young-growth 

forest management and renewable energy development to guide future 

project decision-making.

• Consolidate modifications made to the Forest Plan since its approval.

Need

An amendment is necessary for responding to the July 2013 direction from 

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined in the Secretary’s Memorandum 1044-
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-9 Purpose and Need

009. The memorandum directs management of the Tongass National Forest to 

expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting and towards a 

forest products industry that uses predominantly second-growth – or younggrowth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum also directs that the 

transition must be implemented in a manner that preserves a viable timber 

industry that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. 

USDA's goal is to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that 

at the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be 

young growth. This timeframe will conserve old-growth forests while allowing the 

forest industry time to adapt. The 2008 Forest Plan provides for a transition to 

young growth over time, but there are challenges in establishing an economically 

viable young-growth forest management program due to the relatively young age 

of the available stands, market conditions, and other factors. Secretary Vilsack’s 

direction requires Forest Plan amendments to guide future management of NFS

lands and allocation of resources on the Tongass National Forest under the 

multiple-use and sustained yield mandate. 

The need to amend the plan is further corroborated by the Five-Year Review of 

the Forest Plan, completed in 2013, which concluded that conditions on the land 

and demands of the public necessitate the Tongass National Forest to make 

changes to the Forest Plan. Concerns were consistently expressed during the 

Five-Year Review regarding the impact of rising fossil fuel prices and increasing 

climate change on the quality of life in Southeast Alaska. Changes to the Forest 

Plan are needed to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible, including considering access and utility corridors to stimulate 

economic development in Southeast Alaska communities, and provide lowcarbon energy alternatives, thereby displacing the use of fossil fuel.

Forest Location and Description

The 16.7-million-acre Tongass National Forest (Tongass or Forest) occupies 

about 7 percent of the area of Alaska. The Tongass is located in the 

southeastern portion of the state (the area commonly called the panhandle of 

Alaska or Southeast Alaska) and extends from Dixon Entrance in the south to 

Yakutat Bay in the north, and is bordered on the east by Canada and on the west 

by the Gulf of Alaska. The Tongass extends approximately 500 miles north to 

south and approximately 120 miles east to west at its widest point. Figure 1-1 is 

a vicinity map of the Forest. 

The Tongass includes a narrow mainland strip of steep, rugged mountains and 

icefields and more than 1,000 offshore islands known as the Alexander 

Archipelago. Together, the islands and mainland have nearly 11,000 miles of 

meandering shoreline, with numerous bays and coves. A system of seaways 

separates the many islands and provides a protected waterway called the Inside 

Passage. Federal lands comprise about 95 percent of Southeast Alaska, with 

about 80 percent in the Tongass National Forest and most of the rest in Glacier 

Bay National Park and Preserve. The remaining land is held in state, Native 

corporations, and other private ownerships. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-10 Final EIS

Figure 1-1. 

Tongass National Forest Vicinity Map
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-11 Purpose and Need

Most of the area of the Tongass is undeveloped. Approximately 74,000 people 

inhabit Southeast Alaska, primarily in 32 communities located on islands or 

mainland coastal areas. Only eight of the communities have populations greater 

than 1,000 persons. Most of these communities are surrounded by, or adjacent 

to, NFS land. Only three communities are connected to other parts of the 

mainland by road: Haines and Skagway in the north and Hyder in the southeast. 

In December 2014, the President signed into law the Carl Levin and Howard P. 

‘Buck' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public 

Law 113-291). Title XXX, subtitle A, sec. 3002 of this law contains provisions to 

convey nearly 70,000 acres of NFS land in the Tongass to Sealaska, a regional 

Native corporation; change the land allocation of over 150,000 acres to 

“conservation areas” or LUD II; and allow for the harvest of trees prior to the 

culmination of mean annual increment of growth to facilitate the transition away 

from commercial timber harvest of old-growth stands among other provisions. 

Public Issues

The economies of Southeast Alaska’s communities rely on the Tongass National 

Forest to provide natural resources for uses such as fishing, timber harvesting, 

recreation, tourism, mining, and subsistence. Maintaining the abundant natural 

resources of the Forest, while providing opportunities for their use, is a major 

concern of Southeast Alaska residents. 

Ranger District offices on the Tongass National Forest are located in Yakutat, 

Juneau, Hoonah, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Thorne Bay, Craig, and Ketchikan. 

There are also two National Monuments; Admiralty Island is managed by a 

Monument Ranger who shares an office in Juneau with the Juneau District 

Ranger and Misty Fiords managed by the Ketchikan District Ranger in Ketchikan 

(Figure 1-1). 

Public Participation

As explained in the Factors That Led to the Need for Change section above, the 

Tongass has been encouraging meaningful public input and involvement in 

development of the Forest Plan. After completion of the Five-Year Review of the 

2008 Forest Plan in 2013, the Tongass Forest Supervisor determined that 

conditions on the land and demands of the public had changed and therefore the 

Tongass National Forest should make changes to the Forest Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2013h).

In February 2014, the USDA established the charter for a Federal Advisory 

Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to advise the 

Secretary and Chief on transitioning the Tongass to young-growth forest 

management. This committee, known as the TAC, included members

representing federally recognized Indian Tribes, Alaska Native corporations, 

conservation organizations, timber industry, state and local governments, and 

other interests.

An NOI to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 30074) initiating a 30-day public 

scoping period. The Forest Service requested public comments concerning the 

scope of the analysis until June 26, 2014. The Forest Service received 

approximately 124,000 letters and of these, 250 letters were unique. Comments 

and information from a wide variety of commenters including Forest Service 

personnel, public, other federal, state and local agencies, and non-governmental 

organizations were considered. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-12 Final EIS

Identification of issues helps define or predict the resources or uses that could be 

most affected by the management of NFS lands. These issues are used as a 

basis to formulate management alternatives or to measure differences between 

alternatives. 

Public involvement activities that have taken place since May 2014 include the 

following:

• An NOI to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 

2014 (79 FR 30074) initiating a 30-day public scoping period. The Forest 

Service requested public comments concerning the scope of the analysis 

until June 26, 2014. The Forest Service received approximately 124,000 

letters and of these, 250 letters were unique. Comments and information 

from a wide variety of commenters including Forest Service personnel, 

public, other federal, state and local agencies, and non-governmental 

organizations were considered. These comments are included in the 

Planning Record.

• The responsible official encouraged federal and state agencies and local 

governments to participate in the forest planning effort as cooperating 

agencies. On September 9, 2014, the Forest Service invited the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental Protection Agency, State of 

Alaska, and all federally recognized Indian Tribes in Southeast Alaska. Of 

those invited, the USFWS accepted cooperating status with respect to the 

Forest Plan Amendment and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) with the Forest Service in February 2015.

• A Forest Plan Amendment Web site was developed in September 2014 and 

has been maintained to inform and engage the public since then. It is 

updated as new information is developed or published and provides a 

mechanism for public input. This site can be accessed at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/PlanAmend

• The responsible official encouraged participation from youth. Since 

December 2014, members from the plan amendment interdisciplinary team 

(IDT) have been engaging a youth advisory council comprised of high school 

students from the Ketchikan High School. The Forest Service wanted to 

expose young people to natural resource management on the Tongass, as 

well as engaging them in the public involvement process so their voices can 

be heard. The youth advisory council provided written comments on the 

Proposed Forest Plan and DEIS.

• On November 13, 2015, the responsible official provided to the Alaska Native 

Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations the opportunity to consult on a 

Government-to-Government and Government-to-Corporation level and 

inviting them provide input on the Proposed Forest Plan and associated 

DEIS and they were provided document access prior to the publication of the 

notice of availability (NOA) of the DEIS in the Federal Register on November 

20, 2015 (80 FR 72719). Consultation has been conducted throughout the 

planning process, and is ongoing.

• In January and February 2015, public open house were held in Juneau, 

Sitka, and Ketchikan to engage the public in the planning process and share 

information about the progress being made on the Proposed Forest Plan and 

DEIS. All of the open house materials were posted on the Forest Plan 

Amendment Web site.
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-13 Purpose and Need

• In May of 2015, the TAC provided the Secretary with a comprehensive 

package of draft recommendations for the Forest Plan Amendment. The 

plan amendment IDT incorporated the draft recommendations that were 

applicable to amending the Forest Plan. These recommendations provided 

specific constraints related to transitioning the Tongass to young-growth 

forest management.

• On November 20, 2015, an NOA of the DEIS was published in the Federal 

Register (80 FR 72719), which started the 90-day public comment period.

• After reviewing the DEIS and Proposed Forest Plan, the TAC provided its 

final recommendations to the Secretary for the Forest Plan Amendment in 

December 2015.

• In January and February 2016, the Forest Service hosted nine public open 

house meetings, each followed by a subsistence hearing. These public open 

house meetings were held in the following Southeast Alaska communities: 

Klawock, Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg, Juneau, Sitka, Hoonah, Yakutat, 

and Kake. Participants had the opportunity to review the contents of the 

Proposed Forest Plan, including the five alternatives analyzed in the DEIS. 

Forest Service staff provided an overview, listened to public concerns, and 

was available to answer questions. The public was also invited to submit 

written comments during the open house. Although an ANILCA Section 810 

evaluation and determination was not required for approval of a Forest Plan 

amendment (see Subsistence section in Chapter 3 of FEIS), subsistence 

hearings were held after each open house meeting, which gave the public an 

opportunity to provide oral testimony regarding concerns about the Proposed 

Forest Plan Amendment on subsistence uses.

• More than 165,000 comments were received during the DEIS comment 

period. These comments are summarized and addressed in Appendix H, 

DEIS Comments and Responses. All comments received during the DEIS 

comment period are included in the Planning Record.

Significant Issues

The Forest Service used the scoping process to determine the scope of issues to 

be addressed and identify the significant issues related to a proposed action.

When identifying issues to be analyzed in the environmental analysis, it is helpful 

to ask, “Is there disagreement about the best way to use a resource, or resolve 

an unwanted resource condition, or potentially significant effects of a proposed 

action or alternative?” If the answer is yes, the Forest Service may benefit from 

subjecting the issue to analysis. This is called a significant issue. Entire 

resources cannot be issues by themselves, but concerns over how a resource 

may be affected by the proposal can be issues.

Significant issues are those related to significant or potentially significant effects

and are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action or alternative. These issues drive the range of alternatives and 

effects analysis. 

The Four Significant Issues

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping.
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-14 Final EIS

Issue 1 –Young Growth Transition

The Secretary of Agriculture asked the Forest Service to transition to a younggrowth-based timber management program on the Tongass National Forest in 10 

to 15 years, which is more rapid than planned. This transition is intended to 

support the Tongass managing its forest for an ecologically, socially, and 

economically sustainable forest management program and reduce old-growth 

harvest while still providing economic timber to support the local forest products 

industry.

The issue concerns financial efficiency, salability, and volume of future timber 

sales. It also relates to the potential local employment and revenues generated 

for communities in the local area. Young-growth stand growth rates, sustainable 

harvest rates, the amount of old-growth harvest needed during transition to 

sustain the timber industry, also known as “bridge timber,” and the locations 

where young-growth harvest would take place are some of the factors to be 

considered.

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

The development of renewable energy projects on the Tongass would help 

Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel dependence, stimulate 

economic development, and lower carbon emissions in the Region.

This issue relates to comments received during the Five-Year Review of the 

Forest Plan. The Forest Service should promote the development of renewable 

energy projects to help Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil energy 

dependence, where it is compatible with National Forest purposes and to ensure 

that the planning, construction, and operation of projects protect and effectively 

use NFS lands and resources. 

Issue 3 –Inventoried Roadless Areas

Timber harvest and road building that occurred in roadless areas before the 2001

Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) was enacted and during the 

Tongass exemption period changed the values or features that often characterize 

inventoried roadless areas in some locations.

Issues and concerns received during scoping as well as during the Five-Year 

Review process expressed concerns about roadless areas on the Tongass; both 

in favor of protections afforded under the 2001 Roadless Rule as well as 

requesting that the forest plan be amended to address the significant changes 

brought about by its re-instatement on the Tongass. 

Some people believe roadless areas on the Tongass should be allowed to evolve 

naturally through their own dynamic processes and should be afforded protection 

that ensures this will occur. Others believe that limiting road construction and 

reconstruction or other management actions in roadless areas might restrict the 

delivery of goods, services, and activities that these areas might otherwise 

provide. 

Roadless areas are considered important because they support a diversity of 

aquatic and terrestrial habitats, species, and communities, and play an important 

role in helping to conserve native plant and animal communities and biological 

diversity. They also provide people with unique recreation opportunities. 

During the Tongass exemption period and before the 2001 Roadless Rule was 

enacted, road construction, reconstruction, and the cutting, and sale of timber in 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-15 Purpose and Need

some IRAs occurred. As a result, these activities in some IRAs may have altered 

the roadless characteristics.

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy

Old-growth timber harvest has changed the composition and spatial patterns of 

terrestrial wildlife habitats. How the resulting young-growth is managed may 

influence the future ecological integrity of the landscape at various scales. 

Changes made to suitable lands designated for development, and to plan 

components (e.g., standards and guidelines) may affect old-growth habitat for 

wildlife and the Tongass Old-growth Habitat Conservation Strategy and 

contributing elements to old-growth reserves (e.g., riparian, beach and estuary 

habitats).

The Tongass National Forest supports an important assemblage of wildlife many 

of which are associated with or at least partially dependent on old-growth forest 

including one of the largest populations of brown bears in the world, high 

densities of breeding bald eagles, the Alexander Archipelago wolf, species of 

high importance for subsistence (e.g., Sitka black-tailed deer), an extensive array 

of endemic mammals, and other species that are dependent on old-growth 

habitats (e.g., marten and goshawk). The Tongass Old-growth Habitat 

Conservation Strategy is considered important for the continued health of oldgrowth associated wildlife populations in Southeast Alaska. 

Timber harvest, minerals and renewable energy development, and road 

development can have effects on the habitat and populations of many of these 

species and the diversity and integrity of Southeast Alaska ecosystems. Less 

than 10 percent of the productive old-growth habitat on the Tongass has been 

converted to young growth, the percentage is much higher for certain types of old 

growth, such as lowland and large-tree old growth. In addition, non-NFS old 

growth has generally been harvested at a much higher rate. Therefore, the 

consideration of harvest and road building on wildlife in Southeast Alaska are 

greater than the effects for the Tongass by itself.

Changes between the Draft EIS and 

Final EIS

A number of updates and changes were made in the FEIS and Forest Plan in 

response to new information and to comments received on the DEIS and 

Proposed Forest Plan. The main areas of change to the EIS are described 

below. Changes to the Forest Plan are described in the next section.

1. Refinements were made to base Geographic Information System (GIS) 

coverages such as ownership, streams, cover type, roads, and LUDs to 

reflect updates due to changes in the existing condition and refinement of 

inventory data (e.g., updated young-growth inventory).

2. Because of refinements made to the base GIS coverages, the acreages and 

mileages associated with the existing condition and the alternatives changed, 

in many cases, and were updated throughout the document. Input data for 

the Woodstock model was also updated based on GIS refinements. 

Sometimes analysis methods were also refined, which resulted in changes to 

the quantification of effects.

3. The method of calculating suitable forest land was refined, including the 

model for calculating the riparian management area. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-16 Final EIS

4. Alternative 5 was revised to add a 100-foot buffer around anadromous lakes 

in order to provide similar protection afforded by the Tongass Timber Reform 

Act.

5. Alternative descriptions in Chapter 2 were revised to call out additional 

differences between the alternatives, including the anadromous lake buffer

and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon conservation priority areas, and 

Tongass 77 watersheds under Alternative 5.

6. Cost assumptions used in the Woodstock model were updated and additional 

cost factors were included as inputs. The model was rerun for each 

alternative. The FEIS was updated to reflect the revised model outputs.

7. Expanded discussion and analysis and incorporation of additional scientific 

references and studies were included in many sections of the FEIS. 

8. FEIS Appendix B was updated and additional information on modeling and 

analysis techniques was added.

9. FEIS Appendix D was updated and additional analysis and information was 

incorporated.

10. FEIS Appendix H was added to provide information on the Alaska Limited 

Timber Export Policy.

11. FEIS Appendix I was developed, which summarizes the comments received 

on the DEIS and the Forest Service responses to these comments. Copies 

of the letters received from agencies and elected officials, including tribal 

governments, are also included. 

Changes between Proposed Forest 

Plan and Forest Plan

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Purpose

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Relationship to Other Documents

Content was edited to correct clerical errors. A footnote was also added to clarify 

the definition for plan content.

Plan Organization

Plan content regarding the plan monitoring program was updated.

Forest Plan Management Direction

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Priority of Direction

Additional content was added to clarify that the direction in Chapter 5 assumes 

all laws, regulations, and policy pertaining to management of National Forest 

resources will be followed.
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-17 Purpose and Need

Forest Location and Description

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Chapter 2 – Goals and Objectives

Introduction

Content was edited to correct clerical errors.

Forest Desired Conditions

The following was removed from the fifth desired condition: “...considered 

threatened or endangered in the lower 48 states...” This statement was removed 

because it does not add any meaning, and the USFWS found wolves to not be 

warranted for listing under the endangered species act. Other edits to desired 

conditions included removing the underlining.

Ecosystem Services

No content was edited in this appendix.

Forest-wide Multiple Use Goals and Objectives

Clarifications were made regarding references to Forest-wide goals or objectives 

in Chapter 5. The goal or objective codes were included.

Clarifications were made to Transportation goals to ensure that access to 

Southeast Alaska communities is primarily achieved through Federal Highway 

Administration highways and roads in easements to the State of Alaska. The 

Forest Service will consider adding access points to facilitate implementation the 

State of Alaska’s Southeast Transportation Plan (SATP) to tie the objective to the 

transportation plan.

Chapter 3 – Management Prescriptions

Land Use Designations

Land Use Designation Allocations were updated due to the refinements that were 

made to base GIS coverages in the FEIS.

Some wording that was deleted in the Proposed Forest Plan was restored. In the 

Proposed Forest Plan, some LUD Standards and Guidelines that repeated

Forest Service Directive System wording (Forest Service Handbook [FSH] or 

Manual [FSM]) or repeated existing direction was deleted because it was not 

necessary. FSH 1909.12, chapter 20, section 22.1, paragraph 2f states that plan 

components should not should not repeat existing direction from laws, 

regulations, or directives. However, public comments expressed concerns about 

the “breadth” or expansiveness of these changes, giving the appearance of a 

broad-based amendment. (See FEIS Appendix H, Purpose and Need, Planning 

Rule sections.) Although these changes are administrative, for clarity’s sake, the

changes have been restored to the original language in the following LUDs: 

Wilderness, Research Natural Area, Municipal Watershed, Old-growth Habitat, 

Remote Recreation, Land Use Designation II, Wild River, Experimental Forest, 

Modified Landscape, Timber Production, and Minerals Overlay.
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-18 Final EIS

Tables that cross-reference, by resource, the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines (Chapter 4) were edited based on the restored original language in 

Chapter 4 (explained below), as well as internally identified corrections that were 

needed in the section and subsection columns. The titles of the tables that 

cross-reference, by resource, the plan components (Chapter 5), were edited to 

reflect the title of Chapter 5 (i.e., plan content). Chapter 5 identifies “direction” for 

young-growth, renewable energy, and transportation systems corridors, and this 

word was added for clarity when cross referencing.

Chapter 4 – Standards and Guidelines

The corrections that were made to remove Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines that referenced directives (FSH or FSM), or repeated existing 

direction have been restored to original language for reasons as described above 

for Chapter 3 - Management Prescriptions. Although these changes are 

administrative, for clarity’s sake, the changes have been restored to the original 

language in the following resource sections: Air, Fish, Lands, Plants, Recreation 

and Tourism, Soil and Water, Subsistence, Timber, Trails, Transportation, and 

Wildlife.

Chapter 5 – Plan Content Developed Under the 

2012 Planning Rule

Introduction

Content was edited for clarity. A footnote was also added to clarify the definition 

for plan content. Under the Plan Components section, the definition for a 

standard was added for clarity.

Changes Made in the 2008 Forest Plan

This section was removed from Chapter 5 and placed in Chapter 1 of the FEIS.

Young Growth Direction

Several clarifications were made to the young-growth plan components based on 

final TAC recommendations (Forest Plan Appendix B), response to public 

comments (FEIS Appendix I), as well as internally identified clarifications. The 

management approach for young growth regarding the internal scientific review 

on young-growth timber projects that intersect with high value fish watersheds

was updated based on final TAC recommendations (Forest Plan Appendix B, 

and public comments (see Appendix H, Specific Comments). The Scenery

standard S-YG-SCENE-02 was removed based on IDT discussions with the TAC

in December 2015, and the removal of this recommendation in their final 

recommendations. (Consult Forest Plan Appendix B.) The management 

approach for wildlife regarding young-growth harvest in the Old-Growth Habitat 

LUD to determine if Appendix K criteria could be met, was clarified in response to 

internal comments.

Renewable Energy Direction

Several clarifications were made to the renewable energy plan components 

based on public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Fish, Transportation and Utility 

System LUD , Renewable Energy), as well as internally identified clarifications. A 

management approach for renewable energy was added based on public 

comments that expressed concerns that renewable energy plan components 
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-19 Purpose and Need

may take priority over environmental protective measures. The fish standard SRE-FISH-01 was clarified in response to public comments that expressed 

concerns about potential impacts of renewable energy development on fish.

Transportation Systems Corridors Direction

Clarifications were made to the transportation systems corridors plan 

components in response to public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Purpose and 

Need, Planning Rule, Road Density, Transportation and Utility System LUD , 

Specific Comments), as well as internally identified clarifications. In the 

introduction to this section, the following sentences was added for clarification 

and to be similar to what was stated in the renewable energy direction: Timber

cut incidental to transportation systems corridors should be managed according 

to FSH 2409.18, chapter 80, section 84, Timber Settlement. This also helped to 

clarify management approach for timber. Lands standard S-TSC-LAND-02 was 

added in response to public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Transportation and 

Utility System LUD , Specific Comments), and this was also an internally 

identified oversight/correction, and was added to be similar to renewable energy 

standard S-RE-TRAN-01. Soil and Water standard S-TSC-SW-01 was changed 

to guideline G-TSC-SW-01 based on an internally identified correction. As a 

standard, this constraint would have required measuring percent of vegetation 

cover required to maintain soil cover. More flexibility is desired when 

implementing this as a guideline.

Forest-wide Plan Components

Forest Desired Conditions (Chapter 2)

The following sentence was removed from desired condition DC-04 based on an 

internally identified clarification: “Other management activities should not conflict 

with transportation operations.” Although the intent of this sentence was written 

to ensure that if a transportation systems corridor was likely, the Forest Service 

should not authorize other activities that would conflict, it was interpreted as if 

nothing should get in the way of a road. For this reason it was removed.

Forest-wide Multiple-use Goals and Objectives (Chapter 

2)

Clarifications were made to timber objective O-TIM-01 in response to public 

comments (FEIS Appendix H, Purpose and Need, Specific Comments), as well 

as internally identified clarifications. Timber objective O-TIM-02 was rewritten in 

response to public comments (FEIS Appendix H, Specific Comments). 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (Chapter 4) 

Beach and Estuary Fringe (BEACH)

The forest-wide standard S-BEACH-01 was clarified in response to public 

comment (FEIS Appendix H, Specific Comments), as well as internally identified 

clarifications.

Timber (TIM)

A forest-wide timber standard S-TIM-01 was added based on an internally 

identified comment. A plan for a national forest that intends to sell timber must 

identify the sustained yield limit (SYL) as directed by FSH 1909.12, chapter 60, 

section 64.31.
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-20 Final EIS

Chapter 6 – Implementation

Content in this chapter was edited to remove references to Appendix J and to the 

Tongass Strategic Plan (Strategy for Management and Priority Setting – FY 2013 

thru FY 2017). This was an oversight in the Proposed Forest Plan. The Tongass 

National Forest has not updated its strategic plan. Therefore, language was 

added stating that the Forest Plan was consistent with several of the goals and 

objectives in the USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan: FY 2015-2020. The 

Decision Document section was removed because it repeated requirements of 

the following documents: 36 CFR 219.14 and FSH 1909.12, chapter 20, section 

21.4. Both of these documents may change over time. It would be better for 

employees to check the CFR and Agency directives rather than refer to the plan 

content that may become out-of-date. 

Chapter 7 – Glossary

This chapter was updated to remove glossary terms that had “strike throughs” in 

the Proposed Forest Plan. Some terms were further clarified. Additional terms 

were added for clarity.

Appendices

Appendix A –Timber Resource Land Suitability

Table A-1 was updated based on GIS refinements. Content was also updated 

based on final TAC recommendations (Forest Plan Appendix B) and in response 

to public comments (FEIS Appendix I, Specific Comments). Two tables were 

added to represent the following: 1) Estimated Vegetation Management Practices

(Annual Average per Decade), and 2) Average volume outputs for the 1st and 

2nd decades for Tongass National Forest planned timber sale program. 

Appendix B – Tongass Advisory Committee 

Recommendations

Content in this appendix was replaced in its entirety by the TAC Final 

Recommendations (December 2015) as reflected in the Forest Plan.

Appendix C – Watershed Analysis

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.

Appendix D – Riparian Management Area Standards and 

Guidelines

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.

Appendix E – Communication Sites

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.

Appendix F – Visual Priority Routes and Use Areas

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors.
Purpose and Need 1

Final EIS 1-21 Purpose and Need

Appendix G – Log Transfer Facility Guidelines

No content was edited in this appendix.

Appendix H – Karst and Cave Resources

No content was edited in this appendix.

Appendix I – ROS Class Standards and Guidelines

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors. 

Appendix J – Special Land Designations or 

Classifications

Content in this appendix was edited to correct clerical errors. The Red River 

Research Natural Area was added as this was an oversight in the Proposed 

Forest Plan.

Appendix K – Old-growth Habitat Reserve Modification 

Procedures

No changes were made to this appendix.

Appendix L – Special Interest Areas and Experimental 

Forests

This appendix is now Appendix J. Additionally, the contents in this appendix 

were updated to reflect changes made to special interest areas and experimental 

forests. Land descriptions previously found in Chapter 3 were moved to this 

appendix to consolidate similar content and eliminate redundancy.

Organization of the Document

Organization of EIS and Associated 

Documents

This FEIS is organized into several chapters (Volume I) and a number of 

appendices (Volume II). Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need,” describes the reasons 

for proposing and completing a plan amendment. Chapter 2, “Alternatives,” 

describes the process used to develop alternatives, discusses alternatives not 

considered in detail, and describes the alternatives considered in detail. Finally, 

a comparison of these alternatives based on the key elements of the alternatives, 

and the significant issues is presented. 

The discussions of the “Affected Environment” and the “Environmental 

Consequences” are combined in Chapter 3, “Environment and Effects.” This is 

done so the environmental consequences (effects or impacts) of the alternatives 

on forest resources, and the background information needed to understand these 

consequences, are discussed together for each resource. The focus is on 

effects that are related to the significant issues. Chapter 3 also includes a brief

description of the physical, biological and socioeconomic settings of the Tongass 

National Forest. 
1 Purpose and Need

Purpose and Need 1-22 Final EIS

The FEIS also includes a list of preparers; a list of agencies, organizations, and 

persons receiving copies of the document; a bibliography; a glossary; and an 

index (Chapters 4 through 8). A complete Forest Plan suitability map is provided 

for each of the alternatives in the Map Packet that accompanies the FEIS hard 

copy and CD. 

Appendices to the FEIS are contained in a separate volume (FEIS Volume II). 

They provide more background on planning actions, certain resources and 

analyses, modeling and analysis techniques, and past and reasonably 

foreseeable projects.

In addition to the FEIS, a separate document, called the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), has been published with this FEIS, to 

represent the Forest Plan under the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 5).

Additional information, maps, and published documents for the Tongass Forest 

Plan Amendment are contained in the Planning Record. Key documents and 

records are also available on the Forest Plan Amendment Web site

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/PlanAmend ). These can also be accessed 

through the main Tongass Web site (www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass). The complete 

Planning Record is on file at the Supervisor’s Office in Ketchikan, Alaska.
CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES

CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-1 Alternatives

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for amending the 

2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). The Forest 

Service developed five alternatives for detailed analysis, including the no action and 

proposed action alternatives, in response to the significant issues. Alternatives are 

presented in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each 

alternative and providing a basis for the rationale for eventual selection of an 

alternative in a decision. Chapter 2 is divided into four parts:

1. A discussion of how alternatives were developed and what constitutes an 

alternative;

2. A discussion of alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study;

3. A full description of the alternatives that are considered in detail; and

4. A comparison of the alternatives considered in detail.

Color maps showing Land Use Designations (LUDs) and lands suitable for timber 

production are included in the Map Folder of the CD version of the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and in the Map Packet accompanying the 

hard copy version. These maps are also available on the Tongass Planning Web 

site at www.fs.usda.gov/main/tongass/landmanagement/planning. 

Alternative Development Process

What a Forest Plan Includes

Land management planning may be compared to city, county, or borough zoning. 

Just as areas in a community are zoned as commercial (allowing business uses), 

industrial (allowing factories), or residential (allowing only homes, schools, etc.), a

National Forest is zoned to allow, or not allow, various uses and activities. Land 

management (forest plan) zoning is done through the use of land use designations 

(LUDs) that are applied only to National Forest System (NFS) lands on that NFS 

unit.

Land Use Designations specify ways of managing an area of land and the resources 

it contains. LUDs may emphasize certain resources (such as remote recreation or 

old-growth wildlife habitat) or combinations of resources (such as providing for 

scenic quality in combination with timber harvesting). Each LUD has a detailed 

management prescription, which includes the following elements of Forest Plan

management direction: Land Use Designation Standards and Guidelines, Forestwide Standards and Guidelines, and Plan Components1.

Each management prescription specifies what is to be considered for site-specific 

project proposals, and under what conditions. Management prescriptions apply to 

NFS lands.

LUDs are assigned, or allocated, to specified areas of land. Under any one 

alternative, a given area of land will generally have only one LUD assigned to it. 

However, the Minerals LUD is an overlapping land allocation and can apply to a

 1 Plan components are desired conditions, goals, objectives, suitability of lands, standards, and guidelines 

as defined in the 2012 Planning Rule.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-2 Final EIS

given piece of ground when and if a minerals Plan of Operation is approved on that 

piece of ground. In some other cases, two LUDs may apply to the same area, such 

as a Wild River LUD within a Wilderness LUD. In these cases, the more restrictive 

management prescription always applies. Some LUDs, such as Wilderness and 

LUD II, are congressionally designated and represent permanent allocations.

Forest resource use opportunities, such as timber harvesting or recreation, can be 

made available in different amounts. What lands to make available for timber 

harvest or how much of a particular kind of recreation opportunity to provide are 

questions that land management planning must also address. It is not always 

possible to provide all resource use opportunities in the amounts desired by 

everyone. The National Forest Management Act mandates the Forest Service to 

provide for multiple use and the sustained yield of the products and services

obtained from the Forest.

The alternatives themselves are designed around a framework that establishes how 

much emphasis is placed on each of the significant issues or other issues. The 

FEIS alternatives are directly related to the issues described in Chapter 1. How 

alternatives were developed to address the issues is discussed below. The 

Comparison of Alternatives section at the end of this chapter also discusses ways in 

which the alternatives address the issues.

How Alternatives are Described

Each alternative for this FEIS is presented in the same format. This includes the 

following components:

• Framework and Expected Outputs. The basis for alternative design and 

outputs that are expected in the future under each alternative.

• Land Use Designations. The acreages allocated to each Land Use 

Designation. 

• Management Prescriptions. Changes to the Forest Plan management 

direction.

• Selected Outputs and Measures. A summary of predicted outputs and 

measures associated with each alternative.

Land Use Designations

The alternatives are developed using the LUD allocations defined in the 2008

Tongass Forest Plan as the base. This base represents the current Tongass Forest 

Plan based on decisions made in the 2008 Record of Decision (ROD) and 

subsequent Forest Plan Amendments made for projects since 2008, as well as land 

adjustments in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.

2

The LUD allocations of the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan define the no action 

alternative (Alternative 1). The LUD allocations for the action alternatives are similar 

to the no action, but incorporate some adjustments. The management prescriptions 

for each specific LUD under the Alternative 1 are the same as under the 2008 Forest 

Plan (see Chapter 3 of the current Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 2008a).

How the 2012 Planning Rule applies

The proposed plan amendment adds provisions to and modifies provisions of the 

2008 Forest Plan. As explained in Chapter 6 of the amended plan, the 2012 

 2 Public law No. 113-291, December 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3729, section 3720(e)(4).
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-3 Alternatives

Planning Rule requirements for project consistency with plan components apply only 

to additions and modifications (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 219.15(d)). 

This proposed amendment has met the applicable procedural requirements of the 

2012 Planning Rule. That is, the amendment meets section 219.2(b)(3), to consider 

the best scientific information (219.3), to provide opportunities for public participation 

and give public notice (219.4, 219.16), to set out direction in the form of plan 

components (219.7(e)), to amend plans in accordance with a specific process 

(219.13), to include specific information in a decision document (219.14), to state 

whether or not projects authorized at the time of amendment may continue without 

change (219.15), and to provide an objection opportunity (parts 219.50-219.62). 

The responsible official has determined that for this amendment only a part of the 

substantive provisions of 36 CFR 219.11 apply. The proposed plan amendment: 

1. Identifies specific young-growth stands as suitable for timber production using 

the provisions of 36 CFR 219.11(a). Such stands include young growth in the 

beach and estuary fringe, riparian management areas, and in the Old-Growth 

Habitat LUD. 

2. Includes plan components specific to guide young-growth harvest for timber 

production and other multiple-use purposes using the provision of 36 CFR 

219.11(b). 

3. Includes plan components specific to guide young-growth harvest for purposes 

other than timber production including improving or maintaining fish and wildlife 

habitat using the provision of 36 CFR 219.11(c).

4. Includes plan components specific to guide young-growth harvest to constrain 

timber harvest consistent with protection of soils, watershed, fish, wildlife, and 

scenic resources using the provisions of 36 CFR 219.11(d). The plan 

amendment does not change the plan direction for old-growth timber harvest. 

5. Includes a standard for young-growth harvest before the culmination of mean 

annual increment to recognize the acreage limitation of subsection (e)(4)(B) of 

Public Law 113–291, Sec. 3002, subsection (e)(4)(A). 

Some people may question this determination of limiting the substantial applicable 

requirements to section 219.11. However, the responsible official has the discretion 

to determine whether and how to amend the plan. The responsible official also has 

discretion to determine the specific changes to propose and approve. The rule 

provides that “[p]lan amendments may be broad or narrow, depending on the need 

for change,” and that “[t]he responsible official has the discretion to determine 

whether and how to amend the plan” (36 CFR 219.13(a)). The rule reinforces the 

principle by providing that the rule “does not compel a change to any existing plan” 

(36 CFR 219.17 (c)). 

Note that the first paragraph of 36 CFR 219.11 states that a plan must meet timberrelated requirements “while meeting the requirements of §§ 219.8 through 219.10,” 

and it has been argued that an amendment applying either of these sections would 

require a transformation of a plan to meet all the substantive requirements of the 

rule. Clearly, this phrase is intended for new or revised plans; otherwise, a simple, 

narrow proposal to change a plan developed under the 1982 rule would be 

impossible.

Future Project Consistency with the Amended

Plan

Project consistency with the amended plan is complex. Plan direction that is 

unchanged by this amendment must be consistent in a different way than new plan 

direction added by this amendment.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-4 Final EIS

Plan direction in the 2008 Forest Plan (e.g., standards and guidelines) was

developed under the 1982 Planning Rule (47 Federal Register [FR] 43026). The 

1982 Planning Rule did not provide specific criteria to evaluate consistency of 

projects or activities with the plan. Forest Service policy was that consistency could

only be determined with respect to standards and guidelines, or just standards

because an individual project alone could almost never achieve objectives and 

desired conditions (77 FR 21241, April 9, 2012)

The 2008 Forest Plan defines a guideline as “a preferred or advisable course of 

action or level of attainment designed to promote achievement of goals and 

objectives.” Standards are mandatory and guidelines are discretionary in the 2008 

Forest Plan. 

The 2012 Planning Rule includes specific requirements for plan components (36 

CFR 219 parts 219.8–219.11) and definitions for plan components are rigid. The 

2012 Planning Rule defines a guideline as a constraint on project and activity

decision-making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of 

the guideline is met. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, standards and guidelines are 

both mandatory constraints and projects and activities must be consistent with the 

applicable standards and guidelines. The 2012 Planning Rule also includes 

consistency provisions at 36 CFR 219.15(d) that apply only to plan components 

developed under the 2012 Planning Rule. Therefore, any substantial changes to 

plan direction must be consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule.

To avoid confusion, most changes to plan direction are based on the 2012 Planning 

Rule and are written as plan components and are found in Chapter 5 of the Forest 

Plan. The plan direction in the 2008 Forest Plan that is not changed, for example 

Wilderness standards and guidelines, will retain standards (mandatory) and 

guidelines (optional) as defined by the 1982 Planning Rule. 

Alternative Development

The proposed action (Alternative 2) was developed to maximize or emphasize the 

percentage of the volume coming from young growth as early as possible, while 

minimizing any potential effects on the old-growth conservation strategy and other 

resources, and to make the development of renewable energy resources more 

permissible in the plan area (see Chapter 1 Purpose and Need). Alternatives to the 

proposed action were developed in response to the significant issues (see Chapter 

1, Issues). Ten alternatives were considered as part of the alternative development 

process. These include alternatives recommended in scoping comments, other 

comments, and developed internally by the plan amendment interdisciplinary team 

(IDT). Of these, five alternatives were eliminated from detailed study and are 

discussed in the following section (Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study). 

Five alternatives (including the proposed action) are considered in detail in this 

FEIS. They are designed to provide a range of reasonable ways to address the 

Purpose and Need. 

Basic tools used in the development of the alternatives include recent timber 

demand projections (Pacific Northwest Research Station 2016), Tongass GIS 

databases, and the existing inventory of roadless lands (based on the 2001 

Roadless Rule). Maintaining the integrity of the old-growth conservation strategy

was also a major consideration in alternative development. Alternative proposals

from other agencies or non-governmental organizations were considered along with 

alternatives developed internally by the plan amendment IDT.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-5 Alternatives

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed 

Study

Develop an Amendment using the 1982 Planning 

Rule Provisions

The 2012 Planning Rule gave the discretion to the Agency to initiate a plan

amendment using the 1982 Planning Rule provisions for 3 years after May 9, 2012

(36 CFR 219.17(b)(2)). The Forest Service decided to use the 2012 Planning Rule

provisions to amend the Forest Plan since that will best segue into the next revision 

of the plan. Since the scope of this amendment is narrow, it is less complicated to 

address and compare alternatives in a plan amendment under one set of 

regulations. Having one or more alternatives that used the 1982 Planning Rule 

provisions would make comparing these alternatives to the alternatives under the 

2012 Planning Rule provisions more difficult since the definitions of plan 

components and their intent have changed from the 1982 Planning Rule. Most 

notably how standards and guidelines are defined and used (see discussion above 

in Future Project Consistency with the Amended Plan section). Therefore, any 

alternative that proposed using the 1982 Planning Rule provisions was removed 

from detailed consideration. Alternative 1 (no action) represents current 

management which follows the 1982 Planning Rule provisions in their entirety.

Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

Comments suggested that the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange 

be included as an action common to all alternatives in the plan amendment. In 

determining whether the proposed land exchange fits within the scope of the EIS, 

the Forest Service considered three types of actions: connected, similar, and 

cumulative actions (40 CFR 1508.25). 

The proposed land exchange is not a connected action (i.e., an action that is 

“closely related” to the proposal and alternatives, and provides a basis for evaluating 

their environmental consequences together). Connected actions automatically 

trigger other actions, they cannot or will not proceed unless other actions have been 

taken previously or simultaneously, or they are interdependent parts of a larger 

action and depend on the larger action for their justification. 

The proposed land exchange is not similar to the action being proposed in this plan 

amendment. For these reasons, the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Land 

Exchange is not analyzed in detail in an alternative.

In terms of being a cumulative action, when viewed with the proposed actions for the 

plan amendment, the proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange is 

considered a reasonably foreseeable action and, therefore, is discussed and 

considered in this EIS.

State of Alaska Alternative

The State of Alaska proposed an alternative which was modeled and analyzed 

intensively before removing it from detailed consideration. Similar to Alternative 1

(no action), no commercial harvest would be allowed in non-development LUDs, 

Beach and Estuary Fringe, Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), or highvulnerability karst. In addition, this alternative would follow the timber sale program 

adaptive management strategy.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-6 Final EIS

This alternative differs from Alternative 1 in that the Timber Production, Modified 

Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs would be consolidated into a single LUD

and labeled “Development LUD.” Additionally, timber harvest and road construction 

would be allowed in 2001 Roadless Rule inventoried roadless areas. 

Forest Plan direction for scenery (scenic integrity objectives [SIOs]) would not be 

established for areas within the Development LUD so that harvest could occur 

without specific constraints (e.g., standards and guidelines) to minimize scenery 

effects. However, this alternative would include a mitigating factor for scenery and 

wildlife. The factor limits the amount of area in a large watershed that can be younggrowth forest; the total acreage in even-aged stands younger than 150 years would 

be limited to one-third of the total acreage of forest land within each Value 

Comparison Unit (VCU). The elimination of the requirement to harvest no earlier 

than at 95 percent of culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI) (see Alternative 

1 description) would not be incorporated into this alternative.

This alternative was modeled using Woodstock (Walters 1993), a forest 

management linear programming modeling system that accommodates binary 

search and Monte Carlo simulation, in order to determine how quickly this alternative

could transition to a harvest level dominated by young growth (see Appendix B). 

Modeling results indicated that transitioning to a point where about 41 million board 

feet (MMBF) of young growth and 5 MMBF of old growth could be harvested each 

year would require just over 30 years. The amount of young-growth timber on lands 

suitable for timber production in this alternative would be slightly less than in

Alternative 1. Removal of the scenery standards would increase young-growth

harvest in the early years. Not eliminating the CMAI requirement would decrease 

young-growth harvest, relative to Alternative 1, which would allow elimination of the 

CMAI requirement. 

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need because it would not transition 

in 10 or 15 years and, in fact, would not increase the transition speed, relative to 

Alternative 1. Therefore, this alternative was not carried forward for detailed 

analysis in the EIS. 

Immediate End to Old-growth Logging

Several scoping comments suggested an alternative that transitions away from oldgrowth management and into young-growth management immediately. Such an 

abrupt change would result in substantial adverse effects on the timber industry of 

Southeast Alaska for two reasons: 

1. the abrupt change would make it difficult or impossible for mills to quickly re-tool 

so they could process young growth; and

2. the availability of economically viable young growth is currently limited and, as a 

result, the Forest Service would likely offer substantially less timber volume than 

the projected demand (Table 2-1).

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because it does not 

meet the purpose and need. Specifically, ending old-growth logging immediately 

would not meet the need for maintaining a viable timber industry that provides jobs 

and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-7 Alternatives

Transition to Limited Young-Growth Logging in 

Five Years

Some comments requested a 5-year transition. In a detailed proposal, a constraint 

was added that the total initial volume would be 35 MMBF per year and the oldgrowth portion of that would steadily decrease over five years to a final volume of 

3.5 MMBF or less per year. The goal is to increase young-growth volume during this 

5-year period to maintain the total volume at 35 MMBF per year. Total volume is not 

to exceed 35 MMBF per year after the transition and is expected to be made up of 

31.5 MMBF of young growth and 3.5 MMBF of old growth. This alternative was 

modeled using Woodstock (Walters 1993), a forest management linear 

programming modeling system that accommodates binary search and Monte Carlo 

simulation, and extensively analyzed (Appendix B).

To obtain this volume, the alternative would allow old-growth harvest only in Timber

Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy Phase I lands of the 2008 Forest Plan 

and outside of inventoried roadless areas. Similarly, young-growth harvest would 

also be allowed only in Phase I lands and only in Development LUDs outside of 

inventoried roadless areas; no harvest would be permitted in Beach and Estuary 

Fringe, RMAs, or in any lands identified as low, medium, or high vulnerability karst. 

This alternative would allow harvest of stands at ages younger than 95 percent of 

CMAI. In order to obtain sufficient young-growth volume to transition in five years, 

this alternative harvests stands as young as 55 years of age. As a result, a large 

number of trees in these stands produce only one log per tree, resulting in higher 

logging costs and smaller wood producing less revenue. This alternative also 

prioritizes the young-growth stands that may be harvested to achieve sufficient 

volume to maintain 35 MMBF per year.

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for these reasons:

• The phase-down of old growth would result in too rapid of a transition to allow 

the timber industry time to retool. The purpose and need for this amendment, 

which relies on the Secretary’s July 2013 memo, identifies a 10- to 15-year 

period for industry to adapt. 

• Further, this alternative would not allow the Forest Service sufficient time to offer 

enough economic old-growth and young-growth volume during the next 10 or 

more years to maintain the current timber industry (Table 2-1), even if it could 

adapt that rapidly. 

• This alternative is the most restrictive of the alternatives considered in terms of 

which young-growth stands may be harvested, and even without these 

restrictions, there is insufficient economic young-growth volume available to 

produce 31.5 MMBF per year by the end of Year 5. 

• Harvesting 55-year-old trees does not appear to be practical or economic in 

Southeast Alaska. The market for large volumes of young-growth logs has not 

yet been demonstrated and this is especially true for small logs from 55-year-old

stands. 

• Recent experience and modeling indicates that the majority of trees in 55-yearold stands will produce only one log per tree. This results in higher logging 

costs and substantially lower revenues per acre (smaller diameter logs and 

fewer logs per acre).

• Stands producing only one log per tree, would result in much higher levels of 

slash (due to the fact that there would be many logs left behind that are almost 

long enough, but not quite). These slash levels may produce dense slash on 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-8 Final EIS

the forest floor with negative effects on regeneration, wildlife movement and 

forage, and/or recreation and scenery.

• Based on current demand projections, a total of 35 MMBF is insufficient to

maintain the current industry (Table 2-1).

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis because it does not 

meet the purpose and need. 

In an attempt to modify this alternative so that it would be economic and meet the 

purpose and need, the interdisciplinary team changed its volume requirements to be 

the same as the alternatives analyzed in detail (i.e., 46 MMBF per year total volume, 

emphasizing young growth as much as possible, with old growth declining to a 

maximum of 5 MMBF per year). In addition, the minimum stand ages for harvest 

were changed to 65 years for high site and 75 years for lower site stands. 

After modeling, it was observed that the volumes produced by this modified 

alternative were similar to the volumes produced by Alternative 4 (see Alternatives

Considered in Detail section). Alternative 4 is very similar to this modified alternative 

in terms of its framework; the primary difference is that Alternative 4 allows 

commercial thinning in the Beach and Estuary Fringe. This small difference was 

judged to be insufficient to justify inclusion of an additional alternative so the 

alternative was eliminated from detailed evaluation.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Table 2-1 displays the projected timber harvest under a baseline and three 

additional demand scenarios developed for the Tongass National Forest by Daniels

et al. (2016). Under these demand scenarios the harvest projection would be 42

MMBF in 2016 and would increase under all scenarios to maximums ranging from 

46 to 76 by 2030. The scenarios are described in detail in the Economic and Social 

Environment section of this EIS (see Tables 3.22-8 to 3.22-10 and Figures 3.22-7 

and 3.22-8 and associated text).

Table 2-1

Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model 

and Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF)

Year Baseline Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three 

2015 40.9 40.9 40.9 40.8

2016 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6

2017 42.3 42.3 43.4 42.5

2018 43.1 43.1 46.3 43.3

2019 43.8 43.8 49.2 44.1

2020 44.5 44.5 52.1 45.0

2021 45.3 45.3 55.1 45.8

2022 46.0 46.0 58.0 46.7

2023 46.7 46.7 60.9 47.5

2024 47.5 47.5 63.8 48.4

2025 48.2 44.0 63.0 45.0

2026 48.9 44.5 65.7 45.6

2027 49.7 45.0 68.4 46.2

2028 50.4 45.5 71.0 46.8

2029 51.1 45.9 73.7 47.4

2030 51.9 46.4 76.4 47.9
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-9 Alternatives

In past Forest Plan revisions and amendments, varying demand scenarios were 

used to develop alternatives, including scenarios that allowed for growth and 

expansion of the current industry. In this amendment, the purpose and need 

identifies the need to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting 

and towards a forest products industry that uses predominantly second-growth – or 

young-growth – forests. Therefore, examination of alternatives at levels above 

projected demand is not warranted because these would require expansion of oldgrowth harvest levels, at least during the next 10 to 15 years. However, over the 

longer term, expansion of the timber industry is an option as more and more young 

growth becomes economic to harvest. 

Therefore, Alternatives 1 through 5 were designed to correspond with current 

demand projections and produce a projected timber sale quantity (PTSQ)3 of about 

46 MMBF per year during the next 15 years, with old growth making up a decreasing 

percentage of the total. Old-growth volume would continue to decrease until it 

reaches about 5 MMBF per year and it would remain at that level, to support limited 

small timber operators. As more young growth becomes economic to harvest, the 

PTSQ would be allowed to increase. In no case, would the harvest level be allowed 

to exceed the sustained yield limit (SYL) (see Glossary and the Timber section of 

this EIS).

Even though Alternative 1 (no action) represents current management, it is modeled 

to follow the same volume production pattern. The July 2013 Secretary’s memo

identified a need to change direction in the 2008 Forest Plan (see Purpose and 

Need in Chapter 1) and without this amendment, the Tongass would be transitioning 

toward young-growth and away from old-growth harvest. 

Provisions Common to all Alternatives

Under all alternatives, there is flexibility in terms of when young-growth stands may 

be harvested. Under Public Law 113-291, up to 15,000 acres of young growth may 

be harvested from 2016 through 2025, in stands less than 95 percent of CMAI. This 

CMAI flexibility may continue after 2025 (with annual maximums); however, the total 

acreage harvested at less than 95 percent of CMAI cannot exceed 50,000. In 

addition, young-growth sales under this provision may not be offered unless they 

represent non-deficit sales.4 There is flexibility in NFMA to allow a continuation of 

harvesting at younger ages beyond 2025.

LUD Changes Common to the Action Alternatives

The LUD allocations for each alternative are described in the following alternativespecific descriptions. The LUDs for Alternative 1 (no action) are the same as the 

LUDs of the current Forest Plan. The LUDs of the action alternatives are different 

from Alternative 1 LUDs because of Old-growth Habitat LUD changes. Under Public 

Law 113-291, approximately 70,000 acres of NFS land were conveyed to Sealaska 

Corporation and an additional 152,000 acres were converted to LUD II. As a result

of the land conveyance, old-growth reserves (OGRs) in 16 VCUs were affected. 

Beginning in February 2015, an interagency review team of biologists worked to 

develop a biologically preferred option for modifying these OGRs that meets Forest 

Plan Appendix K criteria and to document why other proposals are not 

recommended. In September 2015, the interagency review team produced a 

biologically preferred option (see Appendix E), which was incorporated into each of 

 3 PTSQ is a new term defined in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 60. The term allowable sale quantity (ASQ) is not 

used with the 2012 planning rule. 

4

Any sale of trees pursuant to the authority granted under subparagraph (A) shall not— (iii) be advertised 

if the indicated rate is deficit (defined as the value of the timber is not sufficient to cover all logging and 

stumpage costs and provide a normal profit and risk allowance under the appraisal process of the Forest 

Service) when appraised using a residual value appraisal.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-10 Final EIS

the action alternatives. Therefore, the Old-growth Habitat LUD acres vary between 

Alternative 1 and the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5).

In addition, the Transportation and Utility Systems LUD would be removed under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. The LUD management prescription would be replaced 

by plan components under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 and would provide 

management direction for renewable energy and transportation systems corridors

(see Chapter 5 in the proposed Forest Plan). 

Forest Plan Direction Common to the Action Alternatives

Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, Forest Plan direction in Chapter 5 that is common 

is presented in Appendix F and includes: 

Young-growth Direction

(Desired Conditions) DC-YG-01, DC-YG-02, DC-YG-03, DC-YG-05; DCYG-KC-01, DC-YG-RIP-01, DC-YG-SW-01

(Suitability of Lands) SUIT-YG-BEACH-01

(Objectives) O-YG-01, O-YG-02, O-YG-03 

(Goals) GL-YG-02, GL-YG-03, GL-YG-04, GL-YG-05

(Standards) S-YG-FAC-01, S-YG-LAND-01, S-YG-REC-01, S-YG-SW-01

Management Approaches for Karst and Cave Resources, Recreation and 

Tourism, Soil and Water, and Timber

Renewable Energy Direction

All plan direction, except S-RE-SCENE-01 would not apply to Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 2, the following standard would be applied:

S-RE-SCENE-01: Apply the forest-wide standards and guidelines of 

the Very Low Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) to renewable energy 

sites.

All Management Approaches - Renewable Energy, Scenery, and Wildlife

Transportation Systems Corridors Direction

All plan direction.

All Management Approaches - Fish, Forest Health, Recreation and Tourism, 

Scenery, Timber, and Wildlife

Forest-wide Direction

All plan direction.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Framework and Expected Outputs

The no action alternative represents current management direction (2008 Forest 

Plan) and includes the application of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule) (36 CFR 294 Subpart B). As noted above, it also follows the 

direction provided in the July 2013 Secretary’s memo, which identified a need to 

transition away from old-growth harvest. Under this alternative, timber harvest 

would follow the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy (USDA

Forest Service 2008c). A color map showing the phases in this strategy is provided 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-11 Alternatives

along with the FEIS. Timber harvest is currently restricted to areas within Phase 1 

of the strategy and timber harvest would have to reach 100 MMBF for two years 

before harvest could occur in Phase 2 areas. Timber management would be 

restricted to the development LUDs and would remain outside of inventoried 

roadless areas. No commercial harvest would be allowed in beach and estuary 

fringe or RMAs. All other 2008 Forest Plan management direction would be 

followed.

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. However, beyond that, the minimum harvest age would return to 95 percent 

of CMAI except under exemptions provided by the NFMA. 

Alternative 1 would result in the most old-growth harvest among the alternatives

over both 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-2 summarizes the key elements of 

Alternative 1 and Table 2-3 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and 

projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would 

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce about 8 MMBF of young growth and 38

MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-1). From Year 10 

through Year 25, it is projected to produce about 15 MMBF of young growth and 31

MMBF of old growth per year. At about Year 32, the young-growth harvest is 

expected to increase to about 41 MMBF and the old-growth harvest would decrease

to 5 MMBF per year. The young-growth harvest is expected to continue to increase

at a rapid rate after Year 32 and is expected to reach an upper limit of about 133

MMBF in about Year 38. The old-growth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per 

year to support small and micro sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state including inventoried 

roadless areas. Old-growth conditions would prevail on lands within these roadless 

areas. Old-growth harvest would continue at a declining rate, compared with current 

conditions, while young growth harvest would increase as young-growth stands 

mature and become increasingly economic. A predictable and sustainable supply of 

forest products would contribute to a limited integrated timber industry in Southeast 

Alaska for the foreseeable future. A mixture of old growth, recently harvested areas, 

and various ages of young growth occurs within roaded areas. Recreation, tourism, 

and subsistence opportunities emphasize natural setting types, although roaded 

opportunities expand slightly from current conditions due to construction of 

additional roads outside of inventoried roadless areas. 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-12 Final EIS

Table 2-2

Key Elements of Alternative 1

Old-growth Harvest

• Follows 2008 Forest Plan Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy for 

Phases 1, 2, and 3

• No harvest allowed in Inventoried Roadless Areas

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including Clearcutting

• Allows no harvest in Natural Setting LUDs 

• Allows no harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas

• Allows no commercial harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe or in RMAs

• There is flexibility to harvest 50,000 acres at a younger age than 95% of CMAI per 

Public Law 113-291

• Scenery standards (SIOs) would not be modified for young growth

LUD Changes

• None

Other New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• None

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 1 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-3 would result. Figure 2-2 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 1 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-3 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing LUDs, the Timber Sale 

Program Adaptive Management Strategy, and lands suitable for timber production 

under Alternative 1 are included in the Map Folder of the CD version of the FEIS and 

in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.

Management Prescriptions 

Under Alternative 1, the management prescriptions identified in the 2008 Forest 

Plan would continue to be in effect. These represent the 2008 Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Figure 2-1

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 1 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old-Growth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-13 Alternatives

Selected Outputs

Table 2-4 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

Table 2-3

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 11

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 7,464,989

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 0

Development LUD Group5 3,367,736

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 329,615

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 263,904

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres during first 25 Years

Old Growth 38,527

Young Growth 9,669

Projected Harvest Acres during first 100 Years

Old Growth 62,851

Young Growth 209,882 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for the Transportation and Utility Systems LUD because 

it is a series of corridors with undefined width and imprecise locations. Totals may not exactly equal 

the sum of individual entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes all Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Municipal Watershed, Wild,

Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and 

Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

4 No LUDs meet these criteria. 

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though lands are not suitable for timber production.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-14 Final EIS

Figure 2-2

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 1 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-15 Alternatives

Table 2-4

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 11 

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 45%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 0%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 0

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 1.3%

Percent of Original (1954) Productive Old Growth remaining after 100

Years (92% in 2016) 90%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth

(acres) 328,615

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth

(acres)

263,904

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ) 2 in MMBF 138

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 38

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 32

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 281/944

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 64/428

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years

(miles) 160/887 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Framework and Expected Outputs

As in Alternative 1, this alternative would follow the existing timber sale program 

adaptive management strategy for old-growth harvest (USDA Forest Service 2008c)

(see color map accompanying the FEIS); as a result, all old-growth harvest would 

come from Phase 1, at least during the first 15 years or so. After harvest volume 

exceeds 100 MMBF for two years, it is possible that limited old-growth harvest could 

occur in Phase 2 areas. Young-growth harvest could come from any phase of the 

strategy at any time. The portions of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were 

roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 2001 Roadless Rule 

exemption period for the Tongass would be available for young-growth and oldgrowth harvest. This would require rulemaking to modify 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4). If 

selected, no harvest could occur in IRAs until rulemaking is completed. No 

Roadless Area harvest outside of these roaded areas would be allowed.

Alternative 2 would differ substantially from Alternative 1 in terms of lands identified 

as suitable for young-growth timber production. Young-growth management would 

be allowed in both development and natural setting LUDs (except for 

Congressionally designated and administratively withdrawn areas, such as 

Wilderness, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), in beach and estuary fringe, 

RMAs outside of Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) buffers, and high-vulnerability 

karst. 

Young-growth management may include clearcutting in all areas, except in RMAs

and on high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial thinning (up to 33 percent 

basal area removal) would be allowed. After 15 years, clearcutting would no longer 

be allowed in the beach and estuary fringe and only commercial thinning would be 

allowed. In addition, in beach and estuary fringe, the intent is to maintain an 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-16 Final EIS

approximate 1,000-ft wide protected corridor adjacent and inland of any even-aged 

harvest unit to function as an alternate, low elevation, natural habitat corridor.

Scenery standards for young-growth management would be relaxed. The SIOs

would be designated as Very Low for all LUDs and distance zones. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. Scenery standards for 

renewable energy development would be relaxed to Very Low for all LUDs and 

distance zones.

Among the action alternatives, Alternative 2 would provide the largest amount of 

timber volume (old growth and young growth combined), including the largest 

amount of young-growth volume from lands suitable for timber production. It would 

result in the smallest amount of old growth timber volume over both 25-year and 

100-year periods. Table 2-5 summarizes the key elements of Alternative 2 and 

Table 2-6 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest 

acres under this alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1), 

emphasizing young growth and minimizing old growth. As such, it is expected to 

produce an average of about 22 MMBF of young growth and 24 MMBF of old growth 

per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-3). From Years 11 through 15, 

Alternative 2 is projected to produce an average of 61 MMBF of young growth and 5 

MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 2 would likely reach a full transition 

harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 12. Young-growth harvest is 

expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 12 and is expected to 

reach an upper limit of about 120 MMBF in Year 17. The old-growth harvest rate 

would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state. The portions of the 

IRAs that were roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 2001 

Roadless Rule exemption period for the Tongass would be available for harvest

after rulemaking. Old-growth conditions would prevail on forest lands within IRAs

that have not been roaded. Following the transition period, the young-growth based 

timber industry would have the potential for substantial growth as more younggrowth stands become economic to harvest. Young growth may be harvested by 

clearcutting and other prescriptions in natural setting LUDs and beach and estuary 

fringe, but only commercial thinning (33 percent basal area removal) would occur in 

RMAs outside of TTRA buffers. A small old-growth based industry would continue 

after transition with an annual volume of about 5 MMBF being offered through the 

small and micro sale programs. A mixture of old growth, recently harvested areas, 

and various ages of young growth would occur within the roaded IRAs. Recreation, 

tourism, and subsistence opportunities would continue to emphasize natural setting 

types, although some additional roaded opportunities would be developed. Scenery

impacts would occur in some visually sensitive areas because scenery standards for 

young growth harvest would be Very Low. 

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 2 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-6 would result. Figure 2-4 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 2 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-6 for 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-17 Alternatives

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 2 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.

Figure 2-3

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 Years in 

5-Year Periods under Alternative 2 showing Volume (MMBF) contributed 

by Old-Growth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 

Management Prescriptions 

The proposed Forest Plan that accompanies this EIS represents the Forest Plan if 

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative) were to be selected. Many of the changes 

reflected in the Forest Plan are consistent with Alternative 2, but some are not. The 

similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest Plan, 

are detailed in Appendix F to this EIS.

Selected Outputs

Table 2-7 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-18 Final EIS

Table 2-5

Key Elements of Alternative 2

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• The portions of IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for harvest

after rulemaking.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, and entry into all 

phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy without 

regard to harvest volumes. 

• Allows harvest in natural setting LUDs, except for Congressionally designated and 

administratively withdrawn areas and islands smaller than 1,000 acres.

• The portions of IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for harvest 

after rulemaking.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe, in high-vulnerability 

karst, and in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers (details below). 

• Clearcutting is allowed on all lands suitable for timber production (including 

natural setting LUDs), except RMAs and high-vulnerability karst where only 

commercial thinning is allowed. The maximum removal in RMAs outside of TTRA 

buffers is 33 percent (basal area). Clearcutting in beach and estuary fringe is not 

allowed after 15 years.

• In beach and estuary fringe, the intent is to maintain an approximate 1,000-ft wide 

protected corridor adjacent and inland of any even-aged harvest unit. 

• There is flexibility to harvest at a younger age than 95 percent of CMAI throughout 

the life of the Plan.

• Scenery standards would be relaxed to Very Low SIO for young-growth harvest

LUD Changes

• Old-growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically 

preferred option in areas where they were adversely affected by land 

conveyances and other changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan (including relaxation of 

SIO to Very Low for renewable energy development).

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-19 Alternatives

Table 2-6

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 21

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 1,005,922

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 6,467,437

Development LUD Group5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 349,380

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 374,714

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 15,027

Young Growth 63,787

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 32,609

Young Growth 335,344 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors because the projects are an undefined width and imprecise locations and not all renewable 

energy sites are known. Totals may not exactly equal the sum of individual entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Enacted Municipal 

Watershed, and Wild River

4 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, 

Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-20 Final EIS

Figure 2-4

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 2
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-21 Alternatives 

Table 2-7 

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 21 

Resource/Category Output/Measure 

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35% 

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 6% 

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 39% 

Percent in Development LUD Group 20% 

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 11,289 

Percent of Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.7% 

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2016) 91% 

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth 

(acres) 349,380 

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth 

(acres) 374,714 

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ) 2 in MMBF 125 

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 17 

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 12 

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 260/1,056 

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 125/600 

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years 

(miles) 256/1,191 

1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages and include sawlog plus utility. 

Alternative 3 

Framework and Expected Outcomes 

Alternative 3 would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 of the existing timber 

sale program adaptive management strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008c) (see 

color map accompanying this FEIS) but would allow young-growth harvest in all 

phases. This alternative would allow young-growth and old-growth harvest in 2001 

Roadless Rule IRAs. If this alternative were selected, harvest in IRAs would be 

deferred until agency rulemaking modifies 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) (2001). 

Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it identifies lands as suitable for younggrowth timber production in both development and natural setting LUDs (except for 

Congressionally designated areas such as Wilderness, administratively withdrawn 

areas, and islands less than 1,000 acres in size), as well as in beach and estuary 

fringe and high-vulnerability karst, but not in RMAs. Young-growth management 

may include clearcutting in all areas, except in beach and estuary fringe and on 

high-vulnerability karst, where only commercial thinning is allowed. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that have 

had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the young 

growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be described as a 

Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

Scenery standards for young growth management would be reduced by one level 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. SIOs would be reduced as follows: High would be 

reduced to Moderate, Moderate would be reduced to Low, and Low and Very Low 

would become Very Low. 
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-22 Final EIS

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of young

growth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA. 

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO (scenery standard)

for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.

Alternative 3 would provide the second largest amount of timber volume (old growth 

and young growth combined). It would result in the second lowest harvest of old 

growth over both the 25-year and 100-year periods. Table 2-8 summarizes the key 

elements of Alternative 3 and Table 2-9 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped 

suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for young growth 

and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 20 MMBF of young 

growth and 26 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-5). 

From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an average of 50 MMBF of 

young growth and about 5 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 3 would likely 

reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth at about Year 13.

Young-growth harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 

13 and is expected to reach an upper limit of about 117 MMBF in Year 17. The oldgrowth harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro 

sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state. Old-growth 

conditions would prevail on forest lands within the IRAs. Young-growth harvest 

would be increasingly emphasized during a transition period and the existing timber 

industry maintained and given the opportunity to transition to a dominantly younggrowth based industry over the next 10 to 15 years. Following the transition period, 

the young-growth based timber industry would have the potential for substantial 

growth as more young-growth stands become economic to harvest. Young growth 

would be harvested by clearcutting and other prescriptions in natural setting LUDs, 

but only commercial thinning would occur in beach and estuary fringe. A small oldgrowth based industry would continue after transition with an annual volume of 

about 5 MMBF being offered through the small and micro sale programs. A mixture 

of old growth, recently harvested areas, and various ages of young growth would 

occur within roaded areas. Recreation, tourism, and subsistence opportunities 

would continue to emphasize natural setting types, although some additional roaded 

opportunities would be developed. Limited scenery impacts would occur in some 

visually sensitive areas because scenery standards for young growth harvest would 

be reduced by one level compared with the current Forest Plan.

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 3 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-9 would result. Figure 2-6 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 3 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-9 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 3 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-23 Alternatives

Figure 2-5

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 3 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG)

Management Prescriptions 

The Forest Plan that accompanies this EIS represents the Forest Plan if Alternative 

5 (Preferred Alternative) were to be selected. Many of the changes reflected in the 

proposed Forest Plan are consistent with Alternative 3, but some are not. The 

similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest Plan, 

are detailed in Appendix F to this EIS. 

Selected Outputs

Table 2-10 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-24 Final EIS

Table 2-8

Key Elements of Alternative 3

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) would be available for harvest after rulemaking.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, and entry into all 

phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy without regard 

to harvest volumes.

• Allows harvest in natural setting LUDs, except for congressionally designated and 

administratively withdrawn areas and islands smaller than 1,000 acres.

• IRAs would be available for harvest after rulemaking.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe but not in RMAs.

• Clearcutting is allowed in all areas except beach and estuary fringe and highvulnerability karst, where only Commercial Thinning is allowed.

• Management Approach to provide legacy in young-growth harvest units larger than 

20 acres in certain VCUs.

• There is flexibility to harvest at a younger age than 95 percent of CMAI throughout 

the life of the Plan.

• Scenery standards for young growth management would be relaxed; SIOs would 

be reduced by one level relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (i.e., High is reduced to 

Moderate, Moderate is reduced to Low, and Low and Very Low become Very Low).

LUD Changes

• Old-growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically preferred 

option in areas where they were adversely affected by land conveyances and other 

changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest.

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-25 Alternatives

Table 2-9

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 31

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 1,005,922

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 6,467,437

Development LUD Group5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 516,566

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 349,872

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 16,599

Young Growth 53,734

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 35,568

Young Growth 313,216

1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

because transportation projects are a series of corridors with undefined width and imprecise locations 

and not all renewable energy sites are known. Totals may not exactly equal the sum of individual 

entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Enacted Municipal 

Watershed, and Wild River

4 Includes the following Natural Setting LUDs: Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, 

Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-26 Final EIS

Figure 2-6

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young-Growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 3
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-27 Alternatives

Table 2-10

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 31

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 6%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 39%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 28,847

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.7%

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2016) 91%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth

(acres) 516,566

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth

(acres) 349,872

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ)2 in MMBF 121

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 17

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 13

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 245/1,020

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 110/566

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years 

(miles) 229/1,129 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Alternative 4

Framework and Expected Outcomes

Like Alternative 3, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only in Phase 1 of 

the existing timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see color map 

accompanying this FEIS), but in contrast with Alternative 3, it would also limit younggrowth harvest to only Phase 1. Similar to Alternative 1, this alternative includes the 

application of the 2001 Roadless Rule.

Alternative 4 would allow young-growth management only in the development LUDs.

Harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability karst, but 

only commercial thinning is allowed. No harvest is allowed in RMAs. Young growth 

management may include clearcutting in other areas. 

In addition, for young-growth harvest units larger than 20 acres in VCUs that have 

had concentrated past timber harvest, it is intended that 30 percent of the young 

growth stand acres should be left. This legacy provision would be described as a 

Management Approach in the Forest Plan. 

No change would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 Forest Plan. 

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA.

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO (scenery standard) 

for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-28 Final EIS

Alternative 4 would provide the smallest amount of timber volume (old growth and 

young growth combined) and the smallest amounts of young-growth volume. It 

would result in the second highest harvest of old growth during both the 25-year and 

100-year periods. Table 2-11 summarizes the key elements of Alternative 4, and 

Table 2-12 summarizes the LUD acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected 

harvest acres under this alternative for young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 11 MMBF of young 

growth and 35 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-7). 

From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an average of 26 MMBF of 

young growth and about 20 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 4 would likely 

reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 16. Younggrowth harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and 

is expected to reach an upper limit of 87 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

Over 80 percent of the Forest would remain in a natural state, including the 2001 

Roadless Rule IRAs. Old-growth conditions would prevail on forest lands within the 

IRAs. Young-growth harvest would be increasingly emphasized during a transition 

period as the existing timber industry is maintained and given the opportunity to 

transition to a predominantly young-growth based industry over the next 10 to 15 

years. Following the transition period, the young-growth based timber industry 

would have the potential for substantial growth as more young-growth stands 

become economic to harvest. Young growth would be harvested only by 

commercial thinning in beach and estuary fringe and on high-vulnerability karst. A 

small old-growth based industry would continue after transition with an annual 

volume of about 5 MMBF being offered through the small and micro sale programs. 

A mixture of old growth, recently harvested areas, and various ages of young growth 

would occur within IRAs. Recreation, tourism, and subsistence opportunities would 

continue to emphasize natural setting types, although some additional roaded 

opportunities would be developed. Effects on scenery would be similar to those 

permitted by the current Forest Plan.

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 4 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-12 would result. Figure 2-8 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 4 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-12 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 4 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy. 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-29 Alternatives

Figure 2-7

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 4 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old Growth (OG) and Young Growth (YG)

Management Prescriptions 

The Forest Plan that accompanies this FEIS represents the Forest Plan if Alternative 

5 (Preferred Alternative) were to be selected. Many of the changes reflected in the 

proposed Forest Plan are consistent with Alternative 4, but some are not. The 

similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest Plan, 

are detailed in Appendix F to this FEIS. 

Selected Outputs

Table 2-13 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-30 Final EIS

Table 2-11

Key Elements of Alternative 4

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in development LUDs, including clearcutting, but allows entry only in 

Phase 1 of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy.

• Allows no harvest in natural setting LUDs.

• Allows no harvest in IRAs.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe and in high-vulnerability 

karst within development LUDs, but no harvest is allowed in RMAs.

• Clearcutting is not allowed in beach and estuary fringe and high-vulnerability karst;

only commercial thinning is allowed.

• Management Approach to provide legacy in young-growth harvest units larger than 

20 acres in certain VCUs.

• There is flexibility to harvest before 95 percent of CMAI throughout the life of the 

Plan.

• No changes would occur in scenery standards relative to the 2008 Forest Plan.

LUD Changes

• Old-Growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically preferred

option in areas where they were adversely affected by land conveyances and other 

changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Forest Plan Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-31 Alternatives

Table 2-12

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 41

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 7,473,359

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 0

Development LUD Group5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 269,135

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 263,710

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 23,255

Young Growth 40,760

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 42,597

Young Growth 234,885 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems

Corridors because the transportation projects are a series of corridors with undefined width and 

imprecise locations and not all renewable energy site locations are known. Totals may not exactly 

equal the sum of individual entries due to rounding. 2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs. 3 Includes all Natural Setting LUDs: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Municipal Watershed, Wild, 

Scenic, and Recreational River, Old Growth Habitat, Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, and 

Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 4 Includes no LUDs that are suitable for YG harvest. 5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD. 6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-32 Final EIS

Figure 2-8

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 4
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-33 Alternatives

Table 2-13

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 41

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 45%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 0%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 0

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.9%

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2016) 91%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Old Growth

(acres) 269,135

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production–Young Growth

(acres) 263,710

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ) 3 in MMBF 92

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 18

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 16

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 257/871

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 97/445

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years

(miles) 209/900 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred Alternative)

Framework and Expected Outcomes

Alternative 5 is the Preferred Alternative. This alternative is based on the

recommendations from the Tongass Advisory Committee (TAC), a formally 

established Federal Advisory Committee (see Appendix B of the Forest Plan). The 

establishment of the TAC represents a turning point in Tongass management 

seeking new approaches, practices, and responses. The TAC offers a regionally 

focused, collaborative path toward an innovative opportunity for a viable young 

growth timber industry while honoring the suite of values – economic, ecological, 

social, and cultural – inherent in the Forest.

Like Alternatives 3 and 4, this alternative would allow old-growth harvest only within 

Phase 1 of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy (see color map 

accompanying this FEIS). As in Alternatives 1 and 4, the 2001 Roadless Rule would 

apply and no old-growth or young-growth harvest would occur in roadless areas. In 

addition, old-growth harvest is excluded from all Tongass 77 (T77)5 watersheds and 

TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas (Albert and Schoen 2007). These oldgrowth harvest exclusion areas are shown on the large color map for Alternative 5

that accompanies this FEIS.

As in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, Alternative 5 would allow young-growth harvest in all 

three phases of the timber sale program adaptive management strategy. It would 

allow young-growth management in development LUDs and in the Old-growth 

 5 The Tongass 77 (T77) refers to value comparison units (VCUs), which approximate major watersheds 

located on National Forest System lands that Trout Unlimited, Alaska Program identified as priority 

salmon watersheds. As a result of the Sealaska Land Entitlement Finalization in the Carl Levin and 

Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), 

there was a net reduction in the T77 watersheds from 77 to 73. To provide clarity and consistency, the 

T77 nomenclature will continue to be used in this document when referring to these priority watersheds.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-34 Final EIS

Habitat LUD including harvest in beach and estuary fringe and RMAs outside of 

TTRA buffers within these same LUDs. However, young-growth harvest in the Oldgrowth Habitat LUD, beach and estuary fringe, and RMAs outside of TTRA buffers 

would be allowed only during the first 15 years after Plan approval, and created 

openings for commercial harvest (up to 10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 

35 percent of the acres of the original harvested stand) or commercial thinning 

would be allowed. In beach and estuary fringe, a 200-foot no-commercial harvest 

buffer adjacent to the shoreline would be required. Along lake shorelines, a 100-foot 

no-cut commercial harvest buffer would be established. Scenery standards (SIOs) 

for young growth management would be reduced to Very Low for all distance zones 

in the development LUDs only. This standard would also apply when young-growth 

and old-growth harvests are planned in the same Viewshed.

As noted previously, due to Public Law 113-291, CMAI requirements for determining 

the youngest age for harvest would be eliminated on up to 50,000 acres of younggrowth. Beyond that, the minimum harvest age would continue to be flexible under 

exceptions allowed by NFMA.

The Forest Plan would include new management direction that improves flexibility in 

renewable energy development under this alternative. The SIO (scenery standard) 

for renewable energy development would Low for all LUDs and distance zones.

Alternative 5 would provide the second smallest amount of timber volume (old 

growth and young growth combined) among the alternatives, but the second largest

amount of old-growth volume among the action alternatives. Table 2-14 

summarizes the key elements of Alternative 5 and Table 2-15 summarizes the LUD

acres, mapped suitable acres, and projected harvest acres under this alternative for 

young growth and old growth. 

This alternative would harvest timber at a rate of 46 MMBF per year (equivalent to 

the harvest needed to meet the projected timber demand, see Table 2-1). It would

emphasize young growth and minimize old growth while maintaining 46 MMBF per 

year. As such, it is expected to produce an average of about 12 MMBF of young 

growth and 34 MMBF of old growth per year during the first 10 years (Figure 2-9). 

From Year 11 through Year 15, it is projected to produce an average of 28 MMBF of 

young growth and about 18 MMBF of old growth per year. Alternative 5 would likely 

reach a full transition harvest of 41 MMBF of young growth about Year 16. Younggrowth harvest is expected to continue to increase at a rapid rate after Year 16 and 

is expected to reach an upper limit of 98 MMBF about Year 18. The old-growth 

harvest rate would be held at 5 MMBF per year to support small and micro sales.

The majority (over 80 percent) of the Forest would remain in a natural state including

IRAs. Old-growth conditions would prevail on forest lands within the IRAs. Younggrowth harvest would be increasingly emphasized during a transition period and the 

existing timber industry is maintained and given the opportunity to transition to a 

dominantly young-growth based industry over the next 10 to 15 years. Following the 

transition period, the young-growth based timber industry has the potential for 

growth as more young-growth stands become economic to harvest. Young growth 

is harvested only by patch cutting or commercial thinning in non-development LUDs, 

beach and estuary fringe, and RMAs outside of TTRA buffers. An old-growth based 

industry would continue after transition with an annual volume of about 5 MMBF 

being offered through the small and micro sale programs. A mixture of old growth, 

recently harvested areas, and various ages of young growth would occur within 

roaded areas. Recreation, tourism, and subsistence opportunities would continue to 

emphasize natural setting types, although some additional roaded opportunities 

would be developed. Scenery impacts would occur in some visually sensitive areas 

because scenery standards for young growth harvest would be very low. 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-35 Alternatives

Land Use Designations

If Alternative 5 is selected, the LUD allocation acres and the suitable acres shown in 

Table 2-11 would result. Figure 2-10 shows the distribution of LUDs across the 

Tongass under Alternative 5 according to four LUD groups (see Table 2-15 for 

definitions of the LUD groups). Color maps showing both LUDs and lands suitable 

for timber production for Alternative 5 are included in the Map Folder of the CD 

version of the FEIS and in the Map Packet accompanying the FEIS hard copy.

Figure 2-9

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (average annual harvest) over 100 

Years in 5-Year Periods under Alternative 5 showing Volume (MMBF) 

contributed by Old-Growth (OG) and Young-Growth (YG) 

Management Prescriptions

Under Alternative 5, the management prescriptions identified in the Forest Plan 

(accompanying this FEIS) would be adopted. A track changes version of is 

available online. Clarifications and deletions to the 2008 Forest Plan are shown in 

Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 and additions to the Forest Plan are provided in Chapter 5.

The similarities and differences among the alternatives, with respect to the Forest 

Plan, are detailed in Appendix F to this FEIS.

Selected Outputs

Table 2-16 displays selected outputs and other measures associated with this 

alternative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-36 Final EIS

Table 2-14

Key Elements of Alternative 5

Old-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest only within Phase 1 of the 2008 Timber Sale Program Adaptive 

Management Strategy.

• No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

• No harvest is allowed within the T77 watersheds or the TNC/Audubon 

conservation priority watersheds.

Young-growth Harvest

• Allows harvest in Development LUDs, including clearcutting, and entry into all 

phases of the Timber Sale Program Adaptive Management Strategy without 

regard to harvest levels.

• Allows harvest in Old Growth Habitat LUDs, but not in other natural setting LUDs

or on islands less than 1,000 acres

• No harvest is allowed in IRAs.

• Commercial harvest is allowed in beach and estuary fringe outside of a 200-foot 

buffer and in RMAs outside of TTRA buffers.

• A 100-ft. no-cut buffer is established around all lakes.

• In Old Growth Habitat LUDs, Beach Fringe (outside of the 200-foot buffer) and in 

RMAs outside of TTRA buffers, clearcutting is not allowed, but patch cuts (≤10-

acre openings and a maximum of 35% removal) is allowed, along with 

commercial thinning. Harvest is allowed in these land categories only during the 

first 15 years after plan approval. 

• There is flexibility to harvest at a younger age than 95 percent of CMAI throughout 

the life of the Plan.

• The scenery standards (SIOs) would be reduced to Very Low in development 

LUDs only.

LUD Changes

• Old Growth Habitat LUDs are modified to correspond with the biologically 

preferred option in areas where they were negatively affected by land 

conveyances and other changes resulting from Public Law 113-291.

• The Transportation and Utility Systems LUD is removed.

New Plan Direction (Chapter 5)

• Young-growth plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Renewable Energy plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Transportation Systems Corridors plan components added to Forest Plan.

• Forest-wide plan direction added to Forest Plan.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-37 Alternatives

Table 2-15

Land Use Designation, Suitable, and Projected Harvest Acres for 

Alternative 51

Land Use Designation Group Acres Allocated

Wilderness LUD Group2 5,922,131

Natural Setting LUD Group – No YG Harvest 3 6,270,909

Natural Setting LUD Group – With YG Harvest 4 1,202,450

Development LUD Group 5 3,359,367

Total National Forest System lands 16,755,6856

Suitable Acres Acres Allocated

Suitable Acres-Old Growth 229,060

Suitable Acres-Young Growth 338,973

Projected Harvest Acres Allocated

Projected Harvest Acres after 25 Years

Old Growth 23,813

Young Growth 43,316

Projected Harvest Acres after 100 Years

Old Growth 42,479

Young Growth 284,144 1 When more than one LUD is applied to the same area, such as a Special Interest Area within 

Wilderness, only the acreage of the more restrictive LUD is included. The acreage for the Minerals

LUD would be 249,570; these acres are not included in the table because the Minerals LUD is an 

overlay. No acreages have been calculated for Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors because the transportation projects are a series of corridors with undefined width and 

imprecise locations and not all renewable energy site locations are known. Totals may not exactly 

equal the sum of individual entries due to rounding.

2 Includes Wilderness and National Monument LUDs.

3 Includes all Natural Setting LUDs except Old Growth Habitat: LUD II, Research Natural Area, 

Municipal Watershed, Wild, Scenic, and Recreational River, Special Interest Area, Remote 

Recreation, and Semi-Remote Recreation LUDs. 

4 Includes Old Growth Habitat LUD.

5 Includes Timber Production, Modified Landscape, and Scenic Viewshed LUDs. Experimental Forest 

is also included, even though it is technically not a Development LUD.

6 Includes 829 acres of unlabeled GIS slivers.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-38 Final EIS

Figure 2-10

Wilderness, Natural Setting (with and without Young Growth Harvest), and Development 

LUDs on the Tongass National Forest under Alternative 5
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-39 Alternatives

Table 2-16

Selected Outputs and Measures Associated with Alternative 51

Resource/Category Output/Measure

Percent in Wilderness LUD Group 35%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with No YG Harvest 37%

Percent in Natural Setting LUD Group with YG Harvest 7%

Percent in Development LUD Group 20%

Estimated Harvest Area (acres) after 100 years in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas – Old growth and Young Growth combined 0

Percent of Existing Productive Old Growth Harvested after 100 years 0.8%

Percent of Original Productive Old Growth remaining after 100 Years 

(92% in 2015) 91%

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production-Old Growth

(acres) 229,060

Estimated Forest Land Suitable for Timber Production-Young Growth

(acres) 338,973

Long-term Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ)2 in MMBF 98

Estimated Years until maximum PTSQ is achieved 18

Estimated Years until full transition is achieved (i.e., 41 MMBF of 

Young Growth is harvested) 16

Maximum New Road Construction after 25 Years/100 Years (miles) 267/994

Maximum Road Construction on Decommissioned Road Grades after 

25 Years/100 Years (miles) 102/527

Maximum New Road Reconstruction after 25 Years/100 Years

(miles) 219/1,058 1 Totals may not add exactly due to rounding. 2 PTSQ volumes expressed as annual averages volumes. 

Comparison of the Alternatives

This section briefly compares the environmental consequences of the five 

alternatives with respect to the significant issues described in Chapter 1. This 

comparison is based on the effects analyses presented in Chapter 3. 

The following subsections provide the issue statement for each of the significant 

issues described in Chapter 1, and the units of measure used to analyze their 

effects. Hereafter the term “issues” is synonymous with “significant issues.”

Following these subsections, the alternatives are compared with respect to each 

issue. Important comparison tables are also presented. Table 2-17 (at the end of 

this section) compares each alternative in terms of the key elements that define the 

alternatives. Table 2-18 compares each alternative in terms of the quantitative and 

qualitative measures associated with each alternative. This table allows the reader 

to compare the effects of the alternatives on all issues simultaneously, so that a 

cumulative picture of the net effects can be obtained. 

Issue 1 – Young-growth Transition

Issue Statement: The Secretary of Agriculture directed the Forest Service to 

transition to a young-growth-based timber management program on the Tongass 

National Forest in 10 to 15 years, which is more rapid than planned for in the 2008 

Forest Plan. This transition is intended to support the Tongass managing its forest 

for an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable forest management 

program and reduce old-growth harvest while providing economic timber to support 

the local forest products industry during the transition.

Units of Measure

• Lands suitable for timber production

• Acres of harvest of young growth vs. old growth over time
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-40 Final EIS

• Time required to fully transition to young-growth harvest

• Financial efficiency (discounted net revenue)

• Number of annualized direct jobs supported

Comparison

The purpose and need for this project is primarily based on a memorandum from the 

Secretary of Agriculture (see Chapter 1) that directs management of the Tongass 

National Forest to expedite the transition away from old-growth timber harvesting 

and towards a forest products industry that utilizes predominantly second-growth –

or young-growth – forests. Secretary Vilsack’s memorandum also guides that the 

transition should be implemented in a manner that preserves a viable timber industry 

that provides jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. USDA's goal is 

to effectuate this transition, over the next 10 to 15 years, so that at the end of this 

period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth. This 

timeframe will conserve old growth forests while allowing the forest industry time to 

adapt.

Because of the Secretary’s memorandum, the existing condition emphasizes a 

transition to young growth and minimizes old-growth harvest, but does this within the 

constraints of the 2008 Forest Plan. Alternative 1 (no action) would result in full 

transition to a predominantly young-growth-based industry in about 32 years, well 

beyond the 15 year goal presented in the Secretary’s memorandum. In contrast, all 

of the action alternatives would result in a full transition in about 12 to 16 years. 

Because these timeframes represent full transition, the period in which the “vast 

majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be young growth” is expected to be about 

10 to 15 years for the action alternatives. Of the action alternatives, the fastest 

transition (12 years) would occur with Alternative 2 and the slowest transition (16 

years) would occur with Alternatives 4 and 5.

All of the alternatives are expected to support from 184 to 231 annualized direct jobs 

during the first decade, depending on the portion of total harvest that is exported. 

Total estimated jobs are very similar across the alternatives, with the highest 

number of direct jobs supported by Alternative 2 and the lowest number of direct 

jobs supported by Alternative 1. In addition, each alternative is expected to meet the 

projected demand for Tongass timber. Therefore, each alternative is expected to 

meet the criterion of maintaining a viable industry. However, it is unclear how 

quickly industry will be able to “retool” mills and harvesting equipment and how 

markets will react to changing from old-growth to young-growth forest products; 

thus, this criterion is associated with a relatively high degree of uncertainty.

Under all alternatives, the harvest of old growth would diminish over time and the 

harvest of young growth would increase. Therefore, all of the alternatives would 

“conserve old-growth forests.” The largest old-growth harvest in the first 25 years 

would be about 39,000 acres with Alternative 1. Each of the action alternatives 

would harvest less old growth, ranging from 15,000 acres with Alternative 2 to 

24,000 acres with Alternative 5. The same pattern among the alternatives occurs 

with the 100-year harvest as well.

Issue 2 – Renewable Energy

Issue Statement: The development of renewable energy projects on the Tongass 

would help Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel dependence, stimulate 

economic development, and lower carbon emissions in the Region.

Units of Measure

• Improved flexibility in siting and development of renewable energy projects
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-41 Alternatives

Comparison

Another important part of the purpose and need for this project is the purpose of 

establishing new direction in the Forest Plan so that renewable energy development 

is more permissible. There is a need to stimulate economic development in 

Southeast Alaska communities, and provide low-carbon energy alternatives, thereby 

displacing the use of fossil fuel. Under the 2008 Forest Plan, siting of energy 

projects is limited in certain LUDs, and it would remain that way under Alternative 1. 

Under each of the action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5), changes would be 

made to the Forest Plan that would result in improved flexibility in siting and 

development of renewable energy projects.

Issue 3 – Inventoried Roadless Areas

Issue Statement: Timber harvest and road building that occurred in inventoried 

roadless areas (IRAs) before the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule) was enacted and during the 2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 

75136) changed the values or features that often characterize IRAs in some 

locations. In addition, whether or not the Tongass would manage the Forest under 

the 2003 Tongass Exemption or not is the subject of ongoing litigation. Currently, 

the Tongass does not enter roadless areas for commercial timber harvest or road 

construction. However, in the future, this could change.

Units of Measure

• Acres of lands suitable for timber production within IRAs under each alternative

• Roadless characteristics protected under each alternative

Comparison

Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 IRAs are withdrawn from timber production and not 

suitable for timber production (FSH 1909.12, chapter 60, section 61.11). In 

Alternative 2, IRAs that were previously roaded would be available for road 

construction and timber harvest and in Alternative 3, all IRAs would be available for 

road construction and timber harvest. In both Alternatives 2 and 3, entry into IRAs 

would not be permitted without rulemaking or, in the case of Alternative 3, if the 

2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated. Estimated acres of timber 

harvest in IRAs over 100 years would range from 0 acres for Alternatives 1, 4, and 

5, to 11,000 acres for Alternative 2, to 29,000 acres for Alternative 3. The protection 

of roadless characteristics would be directly proportional to the projected acres of 

timber harvest with Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 providing the most protection, Alternative 

2 providing the second most protection, and Alternative 3 providing the least 

protection.

Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation 

Strategy

Issue Statement: Old-growth timber harvest has changed the composition and 

spatial patterns of terrestrial wildlife habitats. How the resulting young-growth is 

managed may influence the future ecological integrity of the landscape at various 

scales. Changes made to suitable lands designated for development, and to plan 

components (e.g., standards and guidelines) may affect old-growth habitat for 

wildlife and the Tongass old-growth conservation strategy and contributing elements 

to old-growth reserves (e.g., riparian, beach and estuary habitats).

Units of Measure

• Acres of productive old growth (POG) protected under each alternative
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-42 Final EIS

• Acres of high-volume POG protected under each alternative

• Acres of large-tree POG protected under each alternative

• Acres of young-growth harvest in beach and estuary fringe by alternative

• Acres of young-growth harvest in Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) by 

alternative

• Acres of young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat LUD and other natural 

setting LUDs by alternative

• Average total and open road densities and percentage of Wildlife Analysis Areas 

(WAAs) in road density categories on NFS and all lands

• Indicators of habitat capability using habitat models

• Cumulative harvest and road development on all Southeast Alaska lands

Comparison

Relative to old-growth habitat conservation, Alternative 1 would have the highest 

harvest (1.3 percent of existing POG), followed by Alternative 4 (0.9 percent of 

existing POG), followed by Alternative 5 (0.8 percent of existing POG), followed by 

Alternatives 2 and 3 (0.7 percent of existing POG). The change in the percent of 

original POG remaining after 100 years would follow the same pattern. Currently, 92 

percent of original POG is remaining; under all alternatives this percentage would 

drop by about 1 percent after 100 years. Alternative 1 would result in about 90 

percent remaining and the action alternatives would each result in about 91 percent 

remaining. This same pattern would continue for the percent reduction in highvolume POG. The existing 86 percent of original high-volume POG remaining would 

be reduced to about 85 percent for all alternatives after 100 years. For large-tree 

POG, about 79 percent of the original acres exist. Alternative 1 would result in 

about 78 percent remaining after 100 years, while the action alternatives would 

maintain about 79 percent.

Young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary fringe would be lowest under 

Alternative 1 (no harvest). Under the action alternatives, no harvest of POG would 

occur, but impacts resulting from young growth harvest would be highest under 

Alternative 2, which would include the second highest amount of young-growth 

acres and would allow clearcutting. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, considerable 

young-growth acreage would be harvested, but using commercial thinning, which 

would result in less effects than clearcutting. Alternative 5 would have the lowest 

effect on beach and estuary fringe among the action alternatives because younggrowth acreage would be lowest and only patch cutting (with created openings up to 

10 acres and a maximum removal of up to 35 percent of the acres of the original 

harvested stand) or commercial thinning would be allowed and only during the first 

15 years after Forest Plan approval with a one-time entry restriction.

For RMAs, the lowest effects would be associated with Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, 

which would permit no harvest in RMAs. Alternative 2 would have the greatest 

harvest impacts in RMAs because it would include the highest amount of acreage 

and would allow clearcutting during the first 15 years of Forest Plan approval and 

commercial thinning thereafter. Effects to RMAs would be lower under Alternative 5 

due to a lower amount of acres harvested and only patch cutting or commercial 

thinning would be permitted and only during the first 15 years after Forest Plan 

approval with a one-time entry restriction. 

In the Old-growth Habitat LUD, Alternatives 1 and 4 would allow no young-growth 

harvest. The greatest amount of young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat 
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-43 Alternatives

LUD would occur under Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3 and 5. Effects 

would be greatest under Alternative 2 because it would allow clearcutting and have 

the largest harvest acreage, and less under Alternative 3 because only commercial 

thinning would be allowed, followed by Alternative 5 which would allow only patch 

cutting or thinning and only during the first 15 years after Forest Plan approval and 

with a one-time entry restriction.

Average total road density across the Forest (NFS lands only) under all alternatives 

would be approximately 0.23 mile per square mile after 100 years, an increase of 

0.03 to 0.04 mile per square mile above existing levels. Approximately 83 percent of 

WAAs would have total road densities ranging between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square 

mile under all alternatives. Total roads are conservatively defined to include open 

roads, closed roads, and decommissioned roads. Average open road density 

across the Forest (NFS lands only) would be approximately 0.09 mile per square 

mile, an increase of approximately 0.005 mile per square mile under all alternatives. 

Approximately 96 percent of WAAs would have open road densities ranging 

between 0.0 and 0.7 mile per square mile under all alternatives. Therefore, any 

potential increase in hunter access or risk of overharvest for wildlife species would 

be minor and localized, and would not be measurable at the forest-wide scale under 

any of the alternatives. 

The transition to young-growth management would slow the long-term decrease in 

deer habitat capability due to the reduction in POG harvest. Based on Interagency 

Deer Habitat Capability model outputs, deer habitat capability under all of the 

alternatives would decline about 1 percent over 100 years. Forest-wide all 

alternatives would maintain about 99 percent of the existing deer habitat capability. 

Results based on the Forage Resource Evaluation System for Deer (or FRESH deer 

model) are very similar; Forest-wide, the existing level of habitat quality would be 

decline about 1 percent after 100 years under all alternatives.

Cumulative POG harvest on all landownerships would be greatest under Alternative 

1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (in that order). Cumulative effects would be 

least under the alternatives that propose the shortest young-growth transition time. 

After 100 years of Forest Plan implementation and non-NFS harvests, approximately 

83 percent of the original (1954) total POG forest, about 76 percent of the original 

high-volume POG, and 63 to 64 percent of the original large-tree POG would be 

maintained on all landownerships under all of the alternatives. 

Cumulative road densities (all land ownerships) would be similar among alternatives 

(about 0.45 mile per square mile), representing an increase of about 0.11 to 0.12 

miles per square mile above current conditions. Open road densities for all land 

ownerships would increase from about 0.22 mile per square mile to about 0.24 mile 

per square mile after 100 years under all alternatives.
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-44 Final EIS

Table 2-17

Comparison of Key Elements of the Alternatives

Element

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Timber Sale 

Program Adaptive 

Management

Strategy Phases

(see large color 

map)

2008 

Forest Plan

2008 Forest Plan,

except can enter 

Phases 2 and 3 for 

YG without 

limitation1

2008 Forest Plan, 

except Phase 1

only for OG; can 

enter Phases 2 and 

3 for YG without 

limitation

2008 Forest Plan, 

except Phase 1 

only for YG and OG

2008 Forest Plan, except 

Phase 1 only for OG; can 

enter Phases 2 and 3 for 

YG without limitation 

Harvest in 

Roadless2 No entry

Roadless entry 

permitted in

previously roaded 

IRAs after 

rulemaking

Roadless entry 

permitted (all IRAs 

with suitable lands)

after rulemaking

No entry No entry

Harvest in T77 

Watersheds and 

TNC-Audubon 

Conservation 

Priority Areas

Harvest permitted Harvest permitted Harvest permitted Harvest permitted No OG Harvest permitted

Young-growth 

Harvest in Natural 

Setting LUDs

No entry Clearcutting Clearcutting No entry

Old Growth Habitat LUD

only; Created openings

(<10 acres and <35% of 

stand) or thinning; no 

harvest after 15 years

Young-growth 

Harvest in Beach 

and Estuary Fringe 

No entry

Clearcutting in 

Beach Fringe for 

first 15 years; only 

Commercial. 

Thinning thereafter

Commercial 

Thinning only

Commercial

Thinning only

Created openings (<10 

acres and <35% of stand)

or thinning; no harvest 

after 15 years

Young-growth 

Harvest in Riparian 

Management Areas

No entry

Commercial

Thinning only

outside of TTRA; 

33% maximum 

stand removal

No entry No entry

Created openings (<10 

acres and <35% of 

stand) or thinning, outside 

of TTRA; no harvest after 

15 years; additional 100-ft 

buffer on lakes 

Young-growth 

Harvest on High 

Vulnerability Karst

No entry Commercial

Thinning only

Commercial

Thinning only

Commercial

Thinning only No entry

Beach and Estuary 

Fringe Buffer

Maintain 1,000-ft 

protected corridor 

inland of even-age 

harvest units

Maintain a 200-ft no-cut 

buffer adjacent to 

shoreline

Young-growth 

Legacy

For young-growth 

harvest units >20 ac 

leave 30% as legacy

For young-growth 

harvest units >20 ac 

leave 30% as legacy

CMAI

Flexible for first

50,000 acres of 

young-growth 

harvest

Flexible for life of 

plan

Flexible for life of 

plan

Flexible for life of 

plan Flexible for life of plan

Scenery Standards

for Young-Growth 2008 Forest Plan SIOs relaxed to Very Low

SIOs relaxed by one 

level from 2008 

Forest Plan

2008 Forest Plan

SIOs relaxed to Very Low 

for YG in Development

LUDs only

Scenery Standards 

for Renewable 

Energy

2008 Forest Plan 

(SIOs = Low for 

hydro)

SIOs relaxed to Very 

Low

SIOs = Low for all 

renewable energy 

projects

SIOs = Low for all 

renewable energy 

projects

SIOs = Low for all 

renewable energy 

projects

LUD Change No change Old-growth Habitat 

LUD modified

Old-growth Habitat 

LUD modified

Old -growth Habitat 

LUD modified

Old-growth Habitat LUD

modified

Estimated Time to 

Full Transition 32 years 12 years 13 years 16 years 16 years

Renewable Energy 

Development No change

New management 

direction that is 

more permissive

New management 

direction that is 

more permissive

New management 

direction that is 

more permissive

New management 

direction that is more 

permissive

Other No change New plan direction New plan direction New plan direction New plan direction

YG = Young Growth, OG = Old Growth, CMAI = culmination of mean annual increment

1 Under the 2008 Forest Plan, the scheduled timber sale program was generally confined to Phase 1 until such time as the level of 

timber harvest reached at least 100 MMBF for two consecutive years. 2 Timber harvest is currently inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Proposed timber harvest in IRAs could not occur until the Roadless 

Rule is changed as a result of new rulemaking, or the 2003 Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated.
Alternatives 2

Final EIS 2-45 Alternatives

Table 2-18

Comparison of Alternatives 

Resource/Category Unit of Measure

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Key Issue 1 – Young-Growth Transition

Land suitable for timber production Acres of OG

Acres of YG

328,615

263,904

349,380

374,714

516,566

349,872

269,135

263,710

229,060

338,973

Harvest after 25 years Acres of OG

Acres of YG

38,527

9,669

15,027

63,787

16,599

53,734

23,255

40,760

23,813

43,316

Harvest after 100 years Acres of OG

Acres of YG

62,851

209,882

32,609

335,344

35,568

313,216

42,597

234,885

42,479

284,144

Approximate Years to full transition 

(YG harvest = 41 MMBF)

years 32 12 13 16 16

Total discounted net revenue after 15 years $ millions $64 $12 $21 $48 $46

Total discounted net revenue after 25 years $ millions $101 ($20) ($3) $41 $42

Total discounted net revenue after 100 years $ millions $205 $24 $37 $84 $81

Number of annualized direct jobs supported

(first decade)

# jobs 184-217 196-231 194-229 187-220 187-221

Key Issue 2 Renewable Energy

More permissive in siting Renewable Energy projects Yes/No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Key Issue 3 – Roadless Areas1

Projected harvest in inventoried roadless areas after 

100 years

Acres of OG

Acres of YG

0

0

2,171

9,104

17,037

11,809

0

0

0

0

Roadless characteristics protected Qualitative degree of 

protection

Most Second most Least Most Most

Key Issue 4 – Wildlife Habitat and the Conservation Strategy

Percent of existing POG harvested after 100 years Percent POG 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8

Percent of original POG remaining after 100 years 

(92% in 2015)

Percent POG 90 91 91 91 91

Percent of original high volume POG remaining after 

100 years (84% in 2015)

Percent POG 85 85 85 85 85

Percent of original large-tree POG remaining after 100 

years (82% in 2015)

Percent POG 78 79 79 79 79

YG Harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe after 100 

years (all prescriptions)

Acres of YG 0 21,871 30,769 11,114 3,903

YG Harvest in Riparian Management Areas after 100 

years (all prescriptions)

Acres of YG 0 26,030 0 0 1,089
2 Alternatives 

Alternatives 2-46 Final EIS

Table 2-18 (continued)

Comparison of Alternatives

Resource/Category Unit of Measure

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

YG Harvest in Old Growth Habitat LUD after 100 years 

(all prescriptions)

Acres 0 31,640 26,186 0 1,811

Average road density on NFS lands after 100 years 

(0.195 miles/square mile in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.231 0.235 0.233 0.228 0.232

Average road density on All lands within Tongass 

boundary after 100 years (0.334 mile/sq.mi.in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.450 0.454 0.453 0.448 0.452

Average open road density on NFS lands after 100 

years (0.089 miles/square mile in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.094

Average open road density on All lands within Tongass 

boundary after 100 years (0.218 miles/sq. mile in 2016)

Miles/Sq. Mile 0.238 0.239 0.239 0.238 0.239

Percent of WAAs with road density on NFS lands <0.7 

miles/sq. mile (85.3% in 2016)

Percent 82.7 82.7 82.7 83.8 82.8

Percent of WAAs with road density on All lands <0.7 

miles/sq. mile (78.6% in 2016)

Percent 72.3 72.3 72.3 72.8 72.3

Species-Specific Effects

Goshawks – Harvest of high-volume POG forest after 

100 years 

Acres 27,466 14,020 13,716 18,249 17,815

Marten – Harvest of deep snow winter habitat (highvolume POG forest <800 feet elevation) after 100 yearsAcres 16,116 8,120 6,297 9,929 9,844

Wolf – Percent of 191 WAAs with model-generated 

habitat capability of at least 18 deer per square mile 

after 100 years (NFS Lands)

Percent 34 34 34 34 34

Brown Bear and Black Bear – YG harvest in beach and 

estuary fringe and RMAs after 100 years

Acres 0 47,901 30,769 11,114 4,993

Endemic Mammals – Harvest of POG forest after 100 

years

Acres 62,851 32,609 35,568 42,597 42,479

Deer habitat capability on All Lands after 100 years in 

Terms of Percent of Original (1954) Habitat Capability 

(78% currently)

Percent 77 78 78 78 78

YG = Young Growth, OG = Old Growth, POG = Productive Old Growth, WAA= wildlife analysis area

1 Timber harvest is currently inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Proposed timber harvest in IRAs could not occur until the Roadless Rule is changed as a result of new rulemaking, or the 

Tongass Exemption (68 FR 75136) is reinstated. 
CHAPTER 3

ENVIRONMENT AND EFFECTS
Environment and Effects 3

Chapter 3.

Environment and 

Effects

Introduction

This chapter combines the affected environment and environmental 

consequences discussions required by the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) implementing regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1500-1508). The discussions are combined so that the environmental 

consequences (effects) of the alternatives on forest resources and the 

background information needed to understand these consequences are 

discussed together for each resource. Each resource is first described by its 

current condition, uses, supply, and demand, or expected use, along with an 

explanation of how each resource is measured and evaluated. The descriptions 

are limited to providing the background information necessary for understanding 

how the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) alternatives may affect the 

resource. Methodology and scientific accuracy is discussed for most resources. 

Many of the relationships established and discussed in the 1997 Tongass Land 

and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Revision Final EIS (FEIS), the 

2003 Supplemental EIS (SEIS), and the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment EIS are 

still valid and, therefore, are incorporated by reference in this EIS. However, this 

EIS updates some of this information to better reflect current conditions and 

focuses on the potential effects most relevant to the potential changes that could 

occur from this proposed amendment to the 2008 (current) Tongass Forest Plan.

Analyzing Effects

Following each resource description is a discussion of the potential effects 

(environmental consequences) to the resource associated with implementation of

each EIS alternative. All significant or potentially significant effects, including 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, are disclosed. Effects are quantified, 

where possible, although qualitative discussions are also included. The means 

by which any identified potential adverse effects will be reduced or mitigated are 

also described. 

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on 

the physical, biological, social, and economic environment. Direct environmental 

effects are defined as those occurring at the same time and place as the initial 

cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time, or are spatially 

removed from the activity but would be significant in the foreseeable future. 

Cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of actions, when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

Final EIS 3-1 Introduction
3 Environment and Effects

Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions taking place over a period of time.

Potential adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided are discussed. 

Unavoidable adverse effects are those resulting from managing the land for one 

resource at the expense of the use or condition of other resources. Many 

adverse effects can be reduced or mitigated by limiting the extent or duration of 

effects. The 2008 Tongass Forest Plan is designed to mitigate potential adverse 

effects on forest resources and uses, especially through its mix of management 

prescriptions and Forest-wide standards and guidelines. Mitigation measures 

within standards and guidelines are specified for project activities to be 

implemented under the 2008 Tongass Forest Plan. 

Short-term uses, and their effects, are those that occur annually or within the first 

10 years of Forest Plan implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the 

capability of the land and resources to continue producing goods and services for

50 years and beyond. Long-term and cumulative effects may be projected out 

100 years or more, as needed, to fully analyze the potential consequences for 

particular resources.

Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are typically not made at the 

programmatic level of a Forest Plan. Irreversible commitments are decisions 

affecting nonrenewable resources, such as soils, minerals, plant and animal 

species, and heritage resources. Such commitments of resources are 

considered irreversible because the resource has deteriorated to the point that 

renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at a great expense, or the 

resource has been destroyed or removed. While the application of Land Use 

Designations (LUDs) allowing land-altering activities can indicate the potential for 

such commitments, the actual commitment to develop, use, or affect 

nonrenewable resources is made at the project level. The gradual decline in oldgrowth habitat may be considered an irreversible commitment. 

Irretrievable commitments represent opportunities foregone for the period during 

which resource use or production cannot be realized. These decisions are 

reversible, but the production opportunities foregone are irretrievable. An 

example of such commitments is the allocation of LUDs that do not allow timber 

harvest to areas containing suitable and accessible forest land. For the time 

over which such allocations are made, the opportunity to obtain timber from 

those areas is foregone, thus irretrievable. Irreversible and irretrievable 

commitments are not identified, as such, in the discussions.

For estimating the effects of alternatives at the programmatic Forest Plan level, 

the assumption is made that the kinds of resource management activities 

allowed under the Plan will in fact occur to the extent necessary to achieve the 

goals and objectives of each alternative. The actual location, design, and extent 

of such activities are, however, not known at this time because that is a 

project-by-project decision. In many cases, the discussions refer to the potential 

for effects to occur, realizing that in many cases these are only estimates. 

The effects analysis is useful in comparing and evaluating alternatives, but 

should not be applied per se to any specific location within the Forest. Land 

management plans are tools for further agency planning and guide future 

management activities. The land management plan is a strategic plan that 

establishes a long-term management framework for the Tongass National 

Forest. Within that framework, specific projects and activities will be proposed, 

approved, and implemented depending on specific conditions, budgets, needs, 

proposals, and circumstances at that time. The plan can only speculate about 

the projects that may be proposed and budgeted and the events that may occur 

Introduction 3-2 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

that will force changes in the projects and the effects of these projects. Thus, the 

effects presented here are comparative in nature. Specific effects that can be 

meaningfully measured and evaluated generally occur at the project and activity 

stage.

An effort was made throughout the current Tongass Forest Plan amendment

process to obtain and use the best available information to evaluate and 

compare the effects of alternatives. NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 

1502.22) state that when “there is incomplete or unavailable information, the 

agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking.” This was done 

where appropriate. The NEPA requirement goes on to say that if the incomplete 

information “is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives” then 

considerations, such as the cost of obtaining it, apply. The 1997 Tongass Forest 

Plan Revision FEIS, the 2003 SEIS, the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment EIS, and 

this EIS, along with their planning records, will provide the Forest Supervisor with 

the “essential” information needed to make a reasoned choice among 

alternatives. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects result from the incremental effects of actions, when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

For this analysis, the area considered for cumulative effects varies according to 

the resource being assessed. Cumulative effects are discussed in detail for each 

resource in this chapter. Appendix C discusses the projects considered and 

records which projects were considered for each resource.

For most aquatic or watershed-related resources, the area within the proclaimed 

Forest boundary (approximately 17.9 million acres, including 1.2 million acres of 

non-National Forest System [NFS] lands) was used and analyses were generally 

conducted at the watershed scale (sixth-level hydrologic unit). 

For wildlife and other terrestrial resources, all of Southeast Alaska from Yakutat

Bay southeast to the southeastern end of Alaska (approximately 21.6 million 

acres, including 4.8 million acres of non-NFS lands) will be used as the study 

area, although some analyses will be based on the area within the Forest 

boundary, depending on the availability and quality of available information. The 

Southeast Alaska area includes all of Glacier Bay National Park and the State, 

Bureau of Land Management, and other lands in the vicinity of Haines and 

Skagway. Often, Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) will be used to summarize 

information within these study areas. In addition, biogeographic provinces will be 

used to summarize cumulative effects information for wildlife and other terrestrial 

resources.

For social and economic, recreation, and related human uses, all of Southeast 

Alaska and beyond will be given consideration for cumulative effects, especially 

regarding economic, market, and other factors.

Existing conditions reflect the extensive changes brought about by long-term 

human occupancy and use of the forest and represent the present-day condition 

resulting from past and present actions. Direct and indirect effects include the 

short- and long-term effects that would result from each of the alternatives

considered in this EIS. Cumulative effects may result when the direct and 

indirect effects associated with the alternatives are added to the effects 

associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. 

Final EIS 3-3 Introduction
3 Environment and Effects

Cumulative effects analyses are presented in the effects sections for each 

resource. 

Analysis of long-term cumulative effects extends at least 25 years into the future

and to 100 years in many cases. This period is well beyond the proposed period 

for transitioning to a harvest that is dominated by young growth and covers the 

period within which the next Forest Plan revision will have taken place.

Generally, for the physical and biological resources, the actions considered in 

assessing cumulative effects will include the following:

• Past, present, and future timber harvest and road construction on NFS lands; 

including precommercial thinning;

• Past, present, and future timber harvest on private, state, and Native 

corporation lands within the National Forest boundary. 

• Reasonably foreseeable land adjustments including the proposed Alaska 

Mental Health Trust land exchange, remaining land conveyances due to the 

Alaska Statehood Act, and acquisition of the Cube Cove tracts on Admiralty 

Island by the Forest Service;

• Existing mining at Greens Creek Mine on Admiralty Island, Kensington Gold 

Mine north of Juneau, and other existing sites, as well as possible future 

sites, including the Bokan Mountain and Niblack sites on the southern end of 

Prince of Wales Island;

• Existing and proposed mining projects in Canada within watersheds that 

drain to Southeast Alaska waters (e.g., Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell mine in the 

Unuk River watershed, Red Chris mine in the Stikine Watershed, and the 

Tulsequah Chief mine in the Taku Watershed);

• Electrical intertie and other utility line construction, including the Kake to 

Petersburg Transmission Intertie project;

• Regional transportation development as defined by the State Transportation 

Plan and Forest Service Alaska Region Long-Range Transportation Plan, 

road paving on Prince of Wales Island, the closing of roads, and construction 

of the Angoon Airport;

• Kake Access Project;

• Development of fishing and other lodges;

• Human settlements – expansion of cities like Juneau and Ketchikan – as well 

as recreational cabin development and land auctions by the State;

• Past, present, and future recreation sites and trails development on NFS 

lands or removal from NFS lands;

• Potential geothermal development at Bell Island; 

• Existing and future hydroelectric developments (e.g., Angoon Hydroelectric, 

Sweetheart Lake, Soule River, Swan Lake expansion, Crooked Creek/Jim’s 

Lake, and Tenakee Springs/Indian River);

• Climate change and yellow-cedar decline;

• The tourism (mostly cruise ship) industry will continue to grow at a rate of 

about (+/-) 5 percent per year; and

Introduction 3-4 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

• Watershed restoration projects across the Tongass. Watersheds were 

selected based on watershed condition rating completed in 2011, following 

the national Watershed Condition Framework guidance.

A complete list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects considered, 

and which resources have overlapping effects, is provided in Appendix C, 

Cumulative Effects.

Geographic Information System Database and 

Quantification for this EIS

The Forest Service has developed an extensive computerized geographic 

information system (GIS) database that is continually improved and is used for 

Forest Plan–level and project-level analyses. This system makes it possible to 

conduct spatial analysis of alternatives and effects, and to rapidly display 

resource information in map format. The GIS is a very large database, 

containing information on many of the resources of the Forest. Much of the data 

consist of map “layers,” each representing a particular resource or attribute (such 

as forest type, soil type, or recreation places). Numerical data can also be 

stored, displayed, and analyzed. Computer technology and capability continues 

to improve and the Forest GIS program, especially at the project level, reflects 

such growth. Additional information, as well as improved information, is now 

available for many resource areas. This EIS takes advantage of the new 

technology capability and information. 

The baseline numbers used to describe the existing condition do not always 

match the numbers in the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment EIS. This is primarily 

because of ongoing management of the Tongass National Forest. Examples 

include changes in land ownership, changes in resource conditions resulting 

from timber harvest and road construction, and forest plan amendments. In 

addition, the use of newer computer mapping and measurement techniques that 

are more accurate than earlier methods also affects the numbers. In general, the

relative differences between previous documents and the baseline numbers used

in this EIS are small, and do not affect the analysis relationships among these 

documents. 

It should be noted that in some cases where the acreages are measured that 

depend on overlaying of multiple coverages, the acreage measurements for 

individual categories sometimes need to be adjusted to account for the fact that 

coverages do not always line up exactly in places where they should (e.g., along 

property boundaries, saltwater shorelines, lake edges). Very slight misalignment 

of the coverages can result in polygon slivers between the coverages, which can 

produce acreage differences initially. These differences can amount to tens or 

hundreds of acres or more, especially because we are dealing with such a large 

area (i.e., 17 million acres). However, on a percentage basis, these slivers and 

the adjustments that are necessary are insignificant.

It should also be noted that the figures presented are generally rounded to the 

nearest whole acre, whole mile, or whole percent. No attempt has been made to 

adjust the numbers to force the sums of rounded numbers to equal the expected 

totals. Therefore, the sum of rounded individual numbers will often be one digit 

higher or lower than the expected sum. The sums that are presented are the 

sums of the unrounded numbers.

Final EIS 3-5 Introduction
3 Environment and Effects

Land Use Designation Groupings

For many resources, the effects and the differences in effects among the 

alternatives are best identified through the LUD allocations. While each LUD has 

a different management emphasis, many are similar in the kinds of effects they 

would potentially create. Based on this and in order to simplify the identification 

of effects, the LUDs have been grouped into four categories: Wilderness, 

Natural Setting, Moderate Development, and Intensive Development. For some 

analyses, the LUDs are grouped into two categories: Wilderness and Natural 

Setting LUDs make up the non-development LUDs and Moderate and Intensive 

Development LUDs make up the development LUD category. Note that the 

Minerals LUD is an overlay LUD and is managed according to the underlying 

LUD until such time that a Plan of Operations is approved. Therefore, acreages 

in this EIS generally reflect the underlying LUD acreages. Under each of the 

Action Alternatives, the Transportation and Utility System overlay LUD would be 

removed. Table 3-1 displays these LUD groupings.

Table 3-1

Land Use Designation Groupings Used to Discuss Effects

LUD Group Land Use Designation

Non-development LUDs

Wilderness LUD Group Wilderness

Wilderness National Monument

Nonwilderness National Monument

Natural Setting LUDs LUD II

Remote Recreation

Semi-Remote Recreation 

Old-Growth Habitat

Municipal Watershed

Research Natural Area1

Special Interest Area1

Wild River1

Scenic River

Recreational River

Development LUDs

Moderate Development Experimental Forest

Scenic Viewshed

Modified Landscape

Intensive Development Timber Production

Overlay LUDs2

Minerals

Transportation and Utility Systems3 (Alternative 1 only) 1 These three LUDs function as overlay LUDs (see footnote 2) when they occur within Wilderness, 

Wilderness National Monument, or LUD II areas. 2 The Minerals and Transportation and Utility Systems (TUS) LUDs are overlay LUDs. Areas 

allocated to these LUDs are managed according to the underlying LUD until such time that mineral

or transportation or utility development is approved, if at all. Generally, acreages in this EIS do not 

include the Minerals or TUS LUDs, but rather the underlying LUD. 3 The TUS LUD would be eliminated under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Land Divisions

The land area of the Tongass National Forest has been divided in several 

different ways to describe the different resources and how they are affected by

the alternatives. These divisions vary by resource because the relationship of 

each resource to geographic conditions and zones also varies. Several of these 

divisions are described briefly here. 

Introduction 3-6 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

The 6th-level Hydrologic Unit Code polygons were used for watershed/fisheries 

effects. These come from the national Watershed Boundary Dataset – see the 

Water section.

These are seven large land areas that are distinguished by differences in 

ecological processes. They are defined by a combination of climatic and 

geographic features. Geographic provinces are used in the evaluation of 

Research Natural Areas and Wild and Scenic Rivers. See the Research Natural 

Areas section of the 1997 Forest Plan Revision FEIS for a description of each 

province.

Biogeographic provinces are areas within which certain kinds of plants and 

animals tend to occur together. They are defined by a combination of similarity 

in species, patterns of distribution of species, and natural characteristics or 

barriers. Twenty-one biogeographic provinces occur on the Tongass. They are 

used in the Biodiversity and Wildlife sections.

Ecological sections and subsections are two classification levels within a 

hierarchical system for subdividing ecosystems according to the National 

Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units (see the Biodiversity section of this 

chapter). 

The framework consists of eight nested mapping levels that serve a variety of 

purposes. Within the hierarchy, ecological sections characterize medium to large

ecosystems (on the order of 1,000 square miles) and ecological subsections 

characterize mid-sized ecosystems (10 to 1,000 square miles). Fourteen 

ecological sections and 73 ecological subsections occur on the Tongass. 

Value Comparison Units (VCU) are distinct geographic areas, roughly analogous 

to watersheds, each encompassing a drainage basin containing one or more 

large stream systems. The boundaries usually follow watershed divides. VCUs 

were used for the 1979 Tongass Forest Plan to compare the relative values of 

various resources by location and have been modified to account for changes in 

allocation for Wilderness and LUD II. The Forest currently has about 945 VCUs 

averaging 18,000 acres in size. 

WAAs are land divisions used by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Approximately 190 WAAs apply to the Tongass National Forest; they average 

slightly less than 90,000 acres in size. In general, WAA boundaries correspond 

with VCU boundaries and they typically include three to eight VCUs (averaging 

just under five). They are used in the Subsistence and Wildlife sections. 

General Forest Description

A brief description of the physical, biological, and socioeconomic settings of the 

Tongass National Forest is presented in this section. Chapter 1 and the 

alternative maps include a vicinity map.

Physical Setting

The mainland and many of the islands of Southeast Alaska are mountainous, 

often rising abruptly from sea level to several thousand feet. Elevations of 

forested areas extend up to approximately 3,000 feet in the southern sections of 

the Tongass National Forest and up to 2,500 feet farther north. The mountain 

valleys provide reservoirs for huge ice fields and glaciers, located primarily on 

the mainland. 

Watershed

Geographic 

Provinces

Biogeographic 

Provinces

Ecological 

Sections and 

Subsections

Value 

Comparison 

Units

Wildlife Analysis 

Areas

Final EIS 3-7 Introduction
3 Environment and Effects

More than one million years ago, all but the highest mountain peaks and some 

outer coastal areas in Southeast Alaska were covered by ice. The great 

erosional powers of these vast expanses of ice molded and shaped the 

landscape as the glaciers moved downhill under their own weight, carving the 

bedrock below them. When the ice receded and uncovered the land, the more 

resistant mineral-rich rocks remained, revealing a network of islands dissected 

by numerous streams, U-shaped valleys, and fiords. By about 13,500 years ago 

most of southeast Alaska was ice free. This modification by glaciers gives 

Southeast Alaska’s landscape its character. 

The configuration of the coastline, the warm Japanese ocean current, and the 

high coastal mountains provide the factors necessary to produce abundant 

rainfall. The annual precipitation of Southeast Alaska averages more than 100 

inches throughout. Precipitation is highest in the southern areas and decreases 

as one moves north. At higher elevations, more than 200 inches of snow may 

fall annually, perpetuating the existing ice fields and glaciers. Storms and 

moderate to heavy precipitation occur year-round, but most commonly from 

September through November. The abundant moisture feeds numerous 

streams, rivers, and lakes that dot the landscape.

Southeast Alaska has a maritime climate, resulting from the moderating influence 

of the Pacific Ocean. In the summer, this provides a cooling influence, while in 

winter, temperatures are warmer than would be expected for these latitudes. 

Normal temperatures range from mid-40 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to mid-60°F in 

the summer, and from the high teens to the low-40s in the winter. During the 

warmer months, temperatures are highest inland and lowest along the coasts, 

while in the colder months, the reverse is true.

Biological Setting

The coastal forest of Southeast Alaska is part of the cool, temperate rain forest 

that extends along the Pacific coast from Northern California to Cook Inlet in 

Alaska. Most of the Forest is composed of old-growth conifers, primarily western 

hemlock and Sitka spruce, with a scattering of mountain hemlock, western 

redcedar (in the south), and Alaska yellow-cedar. Red alder is common along 

streams, beach fringes, and on soils recently disturbed by management activities 

and landslides. Black cottonwood grows on the floodplains of major rivers and 

recently deglaciated areas. 

Blueberry, huckleberry, Sitka alder, Devil’s club, and salal are common shrubs in 

the Forest. The Forest floor is composed of plants, such as deerheart, dogwood, 

single delight, and skunk cabbage. Because of the high rainfall and resulting 

high humidity, mosses grow in great profusion on the ground, on fallen logs, on 

the lower branches of trees, and in forest openings.

Grass-sedge meadows usually lie at low elevations, often along the coast. 

Stands of willows border many of the stream channels. Muskeg (bog plant) 

communities, dominated by sphagnum mosses and sedges, occur throughout 

the Forest. 

The alpine zone usually lies above 2,500 to 3,000 feet. It occupies the area 

above the coastal forest and is separated from the Forest by a subalpine or 

transition zone. Resident plants have adapted to snowpack and wind abrasion 

by evolving low-growth forms. Low, mat-forming vegetation covers most of the 

area, with cushion-like plants occupying crevices on exposed rock outcrops and

talus slopes.

Introduction 3-8 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

The forests, shorelines, streams, and rivers of Southeast Alaska provide habitat 

for over 300 species of birds and mammals, including game and non-game 

animals, such as brown and black bear, Sitka black-tailed deer, moose, wolf, 

mountain goat, beaver, otter, and marten. The coastline provides ideal habitat 

for a large population of bald eagles, and wetlands provide nesting habitat for 

many waterfowl. Large tracts of intact ecosystems help preserve biodiversity. 

The Forest is a productive landscape that sustains robust fish stocks for 

subsistence, personal use, commercial, and sport fisheries. Maintaining the 

habitat diversity and connections among watersheds is essential to the continued 

productivity of the Forest’s salmon fisheries.

A highly productive marine environment includes an abundance of marine 

mammals, halibut, herring, and hundreds of shellfish. Both resident and 

anadromous fish are found within and adjacent to the Forest.

Socioeconomic Setting

There are dozens of communities, including many long-standing Native villages,

that exist within the Forest boundary. These communities use and depend on 

forest resources. As a consequence, management decisions and actions of the 

Tongass National Forest have a great deal of influence on those communities. A 

multitude of resources and activities produced from the Forest fuel the 

economies, livelihoods, and way of life for the people who live there. The 

abundant resources of the forests and waters have provided food, shelter, and 

livelihood for its peoples for thousands of years. The first inhabitants of the area, 

the Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian, adapted well to the coastal environment and 

developed a rich culture. The numerous waterways allowed for mobility, which 

aided in expanding trade and gathering food. Their cultural identities and 

traditional way of life are rooted in and tied to the land and waters of Southeast 

Alaska. Alaska Natives have continuously inhabited the Forest for more than 

10,000 years and today are dependent on subsistence hunting and fishing and 

utilization of all Tongass resources to sustain their bodies as well as their 

traditions, cultures, and livelihoods.

In the 1700s, Russian exploration began in Alaska. The fur trade, primarily sea 

otter pelts, was the main force driving colonization. When most of the sea otter 

populations were depleted, the fur industry declined and Russia lost interest in its 

North American colony. Alaska was sold to the United States in 1867. 

Colonization continued under U.S. ownership, and new industries developed. In 

the late 1800s, commercial fish canning became an important part of the 

economy of Southeast Alaska. During that same period, the discovery of gold 

brought thousands of miners to the area, and many were followed by their 

families. The most important of the early gold discoveries occurred in Juneau. 

In the early 1900s, the Depression brought a decline in mining employment, and 

the impact of World War II resulted in the closures of the last remaining mines.

The timber resource was used by the earliest inhabitants in a variety of ways, 

including making buildings, canoes, totem poles, and carvings. The Russians 

harvested timber for building ships and structures. In the earlier part of the 

century, small timber mills operated in a few communities. During the 1950s, two 

pulp mills were developed in Ketchikan and Sitka, and the timber industry 

became a major economic component of Southeast Alaska’s economy.

In the 1950s, Alaska focused its attention on statehood, and on January 3, 1959, 

became the 49th state of the United States. This resulted in an increase in 

Final EIS 3-9 Introduction
3 Environment and Effects

government employment and, coupled with the growth of the timber industry, a 

gradual shift towards a more diversified economy.

More than 74,000 people live in the towns, communities, and villages of 

Southeast Alaska. Most of the region’s population is concentrated in a few 

communities, the largest being Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, and Petersburg. 

Services, state and local government, and retail trade were the largest economic 

sectors by employment in Southeast Alaska in 2013, accounting for 26, 23, and 

11 percent of total employment, respectively. Employment in natural resourcebased industries remains important in many of the region’s communities. 

Tourism, which has increased in recent years, provides another important source 

of regional employment and income. Many rural communities continue to 

depend primarily on fishing, timber production, and subsistence uses.

Organization of Chapter 3

The remainder of Chapter 3 is divided into three broad parts:

• Physical and Biological Environment

• Human Uses and Land Management

• Economic and Social Environment

The resources that make up the physical and biological environment are 

described first and the effects of the alternatives are analyzed. This part sets the 

stage for the next partthe evaluation of human uses and land management. 

Finally, both of these parts set the stage for the final partthe economic and 

social environment. The focus is on significant effects, with the analysis 

centered on the key issues related to the Forest Plan amendment. 

Introduction 3-10 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Physical and Biological Environment

Climate and Air

Affected Environment........................................................................................3-11

Climate ..........................................................................................................3-11

Climate Change.............................................................................................3-11

Air Quality ......................................................................................................3-16

Environmental Consequences .........................................................................3-19

Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................................................3-19

Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................3-22

Affected Environment

The Tongass National Forest occupies an archipelago and a narrow strip of the 

mainland between the Pacific Ocean and the crest of the coastal mountains. The 

configuration of the coastline, the warm Japanese ocean current, and the high 

coastal mountains combine to produce a cool, wet environment. According to 

climate summaries and narratives developed by the Western Regional Climate 

Center (WRCC 2008), precipitation at sea level in Southeast Alaska ranges from 

30 inches per year at Skagway to 220 inches per year at Little Port Walter. 

Precipitation increases with elevation. It is estimated that the average annual 

precipitation may be as high as 400 inches on the mountains of southern Baranof 

Island and about 260 inches over the Juneau Icefield. Southeast Alaska has 

complete cloud cover approximately 85 percent of the year. Snowfall varies 

according to elevation and distance inland from the coast. October is generally 

the wettest month. May through July are, on average, the drier months. The 

Pacific maritime influence holds the daily and seasonal temperatures within a 

narrow range. Temperatures average 28 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the winter 

and 52°F in the summer (USDA Forest Service 2013b). During the warmer 

months, temperatures are highest inland and lowest along the coasts, while in 

the colder months, the reverse is true. Storms and moderate to heavy 

precipitation occur year-round, but occurs most commonly from September 

through November. The abundant moisture supports an extensive temperate 

rain forest and feeds numerous streams, rivers, and lakes, which in turn provide 

valuable fish habitat.

Southeast Alaska experiences considerable year-to-year and decade-to-decade 

variability in its weather, associated with large-scale shifts in ocean 

temperatures, salinity levels, and ice conditions. In fact, there is an inherent level 

of climate variability in the Pacific Northwest (which includes Southeast Alaska) 

associated with Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), or the shift between two 

different circulation patterns that occurs every 20 to 30 years in the northern 

portion of the Pacific Ocean; as well as other multi-year sea-surface temperature 

anomalies. Shifts in the location of cold and warm water in the Pacific Ocean 

alter the path of the jet stream, and thus result in cyclical changes in weather 

patterns typified by “warm” and “cold” phases (Mantua et al. 1997). 

Southeast Alaska’s climate has shown a strong warming trend since the middle 

of the 19th century (i.e., the end of the Little Ice Age), as has much of the 

Northern Hemisphere (Parson et al. 2001). A portion of this change in Southeast 

Alaska’s average temperature is likely the result of the natural changes in the 

Climate

Climate Change

Final EIS 3-11 Climate and Air
3 Environment and Effects

earth’s climate, which are caused in part by “wobbles” in the earth’s rotation 

around the sun resulting in changes to earth’s position within its elliptical path 

(i.e., the precession of equinoxes) as well as the PDO discussed above. 

However, recently (in geological terms) humans have contributed to the 

acceleration of natural climate change on a global level through multiple activities 

such as the burning of fossil fuels, which have released greenhouse gases into 

the environment, as well as reducing natural carbon sinks (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014; USDA Forest Service 2015a). The 

potential impacts of accelerated climate change on the ecosystems of Southeast 

Alaska may include acidification of ocean waters; increasing the temperatures of 

ocean and streams; altering water input sources; changing precipitation rates 

and patterns; increasing the rate of glacier retreat; increasing storm intensities; 

altering ecosystem composition and structure; altering species distributions; and 

altering fire regimes (Wolken et al. 2011; Shanley et al. 2015; EcoAdapt 2014).

The impacts of climate change have been, and will likely continue to be, more 

pronounced in the most northern and southern regions of the globe. Alaska, 

which is located farther north than any other U.S. territory or state, has 

experienced an increase in annual temperatures at twice the rate of rest of U.S. 

(Haufler et al. 2010; Chapin et al. 2014). Alaska’s annual average temperatures 

have increased by 3.4°F over the last 50 years, with an increase of 6.3°F in 

average winter temperatures (Haufler et al. 2010; Chapin et al 2014; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2014a). The average number of snow-free 

days has also increased in Alaska by about 10 days (Chapin et al. 2014). 

The observed changes to the climate in Southeast Alaska have resulted in 

modifications to ecosystem processes and ecosystem services on the Tongass 

National Forest. For example, the warmer summers have led to longer growing 

seasons for trees and other vegetation, while warmer winters have resulted in 

more insect outbreaks, plant diseases, and population declines for some plant 

species.

1 The warming trend has also reduced snowpack in low-elevation areas, 

which may be contributing to ongoing yellow-cedar decline.

2 Drier summers may 

have also contributed to the number and duration of low stream-flow episodes, 

which can have adverse effects on salmon while warming of some watersheds 

may increase productivity for some fish populations (EcoAdapt 2014). The 

increase in the amount of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow since the 

1970s has reduced the frequency of low- and moderate-elevation avalanches, 

which has allowed mountain hemlock to colonize some alpine areas (EcoAdapt 

2014; Shanley and Albert 2014). Furthermore, although Alaska has not yet 

experienced the same extensive rate of establishment by invasive plant species 

that has historically occurred in rest of the U.S., the current and predicted milder 

winter temperatures and the longer growing season in Southeast Alaska have

created opportunities for the spread and establishment of invasive plant species 

within this region (Bauder and Heys 2004; McKee 2006; Wolken et al. 2011). 

The ongoing changes to Alaska’s climate, as well as to the temperate forests in 

this region, can have global consequences. For example, recent data show that 

the melting of glaciers and ice sheets in Alaska has contributed more to the 

global increase in sea levels over the past 50 years than any other glaciated 

1 In 2014, Alaska Region Forest Health Protection surveyed 4.5 million acres of the Tongass National 

Forest and mapped 51,000 acres of insect and disease damage. The most widespread damage type 

was recorded for yellow-cedar (which had a decline of about 19,600 acres), followed by 12,000 acres

of spruce defoliation. Seventeen other infestation/damages were mapped, most notably cottonwood 

defoliation, hemlock sawfly, and general conifer defoliation (Heutte, pers. comm. 2015).

2 Almost 585,000 acres of yellow-cedar decline have been mapped in Alaska through aerial detection 

surveys since the surveys began in the late 1980s, with extensive mortality occurring in a wide band 

from the Ketchikan area to western Chichagof and Baranof Islands (USDA Forest Service 2015b). 

Climate and Air 3-12 Final EIS

 
Environment and Effects 3

region that has been measured, with the exception of the Greenland and 

Antarctic ice sheets (Wolken et al. 2011; Chapin et al. 2014). The coastaltemperate forests in Southeast Alaska comprise approximately 10 percent of 

Alaska’s total forests and 19 percent of the world’s coastal-temperate forests 

(Wolken et al. 2011). Although these coastal forest types are confined to a 

relatively small footprint globally (covering less than 0.5 percent of the earth’s 

total forested area), they play a critical role in the delivery of dissolved organic 

carbon to coastal oceans (Wolken et al. 2011). In addition, these forests

currently sequester and store large quantities of carbon (DellaSala 2014; 

DellaSala 2016; Law 2014). As a result, Southeast Alaska plays an important 

role in the global climate and carbon cycle.

Climate Models

There are several models that examine the potential future climate conditions 

and/or trends in Alaska’s climate. The most reliable models suggest warmer, 

wetter conditions for Alaska. They generally state that rainfall may increase and 

snowfall may decrease at lower elevations in Southeast Alaska over the next 50 

to 100 years (Bonsal and Prowse 2006; SNAP 2013). The Scenarios Network 

for Alaska & Arctic Planning (SNAP) recently developed a model for climate 

projections in Southeast Alaska (SNAP 2013 as cited in EcoAdapt 2014). 

SNAP’s projections suggest that mean winter temperatures in Southeast Alaska 

may increase by an additional 1.8 to 6.3°F (or 1 to 3.5 degrees Celsius) by the 

year 2050 (SNAP 2013 as cited in EcoAdapt 2014). Their model also suggests

that precipitation levels may increase in all seasons, with winter precipitation 

potentially increasing by 5 to 15 percent by 2050. The effects that this would 

have on local conditions would vary; with the increased precipitation potentially 

resulting in increased snow occurring at higher elevations where temperatures 

remain below freezing. Lower elevations could experience a shift from snow to 

rain and a decrease in snowpack as the lower elevations warm and the number 

of days with below freezing temperatures decrease (SNAP 2013 as cited in

EcoAdapt 2014).

Carbon Sequestration

Carbon, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide, is one of the major greenhouse 

gases being released into the atmosphere through both natural and 

anthropogenic (i.e., human-driven) influences (McPherson and Simpson 1999; 

IPCC 2014). This atmospheric carbon, as well as other gases (e.g., methane, 

nitrous oxide, and water molecules), traps the sun’s heat, thereby creating a 

natural “greenhouse effect” that makes life on earth possible (McPherson and 

Simpson 1999). The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regulated by

complex interactions between the atmosphere, terrestrial environment, marine 

environment, and geologic processes. Recent changes to the global carbon 

cycle, driven in large part by human activities, have been cited as one of the 

leading causes for global climate change and the general warming trend that has 

been detected (IPCC 2014).

The Tongass National Forest stores more forest carbon than any other national 

forest in the United States (Barrett 2014). As such, a critical ecosystem service 

sustained by this 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). This makes the Tongass 

National Forest a critical component in the global carbon cycle (DellaSala 2014; 

DellaSala 2016; Law 2014).

Final EIS 3-13 Climate and Air
3 Environment and Effects

Generally, the capacity of a forest system to sequester and store carbon 

depends on the location, age, and species composition of the forest (Birdsey et 

al. 1993; McKinley et al. 2011). In some forests found in warmer climates, the 

accumulation of carbon can decrease overtime as the carbon stored in soils and 

dead vegetative materials are released through the process of organic decay. 

However, the cool conditions on the Tongass National Forest slow down the rate 

of decomposition, which includes biomass breakdown/decay and carbon release. 

The dead or decaying plant matter is incorporated into the system’s soil profile

within the Tongass National Forest, where it accumulates and resides in various 

stages of decomposition for prolonged periods. As a result, mature forests within 

the Tongass National Forest generally store considerable amounts of carbon on 

the forest floor and in the soil profile. Smith et al. (2004) estimated that 

approximately 70 tons per acre of carbon are stored on the forest floor in the 

hemlock-Sitka spruce ecosystems found on the Tongass National Forest. 

Furthermore, some studies have indicated that trees can continue to accumulate 

carbon at increasing rates as they mature, thereby resulting in large amounts of 

carbon stored annually within mature trees (Stephenson et al. 2014). As a result, 

mature forests on the Tongass National Forest likely store considerably more 

carbon compared to younger forests in this area (within the individual trees

themselves as well as within the organic soil layer found in mature forests).

Although the organic soils of the Tongass National Forest currently store 

considerable amounts of carbon, D’Amore and Lynn (2002) note that numerous 

studies have shown that carbon stored in soils may be released to the 

atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide or methane, as the climate warms. 

Davidson and Janssens (2006) noted that many factors can affect the sensitivity 

of soil decomposition rates to increased temperatures (e.g., the relative mix of 

organic to mineral substrates, soil moisture levels, as well as other biotic and 

abiotic conditions) and that not all organic soil types would be equally sensitive to 

increased temperature; however, D’Amore has indicated that the organic layers 

in the soil profile of mineral soils as well as organic soils in general on the 

Tongass National Forest would likely experience increased decomposition rates 

if average temperatures were to increase (D’Amore et al. 2015; D’Amore 2016). 

As a result, the projected increases in average temperatures as a result of 

climate change could result in the release of portions of the carbon currently 

stored in the Tongass National Forest’s soil layers. In addition, the clearing of 

forested areas during past and ongoing harvesting activities can increase this 

effect, by increasing the amount of solar energy that is allowed to reach the 

ground while the forest regenerates following a harvest. The projected increase 

in average temperatures and longer growing season could also increase the 

growth rates of fungi in temperate-forests (a taxa that aids in the decomposition 

of forest material) which would also increase the rate of carbon released to the 

atmosphere (e.g., currently stem-decay fungi consume approximately 31 percent 

of the volume of live trees; Wolken et al. 2011). Furthermore, dissolved carbon 

may be transported to streams and the ocean due to the increased precipitation 

predicted to occur over the next 50 to 100 years. Increased stream temperatures 

can also result in an increased rate of carbon released from aquatic systems.

Climate and Air 3-14 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Previous studies have been conducted to determine how much carbon is stored 

on the Tongass National Forest. Barrett (2014) examined the storage and flux of 

carbon in live trees, snags, and logs in the Tongass National Forest.

3 On the 

Tongass National Forest, growth and recruitment of live trees removed an 

estimated 760 pounds of carbon per acre per year from the atmosphere, but net 

change in live carbon mass was not significantly different from zero, with 

mortality and harvest estimated at 670 pounds of carbon per acre per year 

(Barrett 2014). Including its wilderness areas, aboveground live and snag carbon 

on the Tongass National Forest is estimated to be 601 (± 21) million tons on an 

estimated 9.7 million acres of forest.

4 Some 233 million tons of this carbon are

on lands that are legally excluded from timber harvesting, such as formally 

designated wilderness areas (Barrett 2014). Total carbon densities on 

unmanaged forests were estimated as 72 tons per acre, which comprised 7 

percent logs, 13 percent snags, and 80 percent live trees. Carbon densities on 

managed forests were estimated as 45 tons per acre, which comprised 38 

percent logs, 8 percent snags, and 54 percent live trees (Barrett 2014). On a 

per-acre basis, the Western hemlock and Sitka spruce forest types were found to 

have the highest amount of carbon (Barrett 2014). Using the per-acre values by 

forest types, and extrapolating to include wilderness areas, provides a rough

estimate of about 650 million tons in aboveground tree carbon on the Tongass 

National Forest, equivalent to 2.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2; Barrett 

2014). To put this in perspective, an estimated 83,500,000 billion metric tons of 

carbon are stored worldwide, primarily in the oceans and marine sediment,

based on United Nations estimates. D’Amore and Edwards (no date) estimated that 

the carbon stored in the Tongass National Forest makes up about 8 percent of the 

carbon currently stored in the forests of the United States. Leighty et al. (2006) 

estimate that between 6.4 and 17.2 million metric tons (0.2 to 0.6 percent) of stored 

carbon has been lost on the Tongass National Forest since timber harvest began in the 

early part of the 20th century. For comparison, approximately 2,039 million metric tons 

of carbon was released to produce electric power in the United States in 2012 (U.S. 

Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2013). The total U.S. carbon emissions in 

2012 (which includes the electric sector discussed above, as well as other sections 

such as industry, transportation, agriculture, and commercial/residential) were

approximately 6,526 million metric tons (EPA 2014b).

Interest in enhancing ecosystem carbon sequestration and storage has 

intensified recently, as concerns about how to mitigate climate change have 

increased. The question of how active management of ecosystems may 

contribute to, or detract from, this mitigation effort is being explored, with varying 

results. A few studies have shown that the management of some forests with 

certain parameters being met (such as the addition of fertilizer) may result in 

heightened capacity for carbon sequestration and storage (Schroeder 1991;

Binkley et al. 1997). A study in the eastern United States found that thinning a 

50-year-old stand from below (i.e., removing the smallest trees) resulted in more 

stored carbon after 25 years than resulted from thinning stands from the middle 

or from above (Hoover and Stout 2007). A study conducted in the Pacific 

Northwest (Perez-Garcia et al. 2005) concluded that the use of wood in 

permanent structures resulted in “significant atmospheric carbon reductions by 

displacing more fossil fuel-intensive products in housing construction.” However, 

3 A number of carbon pools and fluxes were not included in Barrett’s report, including (1) carbon in 

non-forested lands, which includes alpine environments, wetlands, grasslands, and shrublands; (2) 

below-ground carbon, including roots, soils, and organic materials; (3) carbon in non-tree vegetation 

and litter within forest; (4) carbon in a few pools currently not measured by FIA, which includes 

stumps below 4.5 feet and dead saplings; and (5) carbon in forest lands in inaccessible wilderness. 

4 Note that this does not represent a complete accounting of stored carbon, as it does not take into 

consideration carbon stored in the soil, nor does it take into consideration the stored carbon present 

in the final products of the harvested timber.

Final EIS 3-15 Climate and Air

 
3 Environment and Effects

Harmon et al. (1990) noted that even when timber is used for permanent 

construction purposes, 35 to 45 percent of the wood’s biomass is lost to sawdust 

or scraps created during the processing; therefore, the final amount of carbon 

ultimately stored in permanent construction is much less than was originally 

harvested. Other studies, particularly two with application to Southeast Alaskan 

ecosystems (Harmon et al. 1990; Leighty et al. 2006), indicate that the Tongass 

National Forest would generate a net release of carbon to the atmosphere if 

active harvest of old growth is pursued (in other words, harvesting old growth 

instead of young growth could reduce the carbon sequestering ability of the 

forest). 

As discussed above, timber harvesting and active forest management can affect

a forest’s ability to store and ultimately sequester carbon. DellaSala (2014,

2016) suggested that a logged forest would emit substantial amounts of carbon 

for at least the first 15 years following harvest, and that a young regenerating 

forest would remain a net carbon emitter for up to 50 years. Janisch and Harmon 

(2002) suggested that it can take more than 200 years following a timber harvest 

for forests to reach equilibrium (i.e., the point where carbon released from the 

initial harvest as well as ongoing decay of organic materials equals the amount of 

carbon that is absorbed into the system). The net effect of a timber harvest and 

active forest management action (i.e., amount of carbon released versus the 

amount stored) would depend on how the harvested timber was used (e.g., if it 

was used for durable timber products, paper, pulp, or biomass fuels5), what 

substitute materials are available for construction purposes (i.e., non-wood 

materials), the amount of carbon emitted during harvesting activities, the amount 

of carbon emitted via decomposition of on-site wood and organic soil matter 

losses, and the influence of the harvested wood on timber markets elsewhere 

(McKinley et al. 2011; Jonsson et al. 2012). If the emissions are less than the 

carbon stored in utilized wood, and if the system can rapidly replace losses from 

decomposition through tree growth, the activity may ultimately yield a net gain of 

stored carbon; otherwise, the activity would result in a net loss of stored carbon 

(which would have an adverse effect on carbon sequestering and potentially 

climate change rate). Although the amount of carbon that has been released on

the Tongass National Forest since harvesting began has not been tracked or 

monitored, based on the understanding of carbon dynamics outlined in Barrett 

(2014), we can infer that the past harvests and management of the Forest has 

likely resulted in a net release of carbon to the atmosphere due in part to the 

practice of harvesting of old-growth timber on the Forest.

The air quality of Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest is generally 

good. The prevalent airflow from the Pacific Ocean, the relatively small amount 

of industrial development in Southeast Alaska, the lack of large population 

centers, the absence of slash burning following harvest, and environmental 

regulations all contribute to maintaining clean air. Forest activities have 

historically had little direct effect on air quality on the Tongass (USDA Forest 

Service 1997a). However, cruise ship emissions in certain locations and transPacific pollutants such as persistent semi-volatile organic pollutants and 

greenhouse gases are a growing concern.

The State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) under 

the Clean Air Act, via Title 1 and Title 5 of the EPA approved State 

Implementation Plan regulates air emission from stationary sources. ADEC 

5 If the harvested materials were all used for biomass fuels or other products that would be burned, 

this would result in a net release of substantial amounts of carbon to the environment (Holtsmark 

2012; DellaSala and Koopman 2015). However, the Tongass Forest Plan does not specify how the 

harvested timber would be used, and the Forest is not managed for biomass fuels.

Air Quality

Climate and Air 3-16 Final EIS

 
Environment and Effects 3

issues air permits to industrial sources that demonstrate compliance with the 

Alaska Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are identical to the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The primary standards were 

developed to protect public human health and the secondary standards to protect 

public welfare. Six criteria pollutants are included in the NAAQS: sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), lead, ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 

particulate matter with a diameter of less than 10 microns in size (PM10) and less 

than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5). The NAAQS are provided in Table 3.1-1.

Table 3.1-1

Criteria Pollutants, National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Air Pollutant Averaging Period Primary NAAQS Secondary NAAQS

SO2 (ppb) 1-Hour 1 75 NA

3-Hour NA 500

CO (ppm) 1-Hour 2 35 NA

8-Hour 2 9 NA

NO2 (ppb) 1-Hour 3 100 NA

Annual 53 53

Ozone (ppm) 8-Hour 4 0.075 0.075

PM10 (μg/m3) 24-Hour 5 150 150

PM2.5 (μg/m3) 24-Hour 6 35 35

Annual 7 12.0 15.0

Lead (μg/m3) 3-Month 8 0.15 0.15

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

ppb = parts per billion

ppm = parts per million

1 NAAQS applies to the 3-year average of the annual (99th percentile) of the daily maximum 1-hour 

average concentration.

2 NAAQS is not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year.

3 NAAQS applies to the 3-year average of the annual (98th percentile) of the daily maximum 1-hour 

average concentration.

4 NAAQS applies to the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour average 

concentration.

5 Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

6 NAAQS applies to the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile 24-hour concentration. 7 NAAQS applies to the 3-year average of annual concentrations. 8 NAAQS applies to the maximum arithmetic 3-month mean.

Air quality and sources of air pollution on the Tongass are described in Air 

Quality Monitoring on the Tongass National Forest: Methods and Baselines 

Using Lichens (Geiser et al. 1994) and Air Quality Biomonitoring with LichensTongass National Forest (Dillman et al. 2007). An aerosol sampler near 

Petersburg was installed in 2004 as part of the Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environment (IMPROVE) program. This was the only 

IMPROVE site in Southeast Alaska, with the next nearest station in Tuxedni 

Wilderness near Anchorage. Data from the IMPROVE site were collected over a 

5-year period to observe trends and to determine regional, state, and national 

significance. A review of the latest data available (years from 2007 through 

2009) at the IMPROVE site shows that PM2.5 levels relative to NAAQS were well 

below the applicable thresholds near Petersburg (IMPROVE 2015).

Visual inspections of cruise ship emissions by wilderness rangers in Tracy Arm

occur during the summer tourist season as part of an agreement with the State 

using EPA-approved methods. Also, the Tongass National Forest worked with 

the National Park Service in the Southeast Alaska Network and Forest Service 

Air Resource Program in Region 6 to coordinate a Southeast Alaska cruise ship 

emissions monitoring effort using passive air samplers in remote locations, 

including Tracy Arm (Schirokauer et al. 2014).

Final EIS 3-17 Climate and Air
3 Environment and Effects

Juneau Air Quality

Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley is the only area in Southeast Alaska that is known to 

have exceeded the NAAQS. The EPA listed Juneau City and Borough as a nonattainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers in 

1990. The area is classified as Moderate for this component of air quality, with 

an average daily rating of 110 out of a maximum of 500. Monitoring data indicate 

that air quality in Juneau has met state and federal ambient air quality standards 

in recent years. No state or federal ambient air quality standards have been 

exceeded since 1997. The last time particulate matter standards were exceeded 

in Juneau was in 1994 (ADEC 2014a). The State, via their approved Mendenhall 

Valley attainment plan (59 FR 13884), established control measures to maintain 

PM10 levels and to strive to achieve attainment status (EPA 1994). Because no 

exceedances have been monitored recently, on May 9, 2013, the EPA granted 

the request by the State to redesignate the area from nonattainment to 

attainment for PM10. Areas like Juneau, Alaska, that have been redesignated as 

attainment areas are classified by EPA as maintenance areas (EPA 2014c). 

Lichen tissues were collected on Mt. Roberts in the downtown Juneau area at 

five different elevations as part of the Tongass lichen biomonitoring program and 

in collaboration with the State. The lichen tissues analyzed were elevated above

threshold levels in all five plots in three or more elements including sulfur, 

nitrogen, and heavy metals. Lichens from the plot at 175 feet above sea level 

had the greatest number of elements above threshold (i.e., 12 pollutants), 

indicating that the sources are probably local and anthropogenic (Dillman et al. 

2007). 

Sources of Air Pollution

There are 36 stationary sources of air pollution in Southeast Alaska that require 

air quality control permits as of 2015. These include diesel power plants, asphalt 

plants, incinerators, mining facilities, and other facilities. Some of these sources 

operate intermittently (e.g., back-up power plants may operate during power 

failures or during peak demand periods, and asphalt plants may operate 

seasonally), and others may be operating at full capacity (e.g., Greens Creek 

mine).

Other sources of air pollution in Southeast Alaska include mobile sources (such 

as cars, trucks, boats, cruise ships, airplanes, and helicopters) and area sources 

(such as home furnaces, wood stoves, and open burning). Under certain 

weather conditions, wildfires in Canada can affect air quality and visibility (i.e.,

regional haze) in parts of Southeast Alaska, although no advisories were issued 

by ADEC in 2013 or 2014 for the Tongass. 

Cruise ship traffic has greatly increased in Southeast Alaska over the last several 

years. There were 489 planned cruise ship visits in Juneau during 2015, with an 

annual average number of visits of 492 ships for the 2014 to 2015 seasons 

(CLAA 2014a, 2014b). Cruise ship emission monitoring in Juneau by ADEC 

indicates that ship emissions are well within federal and state standards. 

Cruise ship traffic in Tracy Arm creates a particular concern for air quality in 

Wilderness. Tracy Arm received 200 cruise ship visits in 2009 (USDA Forest 

Service 2009a). Tracy Arm is less than a mile wide (on average) and is 

surrounded by high mountains. Cruise ship emissions may linger above the fjord 

for hours. The emissions are most heavily concentrated in upper Tracy Arm,

where vessels stop near the South Sawyer Glacier for 1 to 4 hours (depending 

on ice conditions). Ship emissions often increase because of rapid changes in 

engine loading necessary for the ship to maneuver through ice and turn around. 

Climate and Air 3-18 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

The Forest Service has received an increased number of public complaints 

concerning air quality within the Tracy Arm. In an effort to better address the 

visibility concerns in the Wilderness resulting from cruise ship emissions, the 

Forest Service and ADEC have developed a Memorandum of Understanding to 

train Forest Service wilderness rangers to visually monitor cruise ship emissions 

with EPA-approved standards. ADEC annually reviews the visible emission 

observations and takes action on any that exceed the State Marine Vessel 

Emission standard (18 AAC 50.070) (ADEC 2014b).

Three lichen biomonitoring plots were established within Tracy Arm. All were 

revisited in 2011 and 2012; results indicate that levels were at or above 

thresholds for sulfur, nitrogen, potassium, manganese, and silicon. 

Environmental Consequences

Air Quality

The expected direct effects on air quality from forest management activities 

would be temporary and limited in nature, resulting from dust and vehicular 

emissions from logging operations, administrative and harvest-related use of 

Forest roads, and facilities and equipment required to support energy

development. None of the alternatives considered would include broadcast 

burning of slash following harvest, which is seldom if ever used on the Tongass

National Forest. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 5, 4, and 1 would result in progressively more potential total 

harvest, road construction/reconstruction, harvest-related vehicle use and/or 

helicopter use, and wood processing comparatively, which could subsequently 

result in progressively more potential emissions by alternative (including 

emissions of green-house gases). However, due to the short-lived nature of 

these activities coupled with dynamic weather patterns throughout Southeast 

Alaska (consistent wind and rain throughout the year), no significant adverse 

effects on air quality are anticipated from these activities under any of the 

alternatives considered. 

Indirect effects on air quality can result from the use of trees harvested from the 

Tongass National Forest, such as in the operation of industrial processing sites 

and firewood burning, as well as emissions from private vehicles using Forest 

unpaved roads. These indirect effects on air quality can be aesthetically 

displeasing or have potential health risks to both humans and the Forest. EPA 

and ADEC have limited regulatory responsibility, under the Clean Air Act, for air 

quality related to these kind of sources. The enforcement of the applicable 

regulations by these agencies is anticipated to keep any potential adverse effects 

within the standards for air quality; therefore, no significant indirect effects from 

the uses of the Tongass National Forest should occur.

Climate Change / Carbon Sequestration

The Tongass National Forest plays an important role in amount of carbon that is 

stored globally as well as the global climatic condition (see the discussion above 

in the Affected Environment section). As a result, land management and other 

actions taken on the Tongass National Forest can affect climate change at a 

local, regional, and global scale. Although there is a substantial amount of recent 

literature about the effects of forest management on climate change and carbon 

storage, different authors have reached widely different conclusions about net 

sequestration rates/effects due to different assumptions made regarding pre- and 

post-harvest decay rates, the amount of energy that would be expended during 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Final EIS 3-19 Climate and Air
3 Environment and Effects

the harvesting and transportation of timber, utilization rates and lifespan of wood 

products, future growth rates of young-growth stands, the substitution of wood for 

other products, and market leakage (e.g., Harmon et al. 1990; Birdsey et al. 

1993; McKinley et al. 2011; Jonsson et al. 2012). Some of these factors may 

contribute to a net removal of carbon from the atmosphere, while other 

components can increase the carbon emission rate. Each of the harvesting 

alternatives would affect the amount of carbon that is stored in the forest; 

however, the amount/extent of this effect would depend on the time scale of 

consideration; how much of the wood is removed/harvested from the forest; how 

the wood is used; and how much carbon is released in cutting, yarding, 

transporting, and processing the wood as well as in soil carbon and woody debris 

decomposition (see discussion above, in the “Affected Environment” section). 

These factors and how they relate to the proposed alternatives are discussed in 

more detail below.

The harvesting of old-growth trees can reduce the carbon storage capacity of the 

forest and result in a net loss of carbon from the forest and into the atmosphere

(Harmon et al. 1990; Leighty et al. 2006; also see the discussion in the Affected 

Environment section). The Tongass National Forest is unique within the National 

Forest System in regard to the substantial amount of old growth that is present 

outside of wilderness areas on the Forest. Also unique is the proportion of 

harvesting that has occurred in old-growth forest acres as opposed to younggrowth acres during recent decades. Harvesting of old-growth creates an initial 

net release of CO2 into the atmosphere relative to leaving stands unmanaged, 

and this release of carbon can continue for years as logs and snags left after 

harvest continue to decompose (Harmon et al. 1990). Some of the forest’s 

carbon may be stored in the wood products that are produced following a 

harvest; however, the carbon in these products will transition back into the 

atmosphere over time as they degrade or are disposed of. For example, 

because harvest levels peaked in the 1970s, and much of the resulting wood 

products may now be in landfills, wood products from the Alaska Region are now 

believed to be a net emitter of carbon (Barrett 2014). In addition, approximately 

35 to 45 percent of a tree’s biomass is lost to sawdust or scraps during 

processing; therefore, the final amount of carbon ultimately stored in wood

products would be less than was originally harvested (Harmon et al. 1990), likely 

resulting in a net release of stored carbon. In addition, some of the wood 

products could be burned as part of biomass energy production, which would 

rapidly release the stored carbon into the atmosphere (Holtsmark 2012; 

DellaSala and Koopman 2015). 

Conclusions regarding carbon storage, carbon emissions, and ultimately 

sequestration can be strongly influenced by the temporal scale examined. For 

example, DellaSala (2014, 2016) suggested that a logged forest would emit 

substantial amounts of carbon for at least the first 15 years following harvest, and 

that a young regenerating forest would remain a net carbon emitter for up to 50 

years. Janisch and Harmon (2002) suggested that it can take more than 200 

years following a timber harvest for forests to reach equilibrium. Therefore, it 

appears that harvesting options proposed in the five alternatives considered 

would likely result in a net release of carbon in the short to medium timeframe 

(i.e., within the first 50 years following harvest), and could remain a net 

contributor to carbon emissions for more than 200 years.

The current land management plan for the Tongass National Forest focuses

timber harvest primarily on old-growth forests (i.e., Alternative 1 would keep this 

practice as the primary management tool); and as discussed above, harvesting 

old-growth timber reduces the carbon storage and ultimately the carbon 

sequestration ability of forests in Southeast Alaska. Each of the Action Alternatives

Climate and Air 3-20 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

considered for the plan amendment (i.e., Alternatives 2 through 5) would involve 

some harvesting of old-growth forests over a period of time (see Chapter 2); 

however, these would be at levels lower than what is currently allowed under the 

2008 Forest Plan. As a result, although each of the alternatives would result in a 

net release of carbon to the atmosphere, all action alternatives would result in a 

lower carbon emissions and potentially higher sequestration compared to the 

current plan (i.e., Alternative 1) due to the extent of old-growth forests that could 

be harvested under the No Action Alternative. Based on the 25-year projection,

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the lowest potential old-growth harvest

compared to the other alternatives considered, while Alternative 1 would have

the highest potential old-growth harvest and the lowest potential total harvest

(i.e., the total harvest level that includes both old-growth and young-growth 

harvests in the calculation) compared to the other alternatives. Alternative 2 

would have the highest potential total harvest. (see Table 3.13-7 in the Timber

section). 

The assessment provided above in this section employs a qualitative evaluation 

of carbon sequestration. A qualitative evaluation of the differences among 

alternatives provides the most certain and reliable illustration of potential 

differences between alternatives. A preliminary quantitative (i.e., numeric) 

assessment is feasible, but the quantitative results would include a large amount 

of error or uncertainty, such that the calculated differences between the 

alternatives would be difficult to discern. As outlined in McKinley et al. (2011) 

quantitative assessment of forest carbon must carefully address uncertainty; and 

portions of a quantitative analysis for this project with particularly high uncertainty 

include the following: 

1. While the amended plan specifies limits in timber harvest from old-growth 

and young-growth forest, it is unknown when forests will be harvested or the 

extent of harvest that would occur at any particular time (i.e., at or below the

specified limit), for any alternative. This leads to high uncertainty in 

estimating differences in carbon pools over time. 

2. The differences among alternatives in regard to the transportation of wood 

(location transported or shipped to) cannot be accurately estimated at this 

time. 

3. Similarly, differences among alternatives in the types of forest products that 

will be produced from trees harvested on the Tongass is unknown (e.g., 

product type influences the timing and amount of carbon stored). 

4. Finally, there are differences related to market leakage (McKinley et al. 2011;

Jonsson et al. 2012) associated with timber harvest. 

All these factors have a very high level of uncertainty at the Forest Plan level. 

Consequently, the programmatic assessment cannot compare quantitatively 

(within reasonable accuracy) the carbon emission or sequestration differences 

among alternatives,

6 Because of the large uncertainties in a quantitative lifecycle assessments for this amendment, we adopt a qualitative approach and 

focus on acres harvested, miles of road built, etc., which provides a more 

6 In addition to examining only standing carbon stocks, carbon mitigation can also be assessed through life 

cycle analysis. A recent synthesis of findings about the mitigation effectiveness of alternate forest 

management and wood use options concluded: In the long term, sustainable forest management strategy 

aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual yield of timber, fiber, or 

energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit (IPCC 2007). In a multi-use 

context, we are not suggesting that all lands be managed to generate the largest sustained carbon 

mitigation benefit, but rather simply citing IPCC scientists that research is being conducted on additional 

approaches that may lead to other conclusions. For example, Vose et al. (2012) report that life cycle 

evaluations of management and wood use options suggest more intensive approaches to wood production, 

harvest, and use to maximize carbon mitigation (Vose et al 2012).

Final EIS 3-21 Climate and Air

 
3 Environment and Effects

transparent, tractable evaluation of the relative differences between alternatives. 

As discussed above as part of the qualitative assessment, it is anticipated that 

each of the alternatives would result in a net increase in carbon emissions, and 

Alternative 1 is estimated to have the highest contribution to short-, mid-, and 

long-term carbon emissions.

All alternatives include standards and guidelines that protect soils, such as 

standards/guidelines related to harvesting on steep slopes, roads built across 

steep slopes, and on soil disturbing activities. These measures would help retain 

carbon stored as organic material in the soil. Also, unlike many areas of the 

country, broadcast burning to reduce slash is not practiced on the Tongass; 

therefore, much more of carbon stored on the forest floor and in the upper layers 

of soil is retained compared to sites that are broadcast burned. 

Air Quality

Cumulative effects on air quality include harvest-related emissions from state and 

private land, vehicle and maritime emissions, permitted uses such as community 

incinerators, industrial operations, cruise ship emissions, and electricity 

generation. Appendix C provides a full list of all the projects considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis.

Most of the logs harvested on private land are expected to be exported; 

therefore, locally there would be little additional emissions due to processing

and/or burning wood from state and private land locally. Because of the 

temporary and limited effects associated with timber harvest on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands, the alternatives are not expected to contribute significantly 

to cumulative effects on air quality. Air pollution from wood processing is likely to 

remain low, but could increase somewhat if more wood is burned to produce 

energy. 

Emissions from vehicles, maritime activities, cruise ship operations, community 

incinerators and industrial operational emissions would continue to contribute to 

cumulative effects on air quality. There are no known substantial increases in 

these activities, and therefore, they are expected to continue to be a negligible 

source of air quality emissions. 

Each of the action alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2 through 5) would remove the 

windows7 and avoidance language under the Transportation and Utility System 

(TUS) Land Use Designation (LUD) requirements and replace it with Renewable 

Energy Plan Components. Some areas would remain designated as TUS 

“avoidance”8 areas under Alternative 1. See the Renewable Energy Section for 

more information on TUS windows and avoidance areas. There are preliminary 

7 A TUS “window” is an area potentially available for the location of transportation or utility corridors 

and sites. Windows represent areas of future opportunity where the applied management direction 

will not conflict with future designation of a TUS. A site-specific analysis is still required during 

project-level planning, to identify resource protection needs within these areas. Windows are 

designated through the allocation of lands to TUS windows in their standards and guidelines. 8 A TUS "avoidance area" is an area where the establishment and use of transportation or utility 

corridors and sites is not desirable given the LUD emphasis. A search for "windows" should be 

exhausted before TUS facilities are considered in avoidance areas. When feasible, these areas 

should be avoided through site-specific analysis during project-level planning. Avoidance areas often 

include congressionally and administratively designated areas. Although special environmental or 

procedural considerations may be required for these areas, these special designations do not 

preclude consideration and use as a TUS. Avoidance areas are designated through the allocation of 

lands to LUDs specifically identified as TUS avoidance areas in their standards and guidelines. In 

cases where proposed or potential corridors are allocated to the TUS LUD that traverse other LUDs 

identified as TUS “avoidance areas,” treat the corridors within such LUDs the same as TUS 

“windows” (subject to applicable laws). 

Cumulative 

Effects

Climate and Air 3-22 Final EIS

 
Environment and Effects 3

plans for renewable energy projects in the Tongass National Forest that include

hydropower, geothermal power, and tidal power production plants (Tetra Tech 

2015). Although these renewable energy projects could still be built under 

Alternative 1, the Action Alternatives would likely streamline the development and 

permitting process for these projects making it more likely that they would be 

built. Although the Action Alternatives could make it more likely that renewable 

energy projects would be built, the plan does not specify or support any particular 

renewable energy type.

If built, these new power sources would require implementation of additional 

transmission lines and access roads to link the new power produced to the grid. 

Implementation of these renewable energy projects could result in long-term 

reductions in both air pollution and carbon emissions, as many communities may 

no longer have to rely on diesel generators if these new power sources are 

developed in the region. Nevertheless, initial development of renewable energy 

projects would result in temporary localized air quality impacts relating to 

construction of the projects and their support facilities (transmission lines and 

roads). Operationally, air quality emissions from these projects would likely be 

negligible, consisting of maintenance activities and worker trips. At this time it is 

not possible to quantitatively assess impacts from these types of developments 

because there is little to no detail available regarding these potential projects. 

Nevertheless, each of these renewable energy projects would proceed through 

their own National Environmental Policy Act effort where quantitative impact 

analysis would be competed and a determination of compliance with air quality 

standards would be made. 

Periodic forest fires in western Canada would continue to pose a potential 

adverse air quality effect, although the infrequent and transitory nature of these 

events prevents the analysis of quantitative impacts to the Tongass.

Climate Change / Carbon Sequestration

This section will address two issues: 1) the cumulative effects of the proposed 

amendments and other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions on 

climate change and carbon sequestration; and 2) the cumulative effects of 

climate change on the Forest Service’s future management of the Tongass 

National Forest. 

The extent and scope of cumulative effects on climate change and carbon 

sequestration depends on the amount and condition of total forest land harvested

(worldwide, as well as locally within Southeast Alaska); the use to which 

harvested wood is put; the use of the land post-harvest; how the non-NFS lands 

are managed (including private and state-managed lands within the U.S., as well 

as forests in other countries); on the amount of carbon released during harvest, 

processing, and transporting wood products; decomposition rates of organic 

materials; factors such as the amount of new hydroelectric or other renewable 

energy power projects that are built (e.g., those that might replace diesel 

generated power); future community expansion and development; as well as 

emissions from ongoing and future activities in the region. The anticipated scope 

and magnitude of many of these factors (e.g., the increased anticipated 

decomposition rates in organic materials in Southeast Alaska as average 

temperatures increase; the potential for new hydroelectric or other renewable 

energy power projects to be developed in the region; and emissions from 

ongoing and future activities) are discussed and analyzed above. It is 

anticipated that communities in the region and worldwide will continue to 

increase in some areas and decrease in others depending on local population 

sizes, as well as site-specific socioeconomic and other anthropogenic factors 

Final EIS 3-23 Climate and Air
3 Environment and Effects

(see the Communities section). It is uncertain how forested lands that are located 

outside of the U.S. would be managed by their respective governments or landowners (and the Forest Service would have no jurisdiction over these foreign 

lands or entities), but it is likely that many of these areas will continue to be 

managed under their respective government’s current forest management 

practices, as well as responding to global markets including the influences of the 

Tongass forest products on those markets leading to some level of market 

leakage (e.g., Jonsson et al. 2012). It is likely that most of the state and private 

commercial forest land in Southeast Alaska, except for state parks and some 

other state lands, would be managed for the production of forest products under 

any of the alternatives considered in this analysis. On Forest Service–managed 

lands, the maximum amount of suitable land on the Tongass that could be 

harvested would vary depending on the alternative selected (see the Timber

section). Maximum levels of harvest would only occur if additional manufacturing 

facilities and markets are developed, as well as other factors such as funding and 

staff levels. If the products resulting from harvest are primarily lumber and other 

building materials, there is a potential that the carbon in these products would be 

stored for the life of the buildings, longer if the wood is recycled or placed in 

landfills. If the wood is used for paper products or fuel, carbon storage would be 

short term (Harmon et al. 1990). Any temporary storage of carbon in lumber 

products may be offset by carbon released during and after harvest, 

transportation, and processing. 

Each of the alternatives would cumulatively add to the global effects of climate 

change by contributing to the net release of carbon to the atmosphere; however, 

the goal of the proposed amendment is to reduce the total old-growth harvest that 

could occur, and as a result, each of the Action Alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 2 

through 5) would have lower cumulative effects to carbon emission levels 

compared to the 2008 Forest Plan (i.e., Alternative 1). Stated more directly, based 

on the extent of old-growth forest harvest, Alternative 1 would result in the lowest 

potential for carbon storage followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 2, and 3.

Climate change could impact the resources currently managed by the Forest 

Service as well as how the Forest Service manages the Tongass National Forest 

in the future. While there is general agreement among scientists that the climate 

of Southeast Alaska is warming, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the 

exact scope of the effects of climate change on the forests of Southeast Alaska 

and how best to deal with possible changes to the many resources managed on 

the Tongass. 

Shanley et al. (2015) predicted that the increased temperatures and precipitation 

events estimated to occur in the region as a result of climate change would have 

the following effects to coastal temperate rainforests like those found in the 

Tongass National Forest: increased frequency of flooding and rain-on-snow 

events; an elevated snowline and reduced snowpack; changes in the timing and 

magnitude of stream flow, freshwater thermal regimes, and riverine nutrient 

exports; changing non-forested habitats; altitudinal and latitudinal expansion of 

lowland and subalpine forest types; shifts in suitable habitat boundaries for 

vegetation and wildlife communities; adverse effects on species with rare 

ecological niches or limited “dispersibility”; and shifts in anadromous salmon 

distribution and productivity (Shanley et al. 2015). Other effects on forests in the 

Tongass National Forest could include increased blowdown; increased tree 

mortality from insects and disease; increased fire frequency and severity; 

adverse effects on air quality; and changes to subsistence use and recreation. 

If warmer winter weather results in higher insect populations and increased tree 

defoliation (as discussed above), there is a risk that increased dead material and 

Climate and Air 3-24 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

warmer weather may spawn more fires than are normal for the area. However, 

as Berman et al. (1998) state, it is difficult to predict the magnitude of the area 

likely to be burned in a region without an historic fire record, but they estimate 

that most fires would be small and of low intensity, suggesting a scenario in 

which 5,000 acres might burn over a period of decades (an average of 

approximately 100 acres per year). Juday et al. (1998) and Shanley et al. (2015)

suggest that the effects of fires on resources are likely to be low in this region, 

but that the effects of insects and disease may increase. For example, Shanley 

et al. (2015) stated “[a]ssuming that seasonality of precipitation does not change 

significantly, fire will remain unimportant as a disturbance agent, but higher 

[mean annual temperature] is anticipated to increase the incidence and severity 

of insect and disease in lowland forests.” 

Plant and animal species will respond to changing climates individually; and 

some species or individuals will be more sensitive and vulnerable than others 

(Millar et al. 2006). For example, forest losses (either from climate induced 

increases in insects, diseases, or fire) could harm wildlife habitat, which in turn 

could adversely affect subsistence resources; while conversely, Juday et al. 

(1998) suggested that warmer winters could result in sustained higher 

populations of Sitka black-tailed deer, one of the most important subsistence 

resources for residents of Southeast Alaska and a major prey species for wolves. 

Juday et al. (1998) also postulate that warmer, drier conditions could increase 

stream temperatures and cause seasonal low flows, both of which could 

adversely affect salmon (EcoAdapt 2014). Berman et al. (1998) estimated that a 

25 percent decline in salmon stocks would result in a loss of $25 million a year 

(approximately $31 million in current dollars). However, Oswood et al. (1992)

state that melting glaciers would result in more runoff entering streams. This 

could offset any decrease in summer flows due to reduced summer precipitation, 

at least in the short run. In time, glacial mass would be reduced and their 

contribution to stream flow would decrease (EcoAdapt 2014). Oswood et al. also 

believe that climate change would result in changes to the nutritional levels of 

leaf material entering streams, but could not predict whether this would have a 

positive or negative effect of fish. Some recent studies have postulated that 

watersheds currently fed by snow may transition to rain-fed systems, thereby 

altering water storage and flow dynamics that can affect salmon health (Wolken 

et al. 2011; Shanley and Albert 2014). The rate of decline and mortality of yellowcedar in Southeast Alaska may be increased as a result of climate change 

(Hennon and Shaw 1997; Wolken et al. 2011; Hennon et al. 2016), as the 

snowpack in low-elevation areas may continue to be reduced as a result of the 

warming trend, resulting in greater exposure of yellow-cedar’s fine roots to 

freezing, especially in the southern portion of the region (see the Forest Health

section). 

Warmer temperatures are expected to result in a loss of carbon stored in leaf 

litter and soil organic matter, due to increased soil respiration (Bachelet et al. 

2005). The clearing of forested areas during harvesting or other development 

actions could increase this effect, by increasing the amount of solar energy that 

is allowed to reach the ground.

Shanley et al. (2015) hypothesized that climate change could also affect the 

quality of timber products that could be harvested from this region. For example,

they state that “[a]ccelerated forest growth rates, if driven by [mean annual 

temperature] warming, may in turn increase the quantity but decrease the tight 

grain quality of forest products from second-growth forests, relative to those 

harvested from primarily forests during the 20th century.” Furthermore, some 

studies have found reduced productivity of forests throughout Alaska as a result 

of recent changes to climatic conditions (Wolken et al. 2011). 

Final EIS 3-25 Climate and Air
3 Environment and Effects

All of these factors and anticipated effects related to climate change can have 

both local and global implications to communities as well as associated social 

costs (Larsen et al. 2007; IPCC 2014; EcoAdapt 2014). These include changes 

to subsistence and recreational resources, impacts to infrastructure and landuse, changes to transportation routes and options, and potential impacts to public 

health as a result of climate change.

The Forest Service will continue to work with local stakeholders and Pacific 

Northwest scientists to develop measures to alert the Forest Service to trends 

that may affect the health of the Forest and the species that depend on it, as well 

as measures that could be implemented to minimize or adapt to the effects of 

climate change on managed resources. One monitoring effort that the Forest 

Service currently uses to track changes in vegetation is the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis-Forest Health Monitoring (FIA FHM) program. Researchers have 

analyzed the existing FIA data from plots containing epiphytic lichen, and 

vascular plant data to develop air pollution and climate models (Root et al. 2014). 

Annual insect and disease surveys also provide information on how climate 

change may be affecting forests. Stream gauges, some of which provide longterm data on stream flow, are another tool used by the Forest Service to monitor 

the effects of climate change on the Tongass National Forest. The ongoing work 

of the Forest Service, local stakeholders, and Pacific Northwest scientists will aid 

in developing management tools to address ongoing changes to the environment 

and climate.

Climate and Air 3-26 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-27 Geology, Karst, and Caves

Geology, Karst, and Caves

Affected Environment....................................................................................... 3-27

Geology ........................................................................................................ 3-27

Karst and Caves........................................................................................... 3-28

Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................ 3-33

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3-33

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3-35

Affected Environment

The Tongass National Forest is underlain by complex geology. Southeast 

Alaska is located near the boundaries between the Pacific and North American 

tectonic plates. During the past 170 million years, tectonic movements have 

brought massive crustal blocks from across the Pacific Ocean and lodged and 

welded them onto the edge of the North American plate. The resulting 

southeast-northwest trending rock belts, or accreted terranes, include a wide 

variety of geologic materials (Nowacki et al. 2001). As the Pacific and North 

American plates collided, the coastal mountains of Southeast Alaska were 

uplifted. More recently, fault movements have offset the accreted terranes, 

adding further geologic complexity to the region. This tectonic plate boundary 

forms part of the “Ring of Fire,” the area around the Pacific Ocean that is high in 

volcanic, mountain-building, and seismic activities. Evidence of relatively recent 

volcanic activity exists within the Tongass National Forest. The Mount 

Edgecumbe volcanic field volcanic activity began about 600,000 years ago. 

Mount Edgecumbe itself formed as a result of several explosive eruptions 12,000 

to 14,000 years ago. The volcanic field last erupted between 5,000 and 6,000 

years ago. On the southern Tongass are two other volcanic fields that have 

developed during the late Pleistocene. The Craig volcanic field consists of 18 

known vents that range in age from 847,000 to 6,700 years before present. The 

Ketchikan volcanic field consists of 30 vents ranging in age from 400,000 to 

8,100 years before present (BP). These features consist of cinder cones, lava 

flows, rhyolite domes, and obsidian flows, many of which erupted subglacially or 

marginal to ice.

Together, these tectonic, seismic, and volcanic forces have resulted in many 

different geologic formations in Southeast Alaska. Within the Tongass National 

Forest, generalized lithologies have been delineated and include granitics, 

noncarbonated sedimentary, carbonate sedimentary, metasedimentary, complex 

sedimentary and volcanics, volcanics, and mafics/ultramafics (Nowacki et al. 

2001). During the past 12.5 million years, many of these lithologies have been 

affected by glaciers. 

Within the Tongass National Forest, recurrent ice sheets formed and spilled from 

the St. Elias and Coast Mountains onto adjacent surfaces (Nowacki et al. 2001). 

Pushing seaward, these continental ice sheets combined with smaller alpine 

glaciers descended from isolated island peaks. Together, the ice sheets and 

glaciers reworked the topography of the land by rounding mountains, scouring 

bedrock, depositing glacial sediments, and carving U-shaped valleys and 

submarine trenches. In some areas, unconsolidated sediments were left, 

including glacial till (ice-contact deposits), glacial outwash, and glacial marine 

sediments. During the last glacial maximum, ice flowed all the way to the 

continental shelf. As glaciers retreated worldwide, the ice sheet receded first at 

Geology
3 Environment and Effects

Geology, Karst, and Caves 3-28 Final EIS

coastal margins, then north and eastward along major channels and valleys into 

the mountains. Deglaciation was rapid and largely complete by 13,500 years 

ago. 

The group of islands and fjords that currently make up the Tongass National 

Forest developed after the last major glacial retreat as seawater flooded the 

deeply incised valleys and trenches. Since deglaciation, coastlines have shifted 

dramatically due to tectonic events, worldwide sea level changes, and land 

rebound in the absence of the glaciers’ massive weight. Elevated fossil-bearing 

marine beaches and deltas along the coastline indicate an uplift of the land 

relative to the sea since the last glacial maximum.

There are multiple sites with important vertebrate and invertebrate 

paleontological resources throughout the Tongass, including 220 million year-old 

sites on Gravina Island and the islands in Keku Strait (Baichtal 2006). Many 

important paleontological resources have been identified in caves on the 

Tongass National Forest. Paleontological resources are managed and protected 

on federal lands per Subtitle D of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111-11). The Forest Service recently issued new rules for 

paleontological resource preservation that became effective on May 18, 2015 (80 

[74] Federal Register 21587-21638). The new rule addresses the management, 

collection, and curation of paleontological resources from National Forest System 

(NFS) lands including management using scientific principles and expertise, 

collecting of resources with and without a permit, curation, confidentiality of 

specific locality data, and penalties for illegal activities.

As a result of the geological processes in Southeast Alaska, the region’s 

physiography is topographically complex. Broad physiographic areas in the 

Tongass National Forest include icefields, recently deglaciated areas, large 

mainland river systems, angular mountains, rounded mountains, hills, lowlands, 

and recent volcanic fields. These distinct areas reflect the geomorphic and 

glacial history of the land. Continental ice sheets flowed, scoured, and deposited 

materials, tectonics added blocks of distinct geology, and volcanism 

superimposed younger rocks. 

The geology and climate of Southeast Alaska are particularly favorable for karst 

development. Karst is a comprehensive term that applies to the unique 

topography, surface and subsurface drainage systems, and landforms that 

develop by the action of water on soluble rock (primarily limestone and marble 

[carbonates] in Southeast Alaska). The dissolution of the rock results in the 

development of internal drainage, producing sinking streams (streams that sink 

into the stream bed or karst features), closed depressions, sinkholes, collapsed 

channels, and caves. 

Because of fractures in the carbonates, high annual precipitation, and peatlands 

adjacent to the carbonate bedrock, karst has developed, to varying extents, 

within all carbonate blocks. The Tongass National Forest contains the largest 

known concentration of dissolution caves in Alaska. Approximately 431,030

acres of karst are on NFS lands. 

In Southeast Alaska, the karst landscape can be characterized as an ecological 

unit found atop carbonate bedrock in which karst features and drainage systems 

have developed as a result of differential solution by surface and ground waters. 

These acidic waters are a direct product of abundant precipitation and passage 

of these waters through the organic-rich forest soil and adjacent peatlands. 

Recharge areas may be on carbonate or adjacent noncarbonate substrates. A 

few characteristics of this ecological unit include mature, well-developed spruce 

and hemlock forests along valley floors and lower slopes, increased productivity 

Karst and Caves
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-29 Geology, Karst, and Caves

for plant and animal communities, extremely productive aquatic communities, 

well-developed subsurface drainage, and the underlying unique cave resources 

(Baichtal and Swanston 1996). The visible karst landscape also contains 

“epikarst,” or surface features, particularly in the alpine and sub-alpine zones. 

These include deep shafts and fissures, eroded rills, and spires or spikes of 

limestone. 

Karst lands add a vertical, underground dimension to land use planning. Karst 

subsurface drainage networks generally operate independently of, and with more 

complexity than, the surface drainage systems above, and the watershed 

characteristics of the surface may have little or no relationship to the subsurface 

system. On karst lands, the many solution-widened fissures at the surface 

become entry points into the subsurface drainage system, where water and 

sediment from surface sources move vertically downward into the underground 

lateral systems. Sediment and water from disturbed lands or roads may enter 

this system at a single point and emerge unexpectedly at one or more distant 

springs, sometimes crossing surface watershed boundaries. Karst groundwater 

systems routinely transport water for several thousands of feet to receiving 

caves, springs, and surface streams. 

Most Tongass National Forest caves pre-date the most recent glaciation, as 

evidenced by the presence of glacial clays, glacial sediments, wood, Pleistocene 

vertebrate remains, and possibly ancient ice. Speleothems (i.e., secondary 

mineral deposits such as stalactites, stalagmites, flowstone, and crystal growths)

from El Capitan Cave, on Prince of Wales Island, have been radiometrically 

dated to between 107,000 and 115,000 years old, or during the last interglacial 

period. Speleothem dates from other caves in the Tongass National Forest 

range from 53,000 to 185,800 years old. The most recent glaciation modified a 

pre-existing karst landscape, collapsing some passages and systems, gouging 

into others, and filling some with sediments. The epikarst (surface karst), which 

is well developed in higher elevations, has been removed in places at lower 

elevations by glaciation. Where low-elevation epikarst is present, primarily on 

the outer coast of islands seaward of Prince of Wales Island, vegetation has 

been re-established and a forested epikarst created. With the development of 

forested epikarst and peatlands, and the entrance of associated acidic waters 

into underground tributaries, a system of enlarged caves and vertical shafts has 

developed.

There is a definite tie between the karst landscape and the productivity of the 

spruce and hemlock forests found there. Dense stands of very large diameter 

spruce and hemlock at lower elevations are characteristic of many karst 

landscapes. The major contributors are believed to be the nutrient rich soils, 

well-developed subsurface drainage, and dissected bedrock surface, which 

allows the tree roots to hold fast and become more windfirm. The old-growth 

forest on this low-elevation karst provides a well-structured, multi-layered canopy 

resulting in high-quality winter habitat for many wildlife species. The structure of 

the forest provides many forbs and shrubs, which provide forage. It is possible 

that this forage contains, at a minimum, higher calcium levels allowing for better 

bone, muscle, and antler development. The combination of quality forest 

structure and abundant nutritional browse make the karst landscape, in general,

exceedingly important habitat.

Many wildlife species, including mammals, birds, and invertebrates, find the 

surface karst features and the stable environment and shelter provided within the 

caves to be valuable habitat (Baichtal and Swanston 1996). Cave systems 

provide critical summer and winter roosting and hibernating habitat for bats

(Baichtal and Swanston 1996). Preliminary studies suggest that aquatic habitats 
3 Environment and Effects

Geology, Karst, and Caves 3-30 Final EIS

associated with karst landscapes may be 8 to 10 times more productive than 

adjacent non-karst aquatic habitats (Baichtal and Swanston 1996). Karst aquatic 

habitats support a greater abundance, distribution, density, and variety of 

invertebrate species than non-carbonate habitats, have higher growth rates for 

smolts and resident fish, have less variable water temperatures and flow 

regimes, and contain unique habitat affecting species distribution, abundance, 

and adaptation. 

The potential cultural and paleontological significance of the caves and karst 

landscape is high (Baichtal and Swanston 1996). The Pleistocene paleontology 

of the area is primarily known from cave and rock shelter deposits, which are 

often intimately related to archaeological sites. The cool, stable, non-acid 

environments in the caves result in exceptionally good preservation of bone and 

organic materials. To date, significant archaeological and paleontological 

materials have been discovered in over 30 caves and rock shelters within the 

Tongass National Forest. Evidence of human habitation, the oldest dating to 

about 9,700 years BP, has been discovered in several caves on Prince of Wales 

and nearby seaward islands. Eighteen black bears (Ursus americanus), one 

dating to approximately 39,000 years BP, and 13 brown bears (Ursus arctos),

ranging in age from about 35,400 to 7,200 years BP and now extinct on Prince of 

Wales Island, have been found.

Cave invertebrate collections have yielded at least five troglobitic and 40

troglophilic invertebrate species. Many of these species, such as Onychiurus

n.sp., Tomocerus n.sp., and Stygobromus n.sp., have only just been discovered. 

These species and their distribution may shed light on the extent of past 

glaciations and the timing of sea level fluctuation in the region.

Of the 431,030 acres of NFS karst lands, approximately 278,000 acres were 

originally productive old growth (POG). Based on geographic information system 

(GIS) queries, 82,240 of these POG acres (29 percent) have been harvested, 

leaving 152,800 acres of existing POG on NFS karst lands.

Aerial and on-the-ground observations are revealing the effects of past resource 

management on karst systems. Hydrologic evidence suggests that timber 

harvest alter the timing and intensity of surface flow, resulting in accelerated 

sediment and debris transport. Passages have flooded that had not flooded for 

centuries, and many cave entrances were infilled and/or blocked by logging 

slash, sediment, and debris, resulting in surface flows being rerouted into 

different passages. In the past, runoff generated from road surfaces commonly 

was diverted into karst features. It is not yet fully known what cumulative effects

past timber harvest have had on the epikarst landscape. In some portions of the 

Tongass National Forest, 70 to 80 percent of the commercial forest land within 

specific karst blocks have been harvested. Overall, about 41 percent of original 

POG on karst lands below 800 feet in elevation have been harvested on the 

Tongass. In the North Central Prince of Wales Biogeographic Province (which 

includes most of Thorne Bay Ranger District and part of the Craig Ranger 

District), about 57 percent of the original POG on karst lands below 800 feet 

have been harvested. 

The Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) includes standards and 

guidelines that provide for other land uses while taking into account the function 

and biological significance of the karst and cave resources within the landscape. 

The Forest manages karst lands using karst vulnerability mapping. This strategy 

assesses the susceptibility of the karst resources to any land use. Vulnerability 

mapping utilizes the fact that some parts of a karst landscape are more sensitive 

than others to planned land uses. The key elements of the strategy focus on the 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-31 Geology, Karst, and Caves

openness of the karst system and its ability to transport water, nutrients, soil and 

debris, and pollutants into the underlying hydrologic systems. The strategy 

strives to maintain the capability of the karst landscape to regenerate a forest 

after harvest, to maintain the quality of the waters issuing from the karst 

hydrologic systems, and to protect the many resource values within the 

underlying cave systems as per the requirements of the Federal Cave Resources 

Protection Act (FCRPA).

Multiple reviews of the karst management strategies have been conducted by 

two panels, independent reviewers, and internally as well. These reviews 

include the Karst and Cave Resource Significance Assessment, Ketchikan Area, 

Tongass National Forest, Alaska (Aley et al. 1993); the Application of a Karst 

Management Strategy: Two Case Studies from the Tongass National Forest, 

Southeastern Alaska; The Challenges of Implementation (Baichtal 1997); the 

Heceta Sawfly Salvage Sale, Soils, Karst, and Cave Resource Evaluation, 

Heceta Island, Southeastern Alaska (Baichtal and Landwehr 1997); the Karst 

Vulnerability Assessment Review, Heceta Island (Aley 1997); and the Karst 

Management Standards and Implementation Review, Final Report of the Karst 

Review Panel (Griffiths et al. 2002). These reviews, combined with 

implementation and effectiveness monitoring and resource specialist input, 

formed the basis for the changes to karst and cave management standards and 

guidelines adopted in 2008.

In 2008, the Tongass National Forest amended the 1997 Forest Plan and made

substantial changes to the karst and cave management standards and 

guidelines. The 2008 Forest Plan also included additions to the geologic special 

interest areas to protect nearly 47,000 additional acres (57,164 acres total) of 

karst lands that are most vulnerable to disturbance from development. In 2014, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 changed some of 

those Geologic Special Areas to Land Use Designation (LUD) II Geologic 

Conservation Areas. The land ownership of some of the Geologic Special Areas 

was transferred to the Sealaska Corporation. Currently, 69,825 acres (16

percent of the Tongass karst lands) are Geologic Special Interest Areas or LUD

II Geologic Conservation Areas.

On the low to moderate vulnerability karst lands (defined in the Karst and Cave

Resources Standards and Guidelines of Chapter 4 in the Forest Plan), where 

mineral or glacially derived soils fully or partially cover the epikarst, forest 

regeneration is exceptional. In these areas, even the complete loss of soil and 

litter from the surface of the limestone will not prohibit the re-establishment of a 

forest because the displaced surface materials are retained within the epikarst 

channels (Harding and Ford 1993). On highly vulnerable karst lands, the 

epikarst channels are too deep to allow conifer seedlings to establish themselves 

even if the displaced soil is retained. The bottom of the channels may also be 

open, directly transporting sediment and debris into the karst groundwater 

system. Highly vulnerable karst areas are generally found at higher elevations, 

have thin organic soils that are easily displaced, are on steeper slopes, or are in 

areas of intense karst development. Previous harvest in such areas has 

increased the percentage of bare rock, resulting in less-than-desirable forest 

regeneration. Recent implementation and effectiveness monitoring (USDA Forest 

Service 2013c) found that the Karst and Cave Standards and Guidelines outlined 

in the Forest Plan were being implemented to the fullest extent practicable. 

Through effectiveness monitoring, the karst and cave standards and guidelines 

outlined in the Forest Plan were shown to ensure a high level of protection for 

significant caves and karst resources overall. The karst resources standards 

and guidelines have been fully implemented in proposed and ongoing projects, 

such as the Big Thorne Timber Sale, Dargon Point Environmental Assessment, 
3 Environment and Effects

Geology, Karst, and Caves 3-32 Final EIS

Logjam Timber Sale, Twelvemile Restoration Environmental Assessment, review 

of the Juneau Access Road Proposal, Phases 1 and 2 of the Forest Highway 43 

construction from the Coffman Cove Junction to the Whale Pass Junction, and 

the Sunnahae Trail construction (USDA Forest Service 2012a, 2013c).

Programs such as the small-sale program on Thorne Bay Ranger District allow 

the karst management specialist to work closely with the presale forester, 

purchaser, and sale administrator to ensure consideration of karst resource 

values.

Recent post-harvest monitoring has been limited because only a minor amount 

of harvest occurred on karst lands where mitigation had been prescribed. In the 

limited subsurface karst evaluations to document changes, no substantial 

changes as a result of management activities were documented (USDA Forest

Service 2012a, 2013c).

Although most caves found to date on the Tongass are not suitable for recreation 

purposes because of frequent flooding, instability, or presence of fragile 

structures, the Forest Service is seeking opportunities for surface and 

subsurface public access and interpretation. Currently, free guided tours are 

provided by the Forest Service at El Capitan Cave during the summer where 

interpretive information is provided regarding karst geology and archeological 

discoveries.

Karst areas in Southeast Alaska are most comparable to those of karst lands 

found on Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia 

(Canada), portions of Patagonia (Chile), Tasmania, and the west coast of the 

South Island of New Zealand. All of these areas have very steep surface slopes 

and subsurface hydraulic gradients, and very high levels of rainfall. These 

characteristics put them among the most dynamic karst terrains on earth, 

evolving and changing more rapidly and abruptly than karst in more moderate 

settings. The Karst Panel Report (Aley et al. 1993, as cited in USDA Forest 

Service 1997a) found the karst lands of the Tongass National Forest to be of 

national and international significance for a variety of reasons. The Karst Review 

Panel in the summer of 2002 confirmed these findings (Griffiths et al. 2002). 

Both of these panels consisted of world renowned karst experts with a breadth of 

karst resource backgrounds and a wide variety of international exposure to karst 

areas and management considerations. Not only is the level of karst 

development and the karst hydrology and mineralogy globally significant, the 

paleontological and archaeological discoveries have provided information on the 

prehistory of Southeastern Alaska and contributed to and challenged theories of 

the peopling of North America.

The natives and local inhabitants of Southeast Alaska have long known of the 

presence of caves. The existence of well-developed cave systems was first 

reported in 1975 and mapping of the caves began in 1987. The existence of vast 

areas in which karst had developed was fully recognized in 1990. Though noted 

by early foresters and geologists, the relationship between high site productivity 

and the presence of karst landscape became apparent at about this same time. 

With the passing of the FCRPA in 1988, the Forest struggled with methods to 

protect the many caves throughout the landscape. At first, protection focused on 

the large, significant karst features and cave entrances. Subsequent measures 

tended to look at entire karst hydrologic systems. 

Currently, the Tongass inventory includes 611 caves (plus one state cave). Of 

these, 290 were identified in 1996 during the initial process of identifying 

significant cave resources. An additional 87 caves were added in 2003. The 

Tongass National Forest has received another 57 nominations that are pending. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-33 Geology, Karst, and Caves

The remaining 177 caves do not have nominations. Intense karst development 

has been identified on northern, central, and south-central Prince of Wales 

Island, Kosciusko Island, Dall Island, Heceta Island, Revillagigedo Island,

Chichagof Island, and on the mainland southeast of Wrangell (Baichtal 2006). 

Approaches to characterizing karst areas on the Tongass National Forest in 

recent years have included tracer dye studies to define karst watersheds and 

water quality parameters, physical monitoring of karst springs, and measurement 

of rainfall (USDA Forest Service 2013c). These efforts provided preliminary data 

on how karst groundwater systems and water chemistry relates to precipitation 

and runoff. These data will be used to establish baseline conditions, and will be 

compared with karst conditions monitored after implementation of management 

activities. In addition, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology has been 

used in ongoing inventories of karst and cave resources. 

Environmental Consequences

Geology

None of the alternatives modify standards and guidelines for geology. As per 

current direction, geologic inventories would be conducted to cover bedrock 

geology, surficial geology, stratigraphy, hydrogeology, geomorphic features, 

geological hazards, karst features, caves, and paleontology, including potential 

for geologic formations to yield fossil resources of scientific and other values. 

The continued focus on geologic resources results in protection of unique 

features and utilization of geological resources. Refer to the Minerals section for 

more information on potential effects related to mining and mineral resources.

Karst and Caves

Potential effects to karst systems and caves and associated drainages from 

timber harvest and road building include changes in hydrology, infiltration rates, 

sediment production, debris transport, pollutants, and introduction of organics 

that can lead to oxygen depletion. Issues and concerns related to karst lands 

primarily revolve around potential changes to groundwater flow in the 

underground system. Any management activity that causes sediment or organic 

debris to build up in the subsurface conduits decreases the capacity of these 

conduits and makes the formation of surface streams more likely. Similarly, any 

management activity that increases groundwater recharge may also affect the 

capacity of the conduits in the underground system and make formation of 

surface streams more likely. Changes in the presence of surface water can 

produce broad ecosystem changes both above and below ground. Groundwater 

recharge in karst lands occurs by either discrete or diffuse recharge. Discrete 

recharge refers to losing or sinking streams that enter the subsurface at specific 

insurgence points. Diffuse recharge refers to subsurface entry of water through 

the forest floor and the epikarst. Losing or sinking streams can rapidly deliver 

sediment into subsurface passageways. 

Sediment transport into karst systems also produces concern. This concern is 

primarily attributed to the size of past harvest blocks and the rate at which the 

landscape was harvested prior to the early 1990s, when the extensiveness and 

significance of karst terrain on the Tongass National Forest became more fully 

recognized. The current standards and guidelines address these concerns to a 

high degree.

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Geology, Karst, and Caves 3-34 Final EIS

Potential effects on karst lands from planned timber harvesting, associated road 

construction, and quarry development may occur; however, with implementation 

of the current or proposed standards and guidelines (as modified through 

ongoing monitoring and adaptive management), and site-specific mitigation 

measures (designed and implemented at the project level), the Forest expects to 

mitigate the effects of any proposed activity. Site-specific mitigation measures 

include protection of the high vulnerability karst areas and features, partial 

cutting, reduced harvest unit size, use of logging systems that achieve at least 

partial suspension, reductions in rate of harvest, and other changes in logging 

practices. 

The Karst Review Panel in the summer of 2002 found that implementation of the 

Karst and Cave Standards and Guidelines from the current Forest Plan had 

ensured a high level of protection for karst resources overall (Griffiths et al. 

2002). The Panel noted high standards in both the philosophy of management 

and the way that specific management practices were formulated and applied. 

Implementation of specific policies and procedures was found to be very good 

and in general compliance with the stated goals and objectives of the karst 

program. The Panel also noted the extent to which high vulnerability karst had 

been protected since 1997. In addition, the Panel outlined the action required to 

more actively manage karst landscapes covered with second-growth stands and 

recommended a new procedure for assessing the autogenic (precipitation on 

carbonate rocks) recharge component of karst units.

Several elements of the Karst and Cave Standards and Guidelines were updated 

in 2008 to better assess karst landforms and vulnerability, as well as allow 

flexibility depending on the professional judgment of karst-trained specialists. 

The 2008 Record of Decision also designated several geologic Special Interest 

Areas. These Special Interest Areas included all identified high vulnerability 

karst lands that were not already protected within current non-development 

LUDs. 

Much of the karst land within development LUDs has been designated as high 

vulnerability karst land and is protected or mitigated by standards and guidelines

or included within geologic Special Interest Areas. It is estimated that 30 percent 

of the other karst lands will be determined to be high vulnerability karst with 

ground verification in the future.

Approximately 431,030 acres of karst underlies NFS lands inside the Tongass 

National Forest. Alternative 1 would result in the lowest estimated maximum 

future harvest on NFS karst lands at 49,807 acres, including POG and young 

growth on suitable karst lands (Table 3.2-1). Alternative 2 would result in the 

highest estimated maximum future harvest on karst lands at 67,933 acres. Karst

inventories and vulnerability assessments would continue to be required before 

timber harvest could occur on suitable lands under all of the alternatives.

Alternatives 2 and 3 have the greatest acres of harvest on karst lands because 

they allow young-growth harvest in the most LUDs that are not currently 

considered suitable for timber harvest and they allow commercial thinning on 

high vulnerability karst. Alternative 4 would also allow commercial thinning on 

high vulnerability karst, but is limited to the existing development LUDs.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-35 Geology, Karst, and Caves

Table 3.2-1

Estimated Maximum Future Tongass Harvest (acres) on Karst

Lands under the Alternatives after 100 Years 

Alternative

Old Growth Young Growth by Vulnerability Class

Total Area

All Karst

Lands High Moderate

Low or 

Unmapped

Alternative 1 5,631 0 2,136 41,320 49,087

Alternative 2 2,688 4,017 2,563 58,665 67,933

Alternative 3 2,118 3,880 2,502 57,302 65,802

Alternative 4 4,090 783 2,231 48,166 55,271

Alternative 5 4,639 0 2,389 52,422 59,451

The vast majority of harvest would occur on low vulnerability or unmapped karst 

lands. Low vulnerability karst lands are not sensitive to management activities due 

to the depth of overlying material (e.g., glacial till) and low hydrologic conductivity. 

There would be no change to management practices on these lands between any 

alternatives. Should these lands later be determined to be high vulnerability karst 

lands, the more restrictive management rules would apply.

Even-aged management on low vulnerability karst and limited clear-cutting in 

medium vulnerability karst has always been allowed, although more restrictive 

guidelines than normally employed on non-karst lands may be needed on 

medium vulnerability karst. Alternatives 1 through 4 would be managed in similar 

fashion so long as karst management objectives could be met. Under Alternative 

5, created openings are limited to 10 acres with a maximum removal of 35 

percent of the original stand. Project-specific karst evaluations would still be 

required and effects would be avoided or minimized through project and site 

specific management prescriptions, such as requiring partial suspension yarding 

or limiting the size of openings moderate changes to precipitation throughfall.

No additional harvest is anticipated in any areas mapped as high vulnerability 

karst under Alternatives 1 and 5. These areas are included in the existing

Special Interest Areas, and are not suitable for harvest under these alternatives. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 each allow for commercial thinning on high vulnerability

karsts on a case-by-case basis when the karst management objectives can be 

met. While it is believed that these activities can be carefully planned and 

implemented to accomplish this, a shortage of monitoring on the effects to karst 

from second-growth management on the Tongass is recognized and there is 

some uncertainty. However, where commercial thinning is determined to be an 

appropriate treatment on high vulnerability karst lands, effects to karst will be 

addressed through project-specific prescriptions and analysis to ensure karst 

management objectives can be met.

The amount of new road construction on karst lands would also vary by 

alternative in relation to the acres of old growth harvested on karst lands. The 

estimated maximum amount of future old-growth harvest that could occur on 

NFS karst lands would vary by alternative, ranging from 2,118 acres under 

Alternative 3 to 5,631 acres under Alternative 1 (Table 3.2-1). 

There are approximately 549,522 acres (859 square miles) of karst lands within 

the boundaries of the Tongass National Forest. Some 431,030 acres (674 

square miles) are on NFS lands. Past timber harvest has affected the epikarst 

landscape on the Tongass National Forest. In some portions of the Tongass, 70 

to 80 percent of the commercial forest land within specific karst blocks has been 

harvested. It is estimated that about 29 percent (82,239 acres) of the karst lands 

on NFS lands have been harvested (based on the GIS database). In addition, 

Cumulative 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Geology, Karst, and Caves 3-36 Final EIS

several hundred miles of authorized and unauthorized roads have been 

constructed on karst lands. All alternatives would involve additional future 

harvests (Table 3.2-1) and associated road building and reconstruction on karst 

lands to varying degrees. Appendix C of this EIS provides a full list of all the 

projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Baichtal and Swanston (1996) observed sediment deposits and waterline marks in 

underground systems that suggested that past timber harvesting had increased 

sediment and debris transport and flooding of underground passages, many of 

which had not previously flooded for centuries. These timber harvests were 

conducted prior to the Karst and Cave Resources Standards and Guidelines 

implemented in the 1997 Forest Plan. As a result, they had more significant effects 

on karst lands than current and future harvest activities. At that time, many cave

entrances were filled or blocked by logging slash, sediment, and debris. Additional 

runoff generated from road surfaces commonly had been diverted into karst 

features. They also noted strong evidence of greatly increased surface runoff on 

karst landscapes and adjacent surfaces after timber harvest, which increased

sediment, nutrient, and debris transport capability of associated drainage networks.

Based on information from Prince Wales Island, Baichtal and Swanston (1996) 

noted few tree regeneration problems in low-elevation stands on karst 

landscapes. As a consequence, most easily accessible, low-elevation karst 

areas on the island had been harvested. After the initial timber harvests, harvest 

activities concentrated on steeper, higher elevation karst landscapes 

characterized by shallower, excessively well-drained soils. Baichtal and 

Swanston (1996) suggested that trees were smaller and regeneration problems 

were greater at these steep, upper elevation sites. This condition possibly 

resulted from shallow soils with low nutrient availability, excessive drainage of 

surface and soil waters into subsurface karst systems, removal of much of the 

shallow soil because of inadequate log suspension, and continued desiccation of 

the soil once the protective forest canopy was removed. After timber removal, 

high rainfall rapidly transported fragile soils into the well-developed epikarst.

More recent monitoring of karst lands near harvested areas (USDA Forest 

Service 2012a, 2013c) have confirmed that current timber harvest practices have 

adjusted substantially to accommodate Karst and Cave Standards and 

Guidelines. For example, karst resource input was provided for timber sales 

projects throughout the Tongass.

Extensive landscape changes and ground disturbance have occurred and are 

likely to continue to occur on non-federal lands in Southeast Alaska. These 

include timber harvest and road construction, mining, recreation and tourism, 

growth of human settlements, transportation projects, and energy and 

transmission projects. Forest Service regulations requiring protection of karst 

resources do not apply to non-federal lands. Approximately 109,800 of the 

nearly 540,600 acres of karst lands within the Tongass National Forest boundary 

are on state or private lands. 

Transfers of karst lands from NFS lands to other land managers or private 

owners could also occur under any of the alternatives through land exchanges or 

other types of land adjustments (such as the Alaska Mental Health Trust Land 

Exchange). This type of future action could increase the amount of karst lands in 

Southeast Alaska that are not in a protected LUD. Any exchange or other type of 

adjustment (outside of legally required conveyances) would require National 

Environmental Policy Act analysis, most likely an EIS, which would include public 

involvement and would disclose any adverse effects to karst and cave resources, 

as well as to other resources.
Environment and Effects 3

Soils

Affected Environment....................................................................................... 3-37

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 3-41

Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................ 3-41

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3-48

Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 3-49

Affected Environment

Soils in Southeast Alaska develop in parent materials originating from a variety of 

geological or vegetative sources. Parent material is the inorganic or organic 

matter in which soils develop, and in the Tongass National Forest includes 

volcanic ash; glacial deposits; hillslope, stream, and uplifted marine sediments; 

rock; and deposits of decomposed plant materials. Soils are commonly divided 

on the basis of their parent material. Both mineral and organic soils occur 

extensively within the Tongass National Forest, where more than 100 different 

soils have been identified. Soils cover 84 percent of the inventoried land surface 

area of the Tongass; the remainder consists of ice, exposed bedrock, and bodies 

of water.

From a resource management perspective, soil productivity (i.e., a soil’s ability to 

support vegetative growth) and the potential loss of soils or off-site effects from 

erosion and landslides are the principle concerns. The productivity of soils 

directly or indirectly affects the productivity of other forest resources. Tree 

growth, wildlife and fish habitat quality, and recreation uses and potentials 

depend in part on the quality of soils. In Southeast Alaska, soil productivity, in 

terms of tree growth, is high on well-drained soils (e.g., on steep slopes, in karst 

areas, and on floodplains) and decreases as latitude and elevation increase and 

as drainage becomes poorer.

Soil, or site, productivity is generally measured by the rate of biomass

accumulation, and site index is commonly used to give a relative indication of this 

productivity. Site index is determined by the height of dominant trees at a 

specified age. The site index tables or curves available for use in Southeast 

Alaska were developed from trees in even-aged stands, not the uneven-aged or 

old-growth stands that predominate here; consequently, the resulting site index 

categories are more useful for comparison than as absolute numbers. Soil 

productivity also can be estimated from the characteristics of individual soil types. 

The principal characteristics are soil depth, drainage, acidity, and coarse 

fragment content. Over one-quarter of the total productive forest land mapped in 

the Tongass National Forest Soil Resource Inventory has been identified as the 

highest site index category (Category 4), which means that on average these 

sites will grow trees greater than 80 feet tall in 50 years (Table 3.3-1). 

Approximately 11 percent of the Tongass productive forest land falls into the 

lowest site index category (Category 1), which corresponds with trees less than 

40 feet high in 50 years. Approximately one-quarter of the productive old growth 

(POG) and two-thirds of the harvested young growth have been mapped as 

Category 4 (Table 3.3-1).

Final EIS 3-37 Soils
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.3-1

Estimated Percent of the Productive Forestland on the Tongass by Site 

Index Category

Productive Forest 

Land Category

Site Index Category 

Unmapped1 Total 

1 2 3 4 

Avg. Site 

Index = 0-

40 

Avg. Site 

Index = 

41-60 

Avg. Site 

Index = 

61-80 

Avg. Site 

Index > 

80 

Productive Old Growth 12% 12% 23% 25% 28% 100%

Young Growth –

Harvested 

5% 6% 20% 64% 4% 100%

Young Growth –

Natural 

12% 14% 25% 34% 16% 100%

Total Productive Forest

land 

11% 12% 23% 28% 26% 100%

1 Unmapped areas are mostly in Wilderness or National Monument.

Soil erosion in the form of gully, sheet, and rill erosion is a minor occurrence 

under natural, undisturbed conditions in Southeast Alaska, because the thick 

surface duff layers that cover the mineral soils protect them from surface erosion. 

Mineral soils can be disturbed and exposed either by natural causes, such as 

landslides and blowdown, or management activities, such as timber harvest and 

road and landing construction. Surface erosion can become active once the duff 

layer is removed and can remain active until revegetation occurs.

The Soil and Water Standards and Guidelines in the 2008 Forest Plan are 

important for minimizing potential detrimental soil disturbance. According to 

results of recent soil and water implementation and effectiveness monitoring 

(USDA Forest Service 2013b), the Tongass National Forest is implementing the 

standards and guidelines for soil disturbance successfully during timber sale 

activities and road and landing construction. The Tongass National Forest has 

collected over 50 miles of soil disturbance transect data following timber harvest. 

Data collected indicate that all timber harvest units, including cable, helicopter,

and shovel yarding systems (restricted to slopes less than 30 percent gradient), 

are within the established Region 10 soil quality guideline of less than 15 percent 

soil disturbance that is considered potentially detrimental (Landwehr et al. 2012), 

as set forth in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2554 (FSM R-10 2500-2006-1).

Soil quality monitoring with soil disturbance transects continues on the forest. 

Monitoring and evaluation reports are written annually in addition to periodic 

reports summarizing soil disturbance transect data and/or soil bulk density 

sampling data. The most pertinent of these reports are Landwehr and Nowacki 

(1999), Landwehr (2008a and 2014), and Landwehr et al. (2012). These reports 

are discussed further in the Environmental Consequences section.

The longevity of soil disturbance has been evaluated in young-growth stands in 

the Tongass National Forest by re-monitoring 15 year-old young-growth harvest

units where relatively high levels of soil disturbance were documented following 

harvest (Landwehr 2008a). Results indicate that many small soil disturbances, 

less than about 25 square feet in area, are not identifiable after 15 years of 

recovery and likely not detrimental to woody plant growth even on relatively poor 

soils. Areas of detrimental soil disturbance are typically in coarse textured 

nutrient poor soils and lie in a landscape position where soil erosion or other 

factors have prevented natural recovery of the site (Landwehr 2008a).

Soils 3-38 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Recent monitoring of soil conditions has also been completed in older young-growth 

stands (more than 50 years old) to evaluate soil disturbance over the long term 

(Landwehr et al. 2012). Results indicate that highly productive, relatively nutrient rich 

soils may tolerate more severe and extensive soil disturbance before exhibiting a 

reduction in desired vegetation or vegetation growth at the desired growth rates. Soil 

displacements smaller than 100 square feet in area were rarely identified in highly 

productive stands after 50 or more years of recovery. Detrimental soil conditions in 

50+ year-old young-growth stands were primarily soil displacements and soil erosion. 

Soil displacements occurred primarily on tractor skid trails and spar tree yarding 

corridors. Soil erosion was identified on steeper slopes in the displaced areas as 

evidenced by the presence of small gullies and ephemeral streams; however, soil 

erosion was almost entirely arrested after 50 years of recovery. Areas of displaced 

soils greater than 100 square feet in area generally resulted in different vegetation 

communities and reduced growth rates compared with adjacent undisturbed sites 

(Landwehr et al. 2012).

Landslides, both naturally occurring and human-caused, dominate soil movement 

processes on steep forest lands in Southeast Alaska (Swanston 1969, 1974). 

Written over the course of more than 40 years, Swanston’s many papers present

excellent characterizations of landslides in Southeast Alaska. Landslides deliver 

eroded material to streams more quickly, and in greater quantity, than surface 

erosion. Landslides can seriously retard soil productivity for forest regeneration 

on slopes by removing the soil mantle down to bedrock or glacial till. It can take 

50 to 100 years or more for soil layers to be rebuilt on exposed bedrock in these 

landslide areas. Debris deposited on lower slopes and valley bottoms may 

improve site productivity locally because of incorporation of organic nutrients and 

improved drainage. Regeneration at such sites is rapid.

A recent study (Johnson et al. 2007) compared the effects from 100 percent tree 

removal to partial cuts (25, 50, and 75 percent removals) on landslide potential. 

They focused on effects to soil saturation (groundwater levels) and found 

increasing soil saturation with increasing percent tree removal. Increased soil 

saturation likely correlates with increased potential for soil erosion through 

landsliding, although they did not model this possibility directly because of 

uncertainties in estimating loss of cohesion as a result of changes in root 

strength in partial cut.

The amount of soil saturation may be impacted by future climate change. Soil 

saturation impacts are predicted to be highly variable based on site-specific 

physical characteristics such as soil type, bedrock orientation, and gradient. At 

the broad scale, predicted changes in temperature and precipitation are not 

expected to measurably change existing soil saturation conditions (EcoAdapt 

2014). The Climate and Air section includes discussion of soil carbon loss in a 

warming environment.

In the Tongass National Forest, several factors including soil depth, soil type, 

drainage characteristics, and landform type control soil stability on steep terrain. 

On steep forested slopes, the dominant failure type is debris avalanche, which is 

the failure of a finite mass of water-charged overburden material along a 

relatively planar surface. These landslides occur primarily at shallow depths (1 to 

3 feet) in the soil overburden and may break apart and transform into debris 

flows, which are a mixture of water, soil, rock and organic debris that rapidly 

moves downslope. The texture of the soil overburden is characteristically 

gravelly silt or gravelly silty sand; less commonly the texture might be sandy 

gravel with little or no cohesion (Swanston 1997). Organic content may exceed 

30 percent locally because of the downward migration of organic particles into 

the mineral soil zone, which substantially increases cohesion at some sites.

Final EIS 3-39 Soils
3 Environment and Effects

The Mass Failure Rating Classification developed by Alexander (1987) and 

refined by Swanston (1997), provides an indication of the relative frequency of 

mass failures when vegetation is cleared or the land is disturbed. In this system, 

soil map units in the Tongass National Forest are classified in the Mass 

Movement Index (MMI) from low to high or extreme risk (MMI 1 to MMI 4) of 

management induced landslides. The Mass Movement Index is based on slope 

gradient, parent material and soil properties, level of dissection, and evidence of 

prior landslides or snow avalanches (Swanston 1997). Slope is a primary factor 

in the MMI.

Almost half of the Tongass is made up of lands with slopes less than 35 percent 

(Table 3.3-2). Nearly one-third of the Tongass ranges in slope from 35 to 67 

percent, and the remaining 19 percent exceeds 67 percent slope. Only 14 

percent of productive old-growth lands and 5 percent of harvested young growth

lands exceed 67 percent slope. In general, these steep slopes pose greater risks 

for soil erosion through landslides.

Table 3.3-2

Estimated Percent of the Tongass National Forest, POG, and Young 

Growth by Slope Category

Forest Land Acres

Percent Slope Category

0-35% 35-67% >67% Total

Productive Old Growth 4,999,684 49% 37% 14% 100%

Young Growth –

Harvested

421,616 69% 26% 5% 100%

Young Growth – Natural 83,126 83% 13% 4% 100%

Other Areas 11,242,029 49% 30% 22% 100%

Tongass National Forest 16,746,454 49% 32% 19% 100%

Swanston and Marion (1991) mapped landslides in the Tongass National Forest 

during the 21-year period, 1963 through 1983. They noted an occurrence rate of 

118 landslides per 980 square kilometers (242,163 acres) in harvested or roaded 

areas over 21 years. Based on this count, an average of one landslide occurred 

per 2,052 acres of harvest over 21 years, or one landslide per 43,092 acres (on 

average) per year. They found that landslides were 3.5 times more likely on 

harvested areas. These landslide rates are generally supported by other 

landslide inventories and analyses that have been completed on the Tongass 

National Forest (Bishop and Stevens 1964; Landwehr 1994 and 1998).

Swanston and Marion (1991) showed that roughly 10 percent (118) of the 

landslides occurred in clearcut harvest areas or were directly associated with 

timber harvesting, whereas roughly 90 percent (1,277) occurred in unlogged 

areas. Landslides in unlogged areas appear to be larger and longer than those 

in logged areas.

A Forest-wide inventory to identify, delineate, and digitize all landslides as an 

independent layer in GIS was initiated in 2001. The first phase of the landslide 

inventory to map all landslides in development land use designations and other 

areas where soil mapping exists was completed in Fiscal Year 2012. Keeping 

this landslide inventory current is a challenge. To date, landslide frequency 

analyses and evaluation of landslide densities in managed stands versus

unmanaged areas have not been completed on this dataset. Future planning 

efforts include a landslide frequency analysis based on slope class using an 

updated 5- to 10-meter digital elevation model with a projected delivery date of 

2016 (USDA Forest Service 2013b).

Soils 3-40 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Environmental Consequences

Forest management activities can cause soil erosion and subsequent loss of site 

productivity through the exposure of mineral soil, alteration of subsurface 

drainage, and the concentration of soil and rock material at unstable sites. Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) are used to minimize soil erosion from all 

management activities. BMP implementation and effectiveness is monitored on 

a subset of activities on the forest each year. Monitoring for the past 10 years 

indicates a high rate of BMP implementation and effectiveness (USDA Forest 

Service 2013b).

Soil Quality Monitoring over the past 25 years indicates that old-growth timber 

harvest activities (as currently practiced) are achieving the FSM-2554-R10-2006, 

(Region 10 soil quality standards). The transition to young-growth harvest may 

result in soil erosion and subsequent loss of site productivity to varying degrees. 

Due to the substantial amount of vegetative groundcover remaining on harvest 

units during and following timber harvest, surface erosion from these areas is 

usually relatively small (Martin and Kirtland 1995; Swanston 1969); however,

detrimental soil conditions persist in the landscape in the form of temporary 

roads, landings, rock pits and some yarding disturbances may result in a loss of 

productivity, in terms of desired vegetation growth. Relatively nutrient rich soils, 

such as deep soils with limestone influence, appear to be more tolerant of 

moderate levels of soil disturbance without an obvious change in productivity. In 

contrast, heavy soil disturbance from harvest on coarse textured, nutrient poor 

soils developed in gravelly outwash, has been shown to result in reduced tree 

growth on those sites (Billings 1970; Harris et al. 1976; Landwehr 2008a;

Landwehr et al. 2012).

Young-growth stands may have detrimental soil conditions remaining from the 

first timber harvest. Recent soil quality monitoring of young-growth stands 

(greater than 50 years old) was completed by Landwehr et al. (2012). 

Detrimental soil conditions in these stands were primarily soil displacements and 

soil erosion from tractor skid trails and spar tree yarding corridors. The 

monitoring also found that the duff layer thickness was reduced in harvested 

stands on limestone soils when compared with adjacent unharvested stands. On 

soils of mixed minerology the duff layers were not significantly different in 

harvested stands compared to unharvested stands. Regarding duff thickness, 

more work needs to be done, but Landwehr et al. (2012) suggests several 

possible reasons for reduced duff thickness, none of which equate to reduced 

productivity of the limestone sites. The existence of soil erosion was identified by 

the presence of small gullies and ephemeral streams; however, after 50-years of 

recovery erosion is almost entirely arrested (Landwehr et al. 2012).

Due to the possibility of detrimental soil conditions in existing young-growth 

stands, the Forest Plan requires an evaluation of detrimental soil condition prior 

to harvest. This management approach will help insure that soil conditions 

remain within Region 10 soil quality standards.

Due primarily to economics of harvest many young-growth timber harvests will be 

conducted using ground-based equipment. Shovel yarding has been used on 

the forest for more than 25 years. Landwehr (2014) summarized the history of 

ground-based equipment timber harvest on the forest and provided the most 

recent soil quality monitoring data for timber harvest with ground-based 

equipment, especially on slopes over 30 percent gradient. The report documents 

the increase in detrimental soil conditions with operations on steeper slopes. On 

slopes over 30 or 35 percent gradient the amount of detrimental soil conditions

caused by ground-based equipment triples, but was still within Region 10 Soil 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Final EIS 3-41 Soils
3 Environment and Effects

quality standards. Landwehr (2014) recommends restricting equipment to slopes 

less than 30 to 35 percent gradient. 

Alluvial soils are generally included in riparian management areas. Alternatives 2 

through 5 allow limited commercial timber harvest in riparian management areas 

outside Tongass Timber Reform Act buffers as long as riparian management 

objectives (Appendix D of the Forest Plan) can be met. The need to minimize 

soil disturbance on alluvial soils, especially in areas of braided channels, has 

long been recognized (1977 Southeast Alaska Area Guide, Martin et al. 1995). 

Appendix D of the Forest Plan requires minimizing soil disturbance on fluvial 

channel process groups (alluvial fans floodplains and moderate gradient mixed 

control channels) to prevent the formation of new channels and to limit alder 

regeneration. Soil disturbance can be reduced considerably by the method of 

harvest and guidelines for equipment operations. For example, tractor logging, 

commonly used in the 1950s and 1960s, typically resulted in more than triple the 

amount of soil disturbance as cable yarding during the same time period. 

(Landwehr et al. 2012). Monitoring of more recent shovel yarding operations 

indicates that shovel yarding on slopes up to 30 percent gradient results in soil 

disturbance amounts similar to cable logging. On slopes over 30 to 35 percent 

gradient, soil disturbance from shovel yarding increases (Landwehr 2014).

The effects of timber harvest on site productivity are described in several papers in 

Slaughter and Gasborro (1988). Regeneration after clearcutting is excellent on all 

but a few sites in coastal Alaska, except in isolated areas with severe soil 

disturbance. Once established, growth rates of hemlock and spruce are relatively 

high (Farr and Ford, as cited in Slaughter and Gasborro 1988). New stands contain 

several thousand stems per acre, and crown closure begins to take place by age 15 

to 20 years. Crown closure approaches 100 percent by 25 to 30 years of age and 

remains so for 100 years or more. Silen (in Slaughter and Gasborro 1988) also 

states that more than 90 percent of clearcut areas densely restock naturally in 

Southeast Alaska. Precommercial thinnings aid in achieving desired stocking levels 

and increased growth (Pawuk, in Slaughter and Gasborro 1988).

Klock (in Slaughter and Gasborro 1988) notes that soil compaction, most 

frequently by ground skidding operations, leads to reduced timber volume 

growth. In a world-wide review of literature related to areas of forest soil 

productivity decline, Powers et al. (1990) identified soil compaction and loss of 

soil organic matter as a two factors common to areas where forest soil 

productivity declined. Powers et al. (1990) observations led to the creation of the 

Long-Term Soil Productivity (LTSP) experiment, which is testing the effects of

two levels of organic matter removal and soil compaction on soil productivity. 

The LTSP is a long-term, controlled, field scale experiment with installations 

throughout North America and several other countries.

Several soil compaction studies have been completed on the Tongass National 

Forest. The most recent studies have measured soil bulk density on skid trails 

created as part of the commercial thinning project (Landwehr and Silkworth 

2011) and shovel trails used for stream restoration (Landwehr and Foss 2014).

The shovel trails used for stream restoration experienced tens and in some 

cases hundreds of equipment passes to move wood from the roadside to the 

stream. The commercial thinning tractor skid trails moved cut logs to the 

roadside and most trails received tens and in some cases hundreds of passes of 

equipment. Both of these studies and studies before them (Landwehr and Foss 

2006; Landwehr et al. 2012; Alexander 1990) found that soils at a few individual 

sample sites on equipment trails were compacted but overall the equipment trails 

were not compacted.

Soils 3-42 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

There are several reasons for the lack of detrimental soil compaction in Tongass 

soils. First, Tongass soils are generally coarse textured with clay contents 

typically less than 20 percent. Secondly, Tongass soils have high organic matter 

content and often have high coarse fragment content that resists compaction.

Thirdly, Tongass forested soils are subject to rapid root growth by conifers in 

young-growth stands. The root growth tends to loosen soils. Trees in many old 

and young-growth stands are subject to strong winds which causes tree rocking 

or windthrow that loosens upper layers of soil. Finally, on the Tongass cull logs 

and slash are used to spread the weight of equipment out over a larger surface 

area, thus avoiding potential compaction (Landwehr and Foss 2014 ).

Blowdown, or windthrow, can increase along the edges of regeneration harvest 

units, and this may expose mineral soil. Blowdown increases the potential for 

soil erosion and may increase the potential for landslides.

According to a study by Kramer et al. (2001), watersheds in the Tongass 

National Forest that experience more intense soil mixing from windthrow have 

lower levels of strongly humified soil carbon pools (e.g., lower levels of 

reprecipitated acid) than areas that have not experienced windthrow. The 

disturbed watersheds include more organic matter in a partially decomposed 

particulate form, which translates to less acidic carbon forms, higher ion 

exchange capacity, higher soil pH, and lower bulk density in the soil (Kramer et 

al. 2004). The disturbed soils are more aerated, better drained, and have higher 

nutrient status. Conversely, Stephens et al. (1969) found a reduced site index in 

stands regenerated following windthrow. Stephens et al. (1969) identified

shading of the soil surface caused by windthrown trees as the reason for lower 

site index in windthrown stands. Predicted climate trends have the potential to 

increase the frequency of windthrow events due to higher winds and saturated 

soils in extreme events (EcoAdapt 2014). 

Soil productivity decreases from the construction of roads and landings because 

land is taken “out of production” (i.e., removed, covered over, or compacted). 

Erosion increases from the construction of roads and landings because of the 

destabilizing effect of cuts, fills, and drainage alterations, and the lack of 

protective vegetation cover on road and landing surfaces and other disturbed 

areas. Standards and guidelines, BMPs, including those identified in the Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006a), and National 

(USDA Forest Service 2012b) and other relevant mitigation measures, are 

applied at the project level to minimize potential adverse effects. At the Forest 

Plan level, the overall difference in acres disturbed by roads is a good indication 

of how site-specific effects are likely to vary between alternatives. Refer to the 

Water and Fish sections for more detailed analyses of potential effects on water

quality or fish habitat due to roads.

Table 3.3-3 displays the maximum cumulative acres, by alternative, to be 

covered by road surfaces after the first 25 and after 100 years of implementation 

of the Forest Plan (assuming none of the roads is completely obliterated). The 

cumulative acres of road surfaces after 25 years of implementation would be 

similar under Alternatives 2 through 5. The amount of road acreage under these 

alternatives would be less than expected under the 2008 Forest Plan (Alternative 

1) due to the ability to utilize or reconstruct existing roads (i.e., open, closed, or 

decommissioned) for harvest of young growth, thereby reducing the amount of 

new road construction necessary. The cumulative acres of road surfaces after 

25 years of implementation would be least under Alternative 3 and least under 

Alternative 4 after 100 years of Forest Plan implementation.

Final EIS 3-43 Soils
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.3-3

Estimated Maximum Cumulative Acreage Covered by Road 

Surfaces on NFS Lands after the first 25 Years and after 100 Years 

by Alternative1

Alternative Existing Condition

After 25 Years of 

Implementation

After 100 years of 

Implementation

1 15,278 16,121 18,109 

2 15,278 16,057 18,445 

3 15,278 16,013 18,338 

4 15,278 16,049 17,892 

5 15,278 16,079 18,259 1 Acres covered by road surfaces are calculated based on an average of 3 acres per 1 mile of road.

Landings are considered part of the road network based on transportation handbook 

direction and are co-located, to the extent possible, with turnouts, borrow areas, and 

turnaround areas required for road construction and subsequent safe travel. Both 

Region 10 and National BMPs specifically consider landing location and design and 

re-use of existing landings while maintaining water quality protection. For younggrowth management, many existing roads and landings would be reused if the roads 

and landings are compatible with management objectives and water quality 

protection (National Core BMP VEG-6).

Table 3.3-4 contains the estimated maximum road miles, by alternative, to be 

constructed, constructed over a decommissioned roadbed, and reconstructed over

25 years by alternative of implementation. The miles of road construction over 25 

years of implementation is least under Alternative 3. Less road construction 

translates to less direct impacts on soil productivity and less indirect impacts from 

road associated soil erosion. The miles of road construction after 25 years of 

implementation is highest under the 2008 Forest Plan (Alternative 1).

Table 3.3-4

Estimated Maximum Road Miles to be Constructed or 

Reconstructed over 25 Years by Alternative

Alternative

Road 

Construction 

(Miles)

Road Construction over 

Decommissioned Roadbed 

(Miles)

Road 

Reconstruction 

(Miles)

1 281 64 160 

2 260 125 256 

3 245 110 229 

4 257 97 209 

5 267 102 219 

Landslides may adversely affect soil quality. They also have the potential to 

affect aquatic habitats, both positively and negatively. Landslides have a positive 

effect by providing new sources of woody debris and gravel favorably altering 

elements of fish habitat. They negatively affect aquatic habitats by destroying 

viable fish eggs by smothering and bed load overturn, and by destroying habitat 

elements for fish (pools, riffles, log discharge, etc.).

As part of the effects analysis, the average landslide frequency from the 

Swanston and Marion (1991) study was applied to the estimated harvest levels 

likely under each alternative over the first 25 years of the Forest Plan 

implementation. However, the Forest Plan includes standards and guidelines 

and mitigation measures that were not in effect during the period of the landslide 

study (e.g., Riparian Standards and Guidelines, and BMPs). For the purposes of 

this comparison, a projected maximum harvest over 25 years is used because 

Soils 3-44 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

the landslide occurrences reported by Swanston and Marion (1991) reflect longterm averages. As previously stated, landslides typically are associated with 

storm events and large amounts of precipitation, which are highly variable from 

one year to another. For example, widespread landsliding in headwater 

tributaries following basin wide clear-cut logging on Prince of Wales Island was 

triggered by intense rainstorms in 1961 and 1993 (Gomi et al. 2004).

The data in Table 3.3-5 are used to compare the long-term landslide estimates 

that may result from the individual harvest levels under each alternative as a 

means to compare the relative level of effects under each alternative. All 

alternatives have a higher landslide potential (i.e., maximum increase in number 

of landslides over first 25 years) than under the 2008 Forest Plan (Alternative 1) 

because there are more total acres being harvested in order to transition to 

young-growth harvest. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would have slightly lower

potential increase in the number of landslides than Alternatives 2. Alternative 2 

has an estimated increase of 10 landslides over 25 years when compared to the 

2008 Forest Plan (Alternative 1).

Table 3.3-5

Estimated Maximum Increase in Landslide Frequency over the First 

25 Years of Forest Plan Implementation1

Alternative

Projected Maximum Acres of 

Harvest in First 25 Years2 Estimated Maximum Increase in 

Number of Landslides over First 

Old Growth Young Growth 25 Years

1 38,527 9,669 17

2 15,027 63,787 27

3 16,599 53,734 24

4 23,255 40,760 22

5 23,813 43,316 23 1 This table uses the landslide frequency of one landslide per 2,052 acres in harvested and roaded

areas cited in Swanston and Marion (1991) and one landslide per 7,100 acres for unharvested acres 

(based on their estimate of landslides being 3.5 times more prevalent in harvested vs. unharvested 

areas), in order to estimate the increase due to harvest and roading. It should be noted that 

Swanston and Marion (1991) measured landslide frequency based on large-scale clearcutting of 

large portions of watersheds that occurred between 1963 and 1983. 

2 Based on the acres of harvest scheduled by the Woodstock model over the first 25 years. These 

numbers assume that the maximum allowable acres would be harvested during this period, an 

unlikely scenario. Most likely, fewer acres would be harvested, particularly in the first decade. Any 

harvest would comply with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines, including buffers, unstable 

slope restrictions, smaller opening sizes, and BMPs.

The data in Table 3.3-5 assume that the rate of landsliding associated with 

young-growth timber harvest would be similar to the rate of landsliding 

associated with old-growth harvest. Areas of young-growth harvest would likely 

have different rates of landsliding than those following past old-growth harvests 

for two reasons:

1. The young-growth stands would have had 50 or more years of exposure to 

storm events and thus unstable areas may have already failed. If landslides 

have occurred in the young-growth stands, they can be useful for identifying 

potentially unstable areas to be avoided during the second entry. 

2. Landslide rates in young-growth stands may increase due to climate change 

or other unforeseen changes in soils resulting from a second timber harvest 

entry in the young-growth stands. 

These data limitations and uncertainties should be considered when evaluating 

the data presented in Table 3.3-5. 

Final EIS 3-45 Soils
3 Environment and Effects

As of this writing, the Tongass National Forest has only harvested a few younggrowth stands, and none of them on steep slopes. Thus, there is a paucity of 

monitoring data on the Tongass National Forest pertaining to slope stability 

following young-growth timber harvest. There are several recent landslide 

studies following young-growth harvest from British Columbia (Jakob 2000;

Guthrie 2002) and the Pacific Northwest (Robinson et al. 1999; Stewart et al. 

2013); however, due to the highly variable nature of landslides, regional 

differences, and other factors, those studies do not provide reliable future 

landslide rate estimates for the Tongass National Forest following young-growth 

timber harvest. As a result, the Swanston and Marion (1991) landslide rate 

estimates in Table 3.3-5 remain the best available estimates for future landslide 

rates on the Tongass National Forest.

Management induced landslides are considered detrimental soil conditions and 

are included in soil quality monitoring. The 1997 and 2008 Forest Plans required 

on-site slope stability analysis for timber harvest proposed on slopes over 72 

percent gradient. Application of this standard has resulted in the avoidance of 

hundreds of acres of unstable areas and a limited amount of timber harvest on 

slopes over 72 percent. Long-term monitoring of slopes over 72 percent that 

have been harvested is proposed as part of the forest-wide landslide inventory 

effort.

As the forest transitions to young-growth management, harvest on slopes over 

72 percent will likely become less of an issue. Approximately 5 percent of 

existing young-growth stands occur on slopes over 72 percent gradient. Since 

the original timber harvest, the young-growth stands on slopes over 72 percent 

have experienced numerous storm events. If the slope is unstable, a harvestrelated landslide would likely have occurred after 50 or more years of storm 

events. However, the likelihood of a harvest-related landslide is not constant 

over time. The highest likelihood of landslides in harvested areas is thought to 

be 4 to 10 years after timber harvest (Sidle 1991 and 1992; Schmidt et al. 2001), 

with decreasing likelihood over time. This is because the stabilizing effect of root 

reinforcement is reduced during the period when the root systems of harvest 

trees are decaying and new root systems are emerging (Ziemer 1981).

Under all alternatives, there would be no change to the existing standards and 

guidelines for harvest on steep slopes except for the addition of a Management 

Approach for conducting slope stability assessments for steep slopes in younggrowth stands, as described in Forest Plan Chapter 5. The slope stability 

analysis is still required for young-growth harvest on slopes over 72 percent but 

the on-site requirement is dropped unless a slope stability specialist deems it 

necessary based on remotely sensed data. This change presents a reasonable 

risk based on the above discussion and will reduce the slope stability specialist’s 

workload in young-growth project planning.

There may be an increase in future landslide rates based on current climate 

projections. Although climate trends will likely vary within the Tongass National 

Forest, general trends project increased mean annual temperatures, reduced 

snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and increasing shift from snow to rain (Wolken et al. 

2011). Climate trends may lead to more extreme precipitation events in some 

areas (NPS 2013) which will be more likely to occur as rain-on-snow events 

(Rennert et al. 2009). Since the majority of landslides occur over relatively short 

time periods during high intensity storm events, the predicted climate trends, in 

particular, more frequent rain-on-snow events, are likely to increase landslide 

rates over the next 50 to 100 years (EcoAdapt 2014). High flow scour and 

outburst floods associated with glacial recession are also likely to increase 

landslide rates and sediment delivery to glacial rivers (Moore et al. 2009).

Soils 3-46 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

In limited parts of the Tongass National Forest, soil degradation from steadily 

increasing off-highway vehicle (OHV) use has been documented (USDA Forest 

Service 2006). In November 2005, the Forest Service adopted a final rule for 

managing motor vehicle use, including OHV use, on national forests throughout 

the United States (36 Code of Federal Regulations 212 – Travel Management –

Roads Rule). Avoiding routes that cross saturated soils with low-bearing 

strength would prevent most resource damage. Under the 2008 Forest Plan, 

access and travel management (ATM) plans have been developed for each 

District to designate a system of roads and trails for OHV use, and identify if any 

areas for cross country travel are appropriate and do not cause resource 

damage. Each District annually prepares an updated Motor Vehicle Use Map 

(MVUM). The MVUM displays National Forest System (NFS) routes (roads and 

trails) or areas designated as open to motorized travel. With limited exceptions,

OHV use off of designated MVUM routes is prohibited to limit soil impacts such 

as rutting, soil compaction, and other resource damages. One exception is that

some ATM plans allow travel outside of designated MVUM routes for the 

purposes of game retrieval, with a permit, if it can be done without causing 

resource damage. Recent soil quality monitoring by the Yakutat Ranger District

identified soil disturbance and resource damage in limited areas associated with 

game retrieval. It was noted that there were adjacent route alternatives at the 

sites monitored with better drained soils and that user education could reduce the 

resource damage (USDA Forest Service 2014b).

A number of proposed renewable energy projects could be built in the future that 

may have impacts to soils. In June 2014, the Forest Service identified 25 

proposed renewable energy projects in Southeast Alaska that are currently active 

(USDA Forest Service 2014c). Proposed projects are common to all alternatives 

and include hydropower, geothermal, biomass, and tidal energy development 

plans. Although many of these are still in the early conceptual planning stage 

and applications have not been submitted to the Forest Service, many of the 

proposed projects include transmission lines and in some cases, access roads

on NFS lands. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would address concerns related to 

renewable energy sites and utility lines through the addition of new forest-wide 

Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems corridors plan components

standards and guidelines to the Forest Plan.

The environmental effects from proposed renewable energy projects are not 

known at this time; however, existing and proposed transmission line projects 

including the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Project (completed in 2009) and the 

Kake to Petersburg Transmission Line Intertie Project (currently undergoing 

National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] review) have evaluated soil impacts. 

In general, project development and maintenance could potentially result in 

impacts including soil displacement, soil erosion, and loss of soil porosity related 

to ground disturbance and the increased potential for landslides. Standards and 

guidelines, BMPs, and other relevant mitigation measures would be applied at 

the project level to minimize potential adverse effects. Steep slopes, as well as 

riparian and other sensitive areas should be delineated on project maps to 

ensure their recognition, proper consideration, and protection during the 

development of renewable energy projects. Access roads needed for 

transmission lines should utilize existing transportation corridors, where possible.

The potential effects of each proposed project would be evaluated in future 

analysis during the NEPA permitting process.

Root-wads attached to tree boles are needed for stream restoration projects. 

Removing trees with the root-wad attached can cause severe soil displacements 

of the soil duff and topsoil. Beginning in 2009 the forest has had a need to 

harvest root-wads for stream restoration projects from a few acres each year. 

Final EIS 3-47 Soils
3 Environment and Effects

Monitoring of the effects of root-wad removal on soil productivity is ongoing (Foss 

2015). In addition, all regeneration harvests are monitored for adequate stocking 

of conifer species. To date all root-wad harvests that have resulted in a 

regeneration harvest have met minimum stocking guidelines, indicating that the 

sites have adequately regenerated. Growth of trees and natural soil recovery is 

being monitored with photo points (Foss 2015). Following the 2009 root-wad 

harvest of 6 acres, visual monitoring resulted in the development of guidelines for 

root-wad harvests (Landwehr 2009). The guidelines for root-wad harvest are 

used to minimize impacts to soils from root-wad harvest. The amount of rootwad harvest for stream restoration is the same under all alternatives.

Cumulative effects to soils would include both the effects discussed above and 

other potential effects related to activities outside of NFS lands. Appendix C of this 

Environmental Impact Statement provides a full list and description of all the 

projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis including past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions. The total area within the Tongass National 

Forest boundary, including both NFS and non-NFS lands, is about 17.9 million 

acres. Of this area, non-NFS lands make up approximately 7 percent (1.2 million 

acres). If all of Southeast Alaska is included, the land area is about 21.6 million 

acres and non-NFS lands make up approximately 23 percent (4.9 million acres).

Management activities on non-NFS lands are not held to the Region 10 soil 

standards; however, BMPs are required under the Alaska Forest Resources and 

Practices Act, including detailed regulations related to providing notification prior 

to timber harvests and managing riparian areas. The state forester must protect 

riparian areas from the significant adverse effects of timber harvest activities on 

fish habitat and water quality. These measures are designed to avoid soil 

erosion and sedimentation near streams. Martin (1996) compared pre- and postharvest basins on non-NFS lands and found short-term effectiveness of these 

BMPs. Martin (1997) evaluated BMP effectiveness, including those designed to 

reduce soil erosion to mitigate turbidity. The report determined BMPs minimized 

sediment delivery and effectively maintained turbidity at comparable non-harvest 

levels. Arians (2003) includes several studies that compared pre- and postharvest basins and indicated that logging with the BMPs does not result in 

significant effects to soils that would result in stream sedimentation and damage 

to fish. Despite these BMPs, some landslides, soil erosion–related to duff 

removal, and losses in site productivity likely have occurred and will continue to 

occur on non-NFS lands. However, cumulatively, non-NFS lands represent only

7 percent of all of the soil resources in Southeast Alaska within the Tongass 

boundary. Potential impacts to the remaining 93 percent of soil resources would 

be mitigated through implementation of standards and guidelines and BMPs 

associated with each of the alternatives.

The 2013 monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2014a) found that overall soil and 

water BMPs were implemented and found to be effective in Tongass timber 

harvest and road construction activities. Based on monitoring results, no 

changes were recommended to Forest Plan standards and guidelines for 

attaining State of Alaska water quality standards. Furthermore, effects of harvest 

on soil resources would ultimately be considered at the project-specific levels, 

ensuring minimal adverse cumulative effects to soil resources.

As described earlier under the discussion of the potential direct and indirect 

effects to soils from roads and landings, at the Forest Plan level, the overall 

difference in roaded area is a good indication of how site-specific effects are 

likely to vary among alternatives. This approach also applies to cumulative 

effects. Standards and guidelines, BMPs, and other relevant mitigation 

measures are applied at the project level to minimize potential adverse effects. 

Cumulative 

Effects

Soils 3-48 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Under all alternatives, the density of roads would be less than under the 2008

Forest Plan due to the ability to utilize existing roads (i.e., open, closed, or 

decommissioned) for harvest of young growth, reducing the amount of new road 

construction. Reductions in soil productivity losses and soil erosion would 

correlate with lower cumulative road densities.

Roads are more prevalent on non-NFS lands than on NFS lands. In addition to 

approximately 5,005 total road miles currently on NFS lands, an additional 3,691 

miles currently exist on non-NFS lands within the Forest boundary, and most of 

these roads are associated with timber harvest activities. Projected future road 

density for existing conditions and under each alternative, for both NFS and nonNFS lands, are shown in Table 3.3-6. Estimated maximum road densities after 

100 years of implementation are relatively high (up to 3.551 miles per square 

mile) on non-NFS lands, resulting in commitment of soil resources; however, 

cumulative future road densities on NFS lands are considerably lower, ranging 

from 0.195 miles per square mile under existing conditions to 0.235 miles per 

square mile under Alternative 2 (see the Water section for additional information). 

Table 3.3-6

Estimated Maximum Road Density on NFS Lands and Non-NFS 

Lands after 100 Years under Existing Conditions and by 

Alternative

Alternative

NFS Lands Road Density

(miles per square mile)

Non-NFS Lands within Forest 

Boundary Road Density

(miles per square mile)

Existing 0.195 2.293

1 0.231 3.551

2 0.235 3.551

3 0.233 3.551

4 0.228 3.551

5 0.232 3.551

Other reasonably foreseeable future activities on NFS lands include mining, 

recreation and tourism, transportation, and renewable energy projects. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would address concerns related to renewable energy 

sites and utility lines through the addition of new forest-wide Renewable Energy 

Sites and Utility Lines standards and guidelines to the Forest Plan. Overall, the 

cumulative effects of considered alternative actions combined with other nonNFS lands actions would increase the potential for cumulative effects to soil 

resources. Potential cumulative effects of harvest, roads and landings, and other 

actions would be evaluated on a project-specific basis ensuring that any adverse 

effects to soil resources would be reduced, moderated, mitigated, or eliminated.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines (see Forest Plan Chapters 4 and 5) are 

followed on site-specific projects to mitigate the effects of management activities. 

They are designed to minimize accelerated soil erosion and maintain long-term 

soil productivity. They include soil conservation practices and incorporate the 

applicable BMPs (see Soil and Water Handbook). Annual monitoring (described 

in FSM 2554) of BMP implementation and effectiveness helps ensure that water

quality goals, and standards and guidelines, are met during project 

implementation (see Forest Plan, Chapter 6).

Mitigation

Final EIS 3-49 Soils
3 Environment and Effects

This page is intentionally left blank.

Soils 3-50 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-51 Water

Water

Affected Environment....................................................................................... 3-51

Water Quantity.............................................................................................. 3-51

Water Quality ................................................................................................ 3-54

Stream Temperature.............................................................................. 3-55

Sediment and Other Factors.................................................................. 3-57

Watershed Condition .................................................................................... 3-60

Riparian Areas ....................................................................................... 3-61

Beach/Estuary Fringe ............................................................................ 3-64

Water Use..................................................................................................... 3-65

Renewable Energy Development .......................................................... 3-65

Environmental Consequences......................................................................... 3-65

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................. 3-65

Water Quantity ....................................................................................... 3-66

Water Quality ......................................................................................... 3-71

Watershed Condition ............................................................................. 3-76

Water Use .............................................................................................. 3-82

Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 3-83

Affected Environment

The Tongass National Forest can be characterized by its abundance of water. 

The maritime climate brings precipitation nearly year-round, with the heaviest 

amounts occurring from September through January. Coastal low-elevation rain 

forests thrive in this maritime climate. Thousands of miles of shoreline and 

hundreds of bays and inlets characterize the marine environment of the Tongass. 

An important consideration for all water-related issues is the effect that changes 

in water flow and quality have on important aquatic resources, especially fish. 

The water environment of the Forest can be described in terms of climate, water 

quantity, water quality, watershed condition, and water use. There are over 900

sixth-level subwatersheds within the 26,000 square miles that make up the 

Tongass National Forest. Climate is described in the Climate and Air section, 

with applicable climate change information in the subsections below including 

cumulative effects. The water quantity, water quality, watershed condition, and 

water use are summarized in the subsections below. Wetlands are described in 

the Wetlands section. Fish and fish habitat are described in the Fish section.

Streams and rivers on the Tongass produce a large volume of water per unit of 

land. Much of the flow originates or passes through thousands of small to large 

lakes. Both glacial and non-glacial river and stream systems occur on the 

Tongass, and runoff varies greatly between the two stream systems. Runoff 

from glacially fed streams usually starts in June in response to snow and ice 

melt, reaching peak flows in July and August. Runoff drops rapidly in October 

and low flows occur from December through April. Runoff from non-glacial 

streams tends to respond to high precipitation events; therefore, the highest 

flows tend to be in October and December and the lowest flows between January 

and March, and mid-May to August. 

Many factors influence how timber harvest and clearing of forest for road 

construction may affect runoff, and most are site-specific. The combined effects 

of these activities with site-specific factors can influence the amount and timing 

of runoff. In studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest, factors, especially those 

Water Quantity
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-52 Final EIS

relating to roads, affect runoff patterns; although site-specific conditions including 

hillslope gradient, topography, soil type, and rainfall all influence the level of 

effect (Coe 2004). In general, changes in streamflow following timber harvest 

and road building are commensurate with the proportion of watershed harvested 

(Harr 1986; Jones and Grant 1996; Jones 2000; Moore and Wondzell 2005;

Grant et al. 2008). In studies on the effects of forest harvest activities on peak 

flows in the Pacific Northwest, a minimum cumulative harvest of 20 to 40 percent 

has been shown to result in a 10 percent change in peak flow (Grant et al. 2008). 

Overall, removal of forest cover increases water yield, though attempts to 

quantify this at the watershed level show highly variable and unpredictable 

results (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; Keppeler and Ziemer 1990; Keppeler and 

Lewis 2007; Grant et al. 2008).

On the Tongass, stream channels and lakes are categorized by class based on 

their fish production values. Although there are additional details (see the 

Glossary for full definitions), stream classes are generally defined as follows:

• Class I streams and lakes have anadromous or adfluvial fish or fish habitat: 

or, high-quality resident fish waters, or habitat above fish migration barriers 

known to provide reasonable enhancement opportunities for anadromous 

fish. 

• Class II streams and lakes have resident fish or fish habitat and generally 

steep gradients (6 to 25 percent or higher) 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.

• Class IV streams are intermittent, ephemeral, and small perennial channels 

with insufficient flow or sediment transport capability to directly influence 

downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. Class IV streams do not 

have characteristics of Class I, II, or III streams, and have a bankfull width of 

at least 0.3 meter (1 foot). 

Field survey methods to determine stream class follow the Tongass National 

Forest fish stream identification and classification procedures (USDA Forest 

Service 2015o). In addition, the Tongass uses a stream channel classification 

system based on the Alaska Region Channel Type Classification System 

(Paustian et al. 1992; revised October 2010). Streams are categorized into 

channel types, which are grouped into nine process groups, or combinations of 

similar channel types based on major differences in landform, gradient, and 

channel shapes (see Appendix D in the Tongass National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan [Forest Plan] for a full description). These are used 

to assess watershed condition, fish habitat production capabilities, and sensitivity 

to management activities (see the Fish section for additional information). 

Nearly 46,000 miles of streams have been mapped on National Forest System

(NFS) lands (Table 3.4-1). Of those, approximately 63 percent are classified in 

the high gradient contained process group (Table 3.4-1). Additionally, some 

4,300 Class I and II lakes equaling 144,000 acres are also present on NFS 

lands.

There are also streams that have not been mapped because they require ground 

surveys to locate. During the planning stages of a specific proposed timber 

management activity, detailed ground surveys following the Tongass National 

Forest procedures (USDA Forest Service 2015o) are performed to delineate all 

such streams within the directly affected proposed project area. Many of these 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-53 Water

are small low-flow, high-gradient Class III and IV headwater streams, but others 

may contain valuable aquatic habitat. 

Table 3.4-1

Mapped Stream Miles by Process Group and Stream Class1 for Each Ranger 

District Group2 on NFS Lands

Stream Process Group Class

Ranger Districts

Northern Central Southern Total

Alluvial Fan (AF) I 241 50 127 418

II 597 93 127 817

III 86 83 107 275

IV 0 3 2 6

Estuarine (ES) I 140 112 56 308

II 1 0 1 2

III 0 0 0 0

IV 0 0 0 0

Flood Plain (FP) I 2,081 624 976 3,681

II 58 124 69 251

III 1 11 11 22

IV 1 0 0 1

Glacial Outwash (GO)3 I 388 237 247 873

II 77 81 6 164

III 57 48 9 114

IV 0 1 0 1

High Gradient Contained 

(HC)

I 83 89 138 310

II 3,035 840 2,133 6,007

III 7,626 4,830 8,440 20,896

IV 375 611 527 1,514

Low Gradient Contained 

(LC)

I 129 119 157 405

II 12 26 14 52

III 0 0 4 4

IV 0 0 0 0

Moderate Gradient 

Contained (MC)

I 668 403 972 2,043

II 351 198 215 765

III 7 38 76 121

IV 1 2 2 5

Moderate Gradient Mixed 

Control (MM)

I 777 806 1,122 2,705

II 328 313 290 930

III 7 20 48 76

IV 5 15 22 42

Palustrine (PA) I 1,341 414 552 2,307

II 55 99 105 260

III 4 8 30 43

IV 3 7 11 22

Unverified Connectors (UC)4 I 72 21 25 118

II 3 1 3 6

III 12 1 4 16

IV 0 5 21 26

Total I 5,918 2,875 4,374 13,167

II 4,516 1,776 2,962 9,255

III 7,800 5,039 8,730 21,569

IV 385 644 586 1,615

Grand Total4 All 

Streams

18,620 10,333 16,653 45,606
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-54 Final EIS

Table 3.4-1

Mapped Stream Miles by Process Group and Stream Class1 for Each Ranger 

District Group2 on NFS Lands

Stream Process Group Class

Ranger Districts

Northern Central Southern Total

1 Miles are only those currently mapped and in the GIS database excluding lake miles and channels on all non-NFS lands. 

Additional unmapped streams are present, but have not been located through on-the-ground surveys, especially Class III 

and IV streams that are greatly underrepresented in the database. Numbers may not add up precisely because of 

rounding. See Paustian et al. 1992, as amended in 2010) for a description of the stream process groups and the glossary 

for a definition of stream classes.

2 Northern Districts=Admiralty, Hoonah, Juneau, Sitka, and Yakutat; Central Districts=Petersburg and Wrangell; Southern 

Districts=Ketchikan-Misty Fiords, Thorne Bay, and Craig 3 Includes all glacial outwash channel types.

4 Includes unverified connector channels such as ice fields, connector streams, and intertidal channels not field surveyed.

Source: GIS database, March 2016

The State of Alaska sets water quality standards for chemical, physical, and 

biological parameters for waters on NFS lands. The Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and the Forest Service have agreed that 

the Forest Service is the agency responsible for monitoring and protecting water 

quality on the NFS lands of Alaska for the purpose of meeting the Clean Water

Act, as amended. Best management practices (BMPs), as described in the Soil 

and Water Conservation Handbook (USDA Forest Service 2006), the Alaska 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Strategy, and the Alaska Water Quality

Standards (18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC] 70) together form the “Forest 

Service Alaska Region Water Quality Management Plan,” as agreed to in the 

Memorandum of Agreement dated April 6, 1992 (ADEC and USDA Forest 

Service 1992). With implementation of this Plan, the State of Alaska recognizes 

that the Forest Service BMPs are the primary means to protect water quality from 

nonpoint sources of pollution. In 1997, the ADEC determined that the Forest 

Service BMPs meet or exceed the BMPs contained in the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Act and Regulations (11 AAC 95) (Brown 1997). In 

2012, the Forest Service issued National Core BMPs, which are also 

implemented in the Tongass National Forest.

In addition, the ADEC is responsible for providing a list to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) of the status of water quality within the state. The state 

makes a determination of which state waters (e.g., streams, rivers, bays) exceed 

state water quality standards and are limited by point and/or non-point sources of 

pollution, which may require additional controls to meet state water quality 

standards. Waters that fit this definition are put on a list as designated under 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, which is published by the state and sent 

to the EPA. State waters in this category are known as waters on the 303(d) list. 

The most recent list for 2012 (ADEC 2013) includes Katlian River (on Baranof 

Island north of Sitka), listed as impaired for non-attainment of the sediment and 

turbidity standards due to past timber harvest activities, including road 

maintenance and riparian harvest. An assessment indicated that most sediment 

sources in the watershed are natural and there are limited opportunities for 

rehabilitation (USDA Forest Service and Sitka Tribe of Alaska 2003). Five 

streams along road system 3030 near Sweetwater Lake on Prince of Wales 

Island had been designated as 303(d) waters due to acid rock runoff conditions 

from the road construction. Recently, due to remediation actions, monitoring of 

these streams found they meet most water quality standards including improved 

biological resources and have been recommended by the ADEC for removal 

from 303(d) listed streams and placed as Category 2 streams, which are streams 

Water Quality
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-55 Water

meeting most water quality standards. Marine waters listed near the Tongass 

National Forest include Hawk Inlet (Admiralty Island), Thorne Bay (Prince of 

Wales Island), and Ward Cove (Ketchikan). Some streams and log transfer 

facilities (LTF) that were listed as 303(d) in the past have been removed from this 

category due to improved water quality conditions. Currently, no LTF facility 

used by the Forest Service is 303(d) listed.

Stream Temperature

Stream temperatures are affected by solar radiation, evaporation, advection, 

conduction, and convection (Brown 1983; Adams and Sullivan 1989). Streams 

have a general tendency to warm as flow moves from upstream to downstream. 

Higher stream temperatures in the summer are generally the result of natural 

heating from solar radiation, increases in air temperatures, and decreases in

streamflow (Zwieniecki and Newton 1999). Increased stream temperature 

results in reduced oxygen, but other factors such as decaying organic matter or 

abundance of salmon in a stream can also have large effects on dissolved 

oxygen concentrations (Pentec Environmental 1991; Spence et al. 1996; Welch 

et al. 1998).

Maintaining proper water temperature is critical for the health of aquatic 

ecosystems. Anadromous fish and other aquatic species are sensitive to water 

temperature with very low or high temperatures causing adverse conditions. 

Often in streams with salmon and trout, high water temperature is of greatest 

concern (see the Fish section for additional information). Timber harvest and 

road construction have the potential to reduce stream-side shade and raise water

temperatures. Forest Plan standards and guidelines (see Chapter 4, Chapter 5, 

and Appendix D of the Forest Plan) minimize riparian harvest (see the 

subsection on Riparian Areas in the Watershed Condition section below) in order 

to maintain stream-side shade.

Removal of riparian vegetation can increase stream temperatures, but the 

magnitude of effects from timber harvest and road construction activities varies. 

Murphy and Milner (1997) reviewed studies in Southeast Alaska that did not 

include stream-side buffer practices and found a wide range of temperatures in 

streams, most with small increases that did not approach lethal levels. Other 

studies have found that total stream temperature change across a cleared area 

with no buffer may be greater in small, shallow streams than in large, deeper 

streams (Beschta et al. 1987; Moore et al. 2005). 

In coastal British Columbia, daily maximum stream temperatures in the summer 

increased in streams with no buffer, while water temperature in streams with 10-

and 30-meter (approximately 33 feet to 98 feet) buffers did not (Gomi et al. 

2006). In the State of Washington one study of very small streams (most less 

than 1 meter [3 feet] wide) found stream temperatures increased following 

logging, with average maximum summer temperatures of about 0.7 to 1.5

degrees Celsius (°C) (33.3 to 34.7 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) higher in harvested 

compared to unharvested buffers (Janisch et al. 2012). In contrast, studies in 

Oregon State forests with restrictive no harvest buffers found no measureable 

changes in stream temperature in harvested areas relative to control streams

(Groom et al. 2011).

Hetrick et al. (1998) determined that stream temperature effects from vegetation 

removal were mitigated after flow through 150 meters (approximately 492 feet) of 

stream-side canopy cover; however, other studies (Poole et al. 2001; Moore and 

Wondzell 2005, Pollock et al. 2009) noted that while water temperature cooling 

occurred below previous timber harvest, once streams entered forested areas, 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-56 Final EIS

the level of cooling and distance to return to unharvested temperature levels was 

variable. In addition, studies have found for smaller streams that return to preharvest temperatures following regrowth of riparian shade is often rapid, with the 

recovery of stream temperatures in less than 10 years (Moore et al. 2005; Quinn 

and Wright-Stow 2008).

In comparing stream temperatures in logged versus unlogged watersheds, 

Konopacky Environmental (1996) did not detect increases that could be 

characterized as differing significantly. An analysis of legacy stream temperature 

data collected on Prince of Wales Island in Southeast Alaska was completed in 

2004 using data from 1997 to 2002 in harvested and unharvested watersheds 

(Walters and Prefontaine 2005). In this study, state water quality criteria for 

stream temperatures were exceeded during warm weather in both harvested and 

unharvested watersheds. In another study of water temperature in three 

Tongass National Forest drainages, two with no harvest and one with past 

harvest, all had exceedances of state water temperature criteria, with effects of 

past harvest practices on stream temperature not apparent (Tucker and 

Thompson 2010). Tucker and Thompson (2010) concluded drainage

characteristics and local weather may have masked changes in stream 

temperature from upland and riparian harvest. High stream temperatures in 

Southeast Alaska are likely to occur under natural conditions during warm, 

rainless weather, and result in high stream temperatures during low stream flow 

periods regardless of extent of past riparian timber harvest or watershed harvest.

Factors other than riparian vegetation, such as landslides, debris flows, and 

overall basin size, may have substantial effects on the significance and 

magnitude of measured effects on stream temperatures (Ice et al. 2010). In the 

State of Washington, Janisch et al. (2011) conducted a study of very small 

streams (most less than 1 meter [3 feet] wide) and found that stream 

temperature changes varied and were poorly related to stream buffer size, with 

likely other stream morphological conditions (e.g. wetlands, substrate) having a 

greater effect on temperature changes than buffer characteristics. Although 

results from the various studies may vary, most studies suggest that elevated 

summer stream temperatures are affected more by other environmental 

conditions than past timber and riparian harvest.

Climate change has the potential to affect runoff and stream temperatures on the 

Tongass National Forest. Several modeled results presented in recent literature 

demonstrate that air temperatures and precipitation in Southeast Alaska and the 

Tongass National Forest will increase this century (EcoAdapt 2014; Shanley et 

al. 2015), although the degree to which changes occur vary substantially 

between areas across the Forest. In general, increases in air temperature are 

expected in the winter months with increases in precipitation expected in the fall 

and winter (EcoAdapt 2014). These warmer air temperatures would likely result 

in much of the precipitation occurring as rain instead of snow and contribute to 

the melting of glaciers, higher peak flows in the fall and winter in most streams 

other than glacial-fed streams, and lower summer flows primarily in snowmeltand rain-dominated watersheds (Shanley and Albert 2014; Shanley et al. 2015). 

Regarding stream temperatures, the warmer air temperatures may result in 

increased stream temperatures, but the degree to which increases would occur 

depend greatly on factors such as glacial system, groundwater inputs, presence 

of lakes and ponds, and stream shading (EcoAdapt 2014). In addition, any 

potential increase in stream temperatures may be lessened by the potential 

increases in rainfall occurring in the summer and fall (EcoAdapt 2014).

Changes in any of the physical or chemical properties of water can directly affect 

water use by people, fish, and wildlife. Factors such as stream temperature and 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-57 Water

dissolved oxygen are not expected to change appreciably by alternative, even 

when effects from climate change are considered, and therefore only limited 

discussion is provided further in this section.

Sediment and Other Factors

Sediment is solid materials that were derived from the natural weathering of rock 

or from erosion of areas modified by man, such as roads and landings, 

agricultural lands, or urban areas. Sediments are carried and deposited by wind, 

water, and ice, and may be transported as either suspended load or bedload in 

streams. Suspended sediment is carried within the water column, while bedload 

material moves via rolling or bouncing along the bottom of the stream or 

riverbed. Suspended sediment causes water to have a turbid or murky 

appearance. Under natural conditions, the great majority of suspended load and 

bedload transport occurs during storm runoff events. 

Landslides

Soil mass movements (landslides), streams cutting new channels, and bank 

erosion are the main natural processes creating sediment. Landslides cause 

large, but temporary, increases in suspended and bedload sediments. Stream 

and riverbed or bank erosion may contribute to sediment over long periods of 

time. Steep terrain and large amounts of rainfall make the soil sensitive to 

erosion if the organic material covering the soil is disturbed. High rainfall also 

makes soils sensitive to sediment production by road construction and timber 

harvest activities. 

Stream substrates are replenished by natural process such as landslides 

(Meehan 1991; Reeves et al. 1995; Wing 2000). Sediments, including gravels, 

and large woody debris are deposited in stream headwater areas. During highflow periods, some of that sediment and wood is transported through the stream 

system, although much wood may be stored in headwater channels. 

Timber harvest has the potential to affect stream substrate composition through

erosion and slumping of hill slopes following harvest, alternating stream buffer 

characteristics, road and landings construction, road drainage structures, level of 

use and maintenance of roads, number of stream crossings by roads, density of 

roads in the watershed, bank erosion where trees have been removed, and 

hydrology changes (Everest et al. 1987; Swanson et al. 1987; Furniss et al. 

1991; Spence et al. 1996; Sweeney and Newbold 2014). On Prince of Wales 

Island, more than 300 landslides and debris flows were triggered by an October 

1993 storm (Johnson et al. 2000). Eroded soil from these landslides was 

transported as sediment in nearby channels. Channel bedload sediment was 2 

to 10 times greater and relatively finer compared with bedload transport in a 

channel that had last experienced a landslide and debris flow in 1961 (Gomi et 

al. 2004).

Swanston and Marion (1991) mapped landslides in the Tongass National Forest 

during the 21-year period, 1963 through 1983. The rate of landslides during this 

period was 3.5 times higher on harvested areas than on unharvested (see Soils

section). Of the 1,277 landslides that occurred on unharvested areas, 37 

affected Class I and II streams, while 7 of the 118 landslides on logged areas 

affected Class I and II streams. It is important to note that clearcut timber 

harvests conducted between 1963 and 1983 did not include the restrictions that 

were included in the 1997 Forest Plan. These past harvests often involved 

logging large portions of watersheds with very large clearcuts and almost no 

buffers, slope restrictions, or other form of restrictions. There have been multiple 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-58 Final EIS

landslide inventories and analyses (Bishop and Stevens 1964; Landwehr 1994

and 1998) completed on the Tongass National Forest that have found similar 

overall landslide rates to the Swanston and Marion (1991) inventory and greater 

landslide densities in managed stands than in unmanaged areas. Future 

landslide potential, even in young-growth harvest areas, will be moderated by the 

Forest Plan requirement to determine slope stability of slopes over 72 percent. 

Slopes in those categories are considered of higher risk, and determinations of 

stability prior to initiating logging would occur for all future actions (see Soils

section) and aid in reducing the risk of increased sediment to streams.

Roads

Road and related timber landings construction near streams, even where the 

road does not actually cross the stream, may contribute to increased sediment 

loads in streams, and poses a potential risk to overall watershed conditions (Reid 

and Dunn 1984; Furniss et al. 1991; Rashin et al. 1999; Gucinski et al. 2001;

Luce and Wemple 2001; Gomi et al. 2005). Road location, or the distance 

between soil disturbance and a stream, as well as the presence of vegetation 

(riparian) buffers between roads and streams, affects the amount of sediment 

delivered to a stream through hill-slope runoff, road-runoff, landing runoff, or 

roadside ditches (MacDonald et al. 2001; Croke and Hairsine 2006; Rashin et al. 

2006; Steel et al. 2007; McCune 2010). Knutson and Naef (1997) summarized 

literature on riparian function, and suggested a 300-foot maximum vegetative 

buffer was adequate to control sediment delivery to water bodies. McCune 

(2010) found that direct connection of flow and associated sediment from roads 

decreased linearly as distance increased, up to approximately 660 feet.

Maintenance of roads, landings, and roadside ditches, including grading and 

blading of the road surface and ditches and clearing of roadside and ditch 

vegetation, can increase sediment and turbidity in streams (Luce and Black 

1999, 2001; Coe 2006). The increase in sediment delivered to streams by roads 

and roadside ditches is also related to the hydrologic connectivity, or the linkage 

between the sediment source areas and the channel network (Furniss et al. 

2000). Although road improvement and maintenance has been shown to 

temporarily increase sediment and turbidity, regular maintenance can help 

reduce the adverse effects of roads and road deterioration on streams and 

salmonid habitats (Furniss et al. 1991). Road improvement and maintenance 

can also prevent severe erosion and increased sediment yields associated with 

drainage system failures which can minimize the degree of impact roads have on 

soil and water resources (Luce and Black 2001; Napper 2008).

Gomi et al. (2005) reviewed suspended sediment sources and transport in small 

forest streams in the Pacific Northwest region and concluded that vegetation 

clearing can increase fine sediment supply through soil disturbance and 

accelerated landslides. In addition, studies have found evidence that increased 

stream flows following vegetation clearing resulted in increased sediment 

recruitment from within-channel sources, such as through channel erosion (Grant 

and Hayes 2000 and Lewis et al. 2001 as cited in Gomi et al. 2005). Clearing 

large portions of forested land from a watershed has been found to increase 

peak flow response during rainstorms as a result of vegetation loss (Hewlett and 

Helvey 1970 as cited in Webster et al. 1992; Hudson 2001; Grant et. al. 2008;

Tonina et al. 2008), with the increased peak flows intensifying sediment 

recruitment from within-channel sources (Webster et. al. 1992; Tonina et al. 

2008; Grant and Hayes 2000 and Lewis et al. 2001 as cited in Gomi et al. 2005). 

Generally, the effects of timber harvest on peak flows and resulting sediment 

recruitment and transport are, however, dependent upon multiple factors, 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-59 Water

including area of basin harvested, hydrologic regime, topography, soil conditions, 

road density, and harvest methods (Jones and Grant 1996; Hudson 2001; Gomi 

et. al. 2005; Karwan et al. 2007; Grant et al. 2008; Tonina et al. 2008). Specific 

to Southeast Alaska, statistical relationships between fine sediment and 

watershed disturbance were not found by Bryant et al. (2004) or Woodsmith et 

al. (2005). Ross (2013) found evidence of smaller median particle size in stream 

substrate in watersheds with historical timber harvest, which included historical 

timber practices of removing riparian trees down to the stream bank.

In Alaska, the ADEC has established numeric criteria for turbidity standards 

(ADEC 2006) to help evaluate the presence of suspended particulates. Turbidity 

criteria indicate values will not exceed 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) 

over natural conditions, when natural values are less than 50 NTUs. Turbidity in 

Alaska correlates with suspended sediment, although the exact relationship 

varies by region and stream type (Lloyd 1987; Lloyd et al. 1987) and has not 

been determined in Southeast Alaska. 

In Southeast Alaska, suspended sediment loads in non-glacial streams in 

undisturbed watersheds are very low. Concentrations of suspended sediments 

range from less than 10 parts per million (ppm) in the winter to occasionally over 

100 ppm in the fall during storm runoff periods (Schmiege et al. 1974). 

Suspended sediment in glacial streams is highly dependent on the volume of 

water flow from snow and ice melt. At high flows, concentrations may reach from 

200 to more than 600 ppm; at low flows during winter, suspended sediment 

concentrations seldom exceed 20 ppm (Schmiege et al. 1974). 

On the Forest, current road construction methods and culvert installation 

activities have been found to have little effect on stream turbidity. Turbidity data 

collected during culvert installation or road construction suggest few instances 

where the state criteria have been exceeded (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Of 

12 replacement culvert installations monitored in 2004, 10 always met the 

turbidity criteria for drinking water and 11 of the sites met the criteria for fish

propagation within 48 hours of the construction activity. Typically, water returned 

to less than 5 NTUs over background shortly after construction. In Upper 

Shaheen Creek in 2004, monitoring was conducted to determine effects of road 

construction (including a bridge) on meeting turbidity criteria (Thompson and

Tucker 2005). The results from monitoring suggest some short-term exceedance

of the 5 NTU criteria. Of 50 days of continuous monitoring (when upstream and 

downstream sites were both monitored), 11 days had some exceedance; of 

these, 9 were short term (less than 15 minute spikes in turbidity), while the 

remaining 2 exceedances were up to 30 minutes. Similar results were found in 

2003, when 32 and 51 of 54 monitored culvert installations met drinking water, 

and fish production turbidity criteria, respectively (Monitoring Report summary for 

2003).

Effects of timber management activities on turbidity levels in two small 

watersheds were examined over a 5-year period (2004-2008) on Prince of Wales 

Island (Tucker and Thompson 2010). The study evaluated turbidity levels in the 

two small adjacent watersheds with similar characteristic; however, one of the 

watersheds, Chanterelle, was unharvested and the other watershed, Scary, was 

harvested and roaded. Turbidity in both remained mostly low, similar, and below 

state water quality standards (5 NTUs) except during storm events that resulted 

in peak stream flows. While the highest turbidity value (902 NTUs) occurred in 

the managed watershed (Scary), statistical tests comparing values from 41 

coincident peak storm events found no significant differences between peak 

turbidity in these two watersheds (median during peak events was 16.7 and 15.2 

NTUs in Scary and Chanterelle, respectively). In this study, Tucker and 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-60 Final EIS

Thompson (2010) found that naturally occurring events (e.g., landslides, bank 

avulsion) may outweigh any potential turbidity increases resulting from 

management activities (e.g., harvest, roads) in these watersheds.

The Nakwasina River on Baranof Island, which had been listed as a 303d 

impaired stream on the state’s list based on past timber practices effects on 

stream sediment and turbidity in 1998, was monitored for turbidity levels in 2008, 

with turbidity values compared to the Clear River, a nearby mostly unaffected 

stream (Tucker et al. 2009). Tucker et al. (2009) determined turbidity levels were 

low in both the Nakwasina River and Clear River, with higher values in the Clear 

River, but overall some increases occurred in both rivers during higher flows. 

Overall, long-term effects on increased turbidity values in the Nakwasina River 

due to past timber practices were not apparent.

Within Fubar Creek (now named Gandláay Háanaa) on Prince of Wales Island, 

turbidity was monitored due to historic landslides associated with timber 

management to determine if state standards for turbidity were being met and 

compare turbidity values to Rio Roberts, a nearby mostly unaffected stream 

(Tucker 2011). Tucker (2011) determined that frequency of exceedance of the 5 

NTU state standard were similar for both Fubar Creek and Rio Roberts (less than

5 NTUs in Fubar Creek and Rio Roberts 96.3 and 97.0 percent, respectively).

Although peak values were more often higher in Fubar Creek than Rio Roberts, 

the values were in the range of natural variability. Overall, long-term effects on 

increased turbidity values in Fubar Creek due to historic landslides associated 

with timber management were not apparent.

As noted above, changes in any of the physical or chemical properties of water

can directly affect water use by people, fish, and wildlife. Sediment input to 

streams and turbidity are the two water quality factors most likely to be affected 

by the alternatives, and therefore are discussed further in this section.

In 2011, the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) established 

a nationally consistent approach for classifying watershed condition (USDA 

Forest Service 2011a). The approach is designed to foster integrated watershed 

assessments, target restoration in priority watersheds, enhance collaboration 

with partners, and improve outcome-based performance measures for 

documenting improved watershed condition. Twelve core indicators were 

evaluated to classify watershed condition across the Tongass National Forest in 

2011, using available data from national forest lands. Components of these 12

indicators, based on selected metrics within each of the aquatic and terrestrial 

indicators, representative of the specific National Forest, are determined to be 

“Good - functioning properly”, “Fair - functioning at risk”, or “Poor - impaired 

function.” The results of evaluating each of the 12 indicators are averaged by 

weighting (see USDA Forest Service 2011a for methods) to provide an overall 

watershed Condition Class rating: Class 1 “functioning properly,” Class 2 

“functioning at risk,” or Class 3 “impaired function.” Data from non-National 

Forest lands were not used; non-National Forest lands were assigned a 

subjective rating as same, better, or poorer condition using best available 

knowledge.

Most of the approximately 900 watersheds within the Tongass National Forest

are in near natural condition (Condition Class 1). Sixty-eight watersheds were 

rated “at risk” for maintaining ecological functions and aquatic resources due to 

past management practices, while none are rated as Class 3. A detailed map 

showing the status and individual rating of each of the watersheds in the 

Tongass can be accessed at the Forest Service’s Watershed Condition Class 

and Prioritization Information website 

Watershed

Condition
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-61 Water

(http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nfs/nrm/wcatt/WCFMapviewer/). Watershed health 

issues primarily result from historical timber harvest and road building that 

occurred between 1950 and 1990, prior to our current understanding of the 

importance of watershed resources and processes. Measures are now in place 

to protect and maintain watershed health, namely the riparian protections 

described in the Riparian Areas subsection below. In addition, the watershed

condition ratings, along with use and aquatic value criteria, led to designation of 

Priority Watersheds for restoration focus (see the Fish section for restoration).

Of the 12 core indicators from the WCF (USDA Forest Service 2011a) used to 

assess watershed functional status condition relative to hydrologic and sediment 

regimes, the percent of road miles within 300 feet of waterbodies indicator is 

used to evaluate the potential for sediment to enter streams based on road 

location. Although this WCF indicator provides an approach to evaluate 

watershed function based on road miles near waterbodies, a bias in this indicator

was identified in a recent policy primer (Rissien 2011). Specifically, the primer 

recommended that the percentage of waterbodies within 300 feet of a road, and 

not the percentage of road miles within 300 feet of waterbodies, should be used 

to evaluate watershed function. Using this criterion, the watershed would be 

considered “properly functioning” if less than 10 percent of the waterbodies’

length in a watershed has roads, “functioning at risk” if between 10 and 25 

percent, and “impaired functioning” if greater than 25 percent are within 300 feet 

of water bodies, relative to the effects of this factor on the hydrology and 

sediment regime. As shown in Table 3.4-2, about 89 percent of all watersheds 

would currently be considered “properly functioning” and less than 1 percent as

having “impaired function.” The results influence the overall rating of watershed 

conditions, but as stated above, these results are considered along with all other 

indicators to make the complete watershed function rating assessment.

Table 3.4-2

Percent of Subwatersheds on the Tongass National Forest with 

Waterbodies within 300 Feet of Roads

Percent of Waterbodies within 300 

feet of Roads Percent of Subwatersheds

0 64.8

>0 – 10 24.0

>10 - 25 10.6

>25 0.7

Numbers may not add up precisely because of rounding.

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas represent dynamic, complex, three-dimensional transition zones 

between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. In the Tongass National Forest, 

Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) are delineated according to stream process 

group. The RMAs encompass the stream, mandatory no-harvest zones required 

by the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), adjacent site-potential treeheight distances, landscape features such as floodplains, alluvial fans, and vnotches, and associated wetlands (Forest Plan, Appendix D, Paustian 2004). 

The RMAs are ecologically tailored to ensure the integrity of the stream channel, 

maintain supply of large wood, and protect other functions critical to soil, water, 

fish, and wildlife in Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest Service 2015c). Greatest 

protection is provided to riparian areas associated with alluvial soils and fish 

streams; fishless headwater streams are also protected as important conduits of 

clean water, large wood, stream substrate, and food for aquatic organisms. 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-62 Final EIS

Under the 2008 Forest Plan, timber harvest is prohibited in RMAs on Class I, II, 

and III streams, unless stream process group objectives can be met as 

documented by watershed analysis (Forest Plan Appendix C). Class IV streams 

do not have RMAs (or mandatory no-harvest buffers), but are protected by BMPs 

to minimize disturbance during timber harvest. Standards and guidelines 

considered to be important for protection of watersheds by the Alaska 

Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1995) have been 

incorporated into the RMAs, which were further bolstered by literature review for 

the 2008 Forest Plan (Landwehr 2006; Paustian et al. 2006). These ecologically

based RMA buffers are likely an important component to mitigate potential 

effects of climate change on hydrologic regimes and fish (EcoAdapt 2014). 

In addition, reasonable assurance of windfirmness (RAW) must be provided for 

buffers, which may or may not include additional buffer width depending on site 

conditions (Forest Plan Appendix D). For 14 consecutive years at 262 sites on 

the Tongass National Forest, windfirmness at riparian buffers was monitored 

(USDA Forest Service 2014d). Based on this monitoring, results have found 

average blowdown in buffers, which include standard buffers to slope break, to 

be 6.7 percent (median 0.8 percent). Blowdown is skewed in its distribution 

ranging from 0 to 85 percent, with 74 percent of the sites with less than 5 percent 

blowdown. This monitoring has found the rate of windthrow decreases over time;

however, monitoring of windfirm buffers on second-growth harvest areas has not 

been occurring.

To date, approximately 57,929 acres of riparian forest (nearly 5 percent of the 

original 1,262,531 acres of riparian forest on the Tongass) have been harvested

(see Table 3.4-3), including approximately 1,000 acres that are now within 

Wilderness and 1,800 acres that are now in legislated LUD II areas (USDA 

Forest Service 1997a). The 55,129 acres of harvest riparian forest outside of 

Wilderness and LUD II represents over 9 percent of the original 599,253 acres of 

riparian productive old growth (POG) outside Wilderness and LUD II (USDA 

Forest Service 1997a). Most of this harvest, almost 53,000 acres, took place 

between 1950 and 1991 and primarily occurred in riparian/wetland soil polygon

areas (see Table 3.4-3). This is approximately 1,292 acres per year; however, 

following implementation of the 1990 TTRA, harvest in riparian areas has been 

much lower (approximately 201 acres per year). Since 2008, POG harvest in 

riparian areas has been limited to approximately 34 acres per year.

Table 3.4-3

Total Riparian Management Area (RMA), Productive Old Growth (POG) in RMA,

and Past Harvested Areas in RMA by Stream Channel Process Group on NFS 

Lands

Stream Process Group

Riparian Management Area (Acres)

Total 

Existing POG

Harvested Prior 

to 19911

Harvested in 1991 

to Present

Alluvial Fan (AF) 50,622 23,547 4,958 359

Estuarine (ES) 12,450 3,469 201 0

Flood Plain (FP) 199,299 111,707 9,620 328

Glacial Outwash (GO)2 52,890 7,937 698 7

High Gradient Contained (HC) 366,731 167,106 12,960 2,611

Low Gradient Contained (LC) 12,725 8,885 369 16

Moderate Gradient Contained 

(MC)

75,692 36,801 1,457 150

Moderate Gradient Mixed 

Control (MM)

118,433 70,394 6,910 501

Palustrine (PA) 63,093 12,955 1,298 60

Unverified Connectors (UC)3 25 2 7 1
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-63 Water

Table 3.4-3 (continued)

Total Riparian Management Area (RMA), Productive Old Growth (POG) in RMA,

and Past Harvested Areas in RMA by Stream Channel Process Group on NFS 

Lands

Stream Process Group

Riparian Management Area (Acres)

Total 

Existing POG

Harvested Prior 

to 19911

Harvested in 1991 

to Present

Lake4 63,480 18,593 233 19

Riparian/ Wetland Soil 

Polygons

247,092 77,466 14,191 974

Grand Total 1,262,531 538,864 52,904 5,025 1 No TTRA or RMA buffer required during this period 2 Includes all glacial outwash channel types.

3 Includes unverified connector channels such as ice fields, connector streams, and intertidal channels not field surveyed. 4 RMA buffer on lakes and ponds

Numbers may not add up precisely because of rounding.

Source: GIS database, March 2016

As previously noted, the TTRA dramatically reduced riparian harvest after 1990, 

and the 1997 Forest Plan further reduced riparian harvest. Since 1997, riparian 

harvest has been predominately limited to road construction clearing. The GISmodeled RMA over-estimates riparian acres associated with some stream 

process groups that are determined not to be riparian at the project level; this 

results in over-reporting riparian harvest at the forest level. Although both the 

1997 and 2008 Forest Plans provided a mechanism for adjusting RMA buffers to 

allow for commercial harvest in riparian areas (Appendix C in the 2008 Forest 

Plan), this process has been used sparingly.

Young growth riparian ecosystems vary widely, and previously harvested timber 

stands are now in various stages of secondary plant succession, depending on 

original plant associations, site quality, complex geomorphic conditions and site 

disturbance. With the exception of where the ground is highly disturbed, the 

species composition on these secondary successional riparian areas is very 

similar to the riparian vegetation prior to timber harvest, with Sitka spruce, red 

alder, and western hemlock dominating the tree canopy (USDA Forest Service 

1997a). On the more disturbed sites, the vegetation is often similar to primary 

successional species, such as what occurs following deglaciation, with red alder 

the most common component. The Tongass Young Growth Management 

Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2014d) describes a range of typical stand 

conditions and management considerations.

Floodplains

Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to provide leadership and take 

action on federal lands to avoid, to the extent practicable, the long- and shortterm adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of 

floodplains. The Forest’s floodplains are typically found in broad, flat, alluvial Ushaped valleys, with high stream flows inundating the floodplain. These 

floodplains are forested, and usually support plant communities having an 

overstory of Sitka spruce or Sitka spruce and western hemlock. The shrub 

understory is variable and may include blueberry, skunk cabbage, devil’s club, 

salmonberry, and alder. Supporting this vegetation are well-, moderately well-, 

or somewhat poorly drained, deep mineral soils with thin organic surface layers. 

Prior to the 1990 TTRA, nearly 10,000 acres of the Flood Plain (FP) process 

group were harvested (see Table 3.4-3). Due to the common occurrence of high 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-64 Final EIS

stream flows inundating the floodplain, areas where harvest occurs can result in 

channel movement and increased downstream transport of materials, and 

reduced supply of large trees to streams. The depletion of large old-growth trees 

from past harvest in RMA is a long-term impact that will continue to affect 

floodplain and stream function for hundreds of years. Currently, based on 

channel type characteristics, the FP process group makes up almost 9 percent of 

the nearly 46,000 linear miles of the streams mapped on the Forest and is 

typically protected through identification and designation of RMAs and 

associated Riparian Standards and Guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 and 

Appendix D of the Forest Plan).

Alluvial Fans

The Forest’s alluvial fans are typically found in the transitional area between 

valley floodplains and steep mountain slopes. The alluvial fan channel typically 

changes course frequently resulting in multiple branches across the valley floor 

reflecting a fan-like landform. Because of characteristics of alluvial fans, the 

plant communities typically comprise Sitka spruce or Sitka spruce and western 

hemlock. The shrub understory is most commonly blueberry and devil’s club.

Prior to the 1990 TTRA, nearly 5,000 acres of the Alluvial Fan (AF) process 

group were harvested (see Table 3.4-3). Approximately 11 percent of Tongass 

National Forest watersheds have had more than 10 percent of alluvial soil 

riparian areas clearcut, mostly between 1950 and 1990 (USDA Forest Service 

2014d). Based on channel type characteristics, the AF process group makes up 

over 3 percent of the nearly 46,000 linear miles of the streams mapped on the 

Forest. Similar to the FP process group, these are typically protected through 

identification and designation of riparian management areas and associated 

Riparian Standards and Guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 and Appendix D of the 

Forest Plan). 

Other

Although past harvest in FP and AF process group’s represent some of the 

greatest concerns for any potential future harvest due to unique characteristics 

and frequent channel movement, past harvest in other process groups has 

occurred in equal or greater amounts prior to the 1990 TTRA. These include the 

High Gradient Contained (HC) and Moderate Gradient Mixed Control (MM) 

process groups, with nearly 13,000 and 7,000 acres harvested, respectively (see 

Table 3.4-3). Harvest within the HC process group has the potential to alter 

downstream transport of sediment and wood due to its generally steep and 

confined characteristics. Although the MM process group is typically located on 

the landscape in the middle to upper valley bottom, harvest associated with the 

HC or AF process groups that are adjacent to the MM process group has the 

potential to deposit additional materials. When combined with harvest in the MM 

process group, these additional materials could affect the process group’s 

transport capacity.

Beach/Estuary Fringe

Currently, there are about 500 miles of beach/estuary fringe adjacent to past 

shoreline harvest areas, out of about 17,000 miles of shoreline in the Tongass 

National Forest. Beach/estuary fringe harvest may have an effect on sediment 

entry to the marine system and nearshore benthic disturbance (see Fish section 

for details of biologic effects). Young-growth area beach/estuary fringe harvest 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-65 Water

has the potential to affect the nearshore marine system from the timber removal 

methods that may be employed. 

Key water uses on the Forest include public water supply, recreation, growth and 

propagation of fish, and hydroelectric power generation. The Forest supplies 

public and private water systems across the Forest. The ADEC classifies public 

water systems into four categories that are based on the number of individuals 

served and frequency of water use (i.e., year round or seasonally). The four 

categories include Community Water System, Non-Transient Non Community 

Water System, Transient Non Community Water System, and Class C public 

water system. The Community Water System applies to those systems with 

greatest number of users that use water year round. This category would apply 

to larger communities in Southeast Alaska in the vicinity of the Tongass National 

Forest boundary. Community Water Systems include water supplies for 

Ketchikan, Petersburg, Sitka, Juneau, Wrangell, Kake, Klawock, Craig, and 

Hydaburg. The source watersheds for these systems are within the Forest 

Service Municipal Watershed Land Use Designation (LUD) (see the Forest Plan, 

Chapter 3, Municipal Watershed). Ketchikan, Sitka, and Petersburg are 

congressionally designated municipal watersheds, and the other six communities 

have non-congressionally designated municipal watersheds. All other nonprivate water users in the vicinity of the Tongass National Forest boundary are 

designated under the other three ADEC public water system categories. In 

addition, water is supplied from the Forest to fish hatcheries, industrial sites, and

resorts. 

Renewable Energy Development

Hydroelectric generation continues to be used in many places throughout the 

Forest to provide electricity for mining, sawmills, communities, and other uses. 

There are 24 hydropower installations in Southeast Alaska, about half of which

are on Tongass National Forest Lands (USDA Forest Service 2010b). Some of 

these are major power facilities producing greater than 10 megawatts (MW) of 

energy for the communities of Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, Wrangell, and 

Petersburg. Some interties have been developed between facilities with 

additional installations and interties between installations being proposed. The 

Renewable Energy section supplies additional information on existing and 

planned hydroelectric projects.

Environmental Consequences

This section considers the effects of forest management activities on water quantity, 

water quality, watershed condition, including riparian beach fringe areas, water use, 

and cumulative effects. The effects of timber harvest and roads and related harvest 

landings on fish and fish habitat are discussed in the Fish section of this chapter. 

The effects on potential hydroelectric projects are discussed in the Renewable 

Energy section, and the effects of log transfer facilities on the marine environment 

are discussed in the Fish and Transportation section of this chapter.

Forest management activities affect water quantity and quality, as well as the 

timing of water flows through alteration of canopy cover, soil, and watershed 

conditions. Most watersheds are in a state of dynamic equilibrium where 

changes occur naturally because of changes in weather patterns. Because of 

the overriding influence of climate and watershed resiliency, changes in 

streamflow and sediment delivery resulting from management activities (e.g., 

timber harvest and road construction) are difficult to measure.

Water Use

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-66 Final EIS

Water Quantity

As described in the Affected Environment subsection, changes in streamflow 

following timber harvest and road building are commensurate with the proportion 

of watershed harvested. Studies from coastal British Columbia suggest that 

even selective harvesting may result in statistically significant increases in peak 

flows (Hudson 2001). After harvest has occurred and the forest canopy begins 

to close, with forest canopy recovery assumed to occur in 30 years (Hicks et al. 

1991; Jones 2000), pre-harvest streamflow conditions are also likely to recover. 

Little has been quantified about the effects of timber harvest and roads on stream 

flows in Southeast Alaska watersheds. Of the limited studies, one study in Staney 

Creek on Prince of Wales Island concluded that timber harvest of 35 percent of 

basin area may have increased streamflow during dry periods (Bartos 1989). 

Additional analysis of these data suggests that the change could be due to climatic 

cycles, not timber harvest (USGS 2000). From analysis of accumulative water

yields in Staney Creek and a control watershed (Old Toms), summer minimum 

stream flow patterns for Staney Creek did not show evidence that potential changes 

in forest canopy interception rates affected low flow regimes (USGS 2010). 

Furthermore, Staney Creek exhibited higher variability in minimum streamflow 

during pre-harvest periods compared to young-growth forest conditions. However, 

in the case of the Staney Creek investigation, it is likely that climate signals between 

modes of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) have masked any discernable 

changes in discharge patterns resulting from timber harvest in the drainage. Overall, 

water yield appears to increase as a function of mean annual precipitation (MAP), 

but this effect may be short-lived since the revegetation responses will be quicker in 

areas of higher MAP (Bosch and Hewlett 1982).

In addition to the Bartos (1989) study on the effect of timber harvest on 

streamflow during dry periods, Bartos (1990) assessed how geologic zones in 

Southeast Alaska affected low flows after timber harvest. Bartos (1990) found in 

general that where watersheds were composed primarily of metamorphics, 

volcanics, and igneous rocks, lower flows are likely to occur because of timber 

harvest. In contrast, larger flows are likely to occur because of timber harvest 

where watersheds are composed of sedimentary rocks. In addition to these 

studies from Southeast Alaska, many studies from the Pacific Northwest have 

also indicated that in addition to timber harvest and roads affecting runoff timing 

and quantity of peak flows, other factors including precipitation, soil type and 

depth, lithology, road design, hillslope gradient, and topography, may play 

significant role in stream flows (Coe 2004). 

Grant et al. (2008) evaluated numerous Pacific Northwest watershed studies to 

evaluate the effects of harvest practices on peak flow. In this study, Grant et al. 

(2008) found there to be an increase in peak flow with the portion of watershed 

harvested. The relationship was affected by the presence of roads and if 

watersheds were rain dominated, transient snow dominated, or snow dominated. 

Based on mean reported measurable change in peak flow, Grant et al. (2008) 

found that watersheds with both harvest and roads had measurable changes in 

peak flow at about 29 percent of watershed harvested in rain-dominated 

watersheds and 19 percent for transient snow watersheds. These results were 

consider conservative in their estimate as studies reporting no change in flow 

were not included in the analysis. 

Besides factors such as soil type and depth, lithology, road design, hillslope 

gradient, and topography affecting water quantity, climate change has the

potential to affect stream flows on the Tongass National Forest this century, 

although the degree to which changes occur vary substantially between areas 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-67 Water

across the Forest (EcoAdapt 2014, Shanley et al. 2015). In general, increases in 

precipitation are expected in the fall and winter, with much of the precipitation 

occurring as rain instead of snow (EcoAdapt 2014). These increases in 

precipitation occurring as rain would further contribute to the melting of glaciers, 

higher peak flows in the fall and winter in most streams other than glacial fed 

streams, and lower summer flows primarily in snowmelt- and rain-dominated 

watersheds (Shanley and Albert 2014; Shanley et al. 2015).

Projected effects on stream flow within watersheds Forest-wide can be generally 

assessed by the total acreage of timber harvest and road density. The Timber

Harvest and Roads subsections below provide estimated timber harvest and

road density on NFS lands under existing conditions and after 100 years of full 

implementation for each of the alternatives. In addition, the estimated timber 

harvest and road reconstruction miles in beach/estuary fringe and RMA after 100 

years of full implementation for each of the alternatives are also provided.

Quantifying the total acreage of timber harvest and road density provides a 

general approach to assessing projected effects on water quantity. The potential 

effects of changes in stream flows within watersheds Forest-wide are expected 

to vary depending on the factors describe above, as well as the relative amount 

of timber harvest and roads and the applicable Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 and Appendix D of the Forest Plan). The 

effects from changes in stream flows in a particular subwatershed can only be

estimated during project planning, at which point the rate of entry into 

subwatersheds and locations of proposed roads and harvest units would be 

analyzed. The actual effects on stream flows can only be determined by sitespecific monitoring.

Timber Harvest

As described above, timber harvest has the potential to change streamflow by 

altering processes that control the amount and timing of water delivered to 

streams. Generally, reduction of forest cover increases water yield, but the 

response to treatment is highly variable and unpredictable (Bosch and Hewlett 

1982; Keppeler and Ziemer 1990; Keppeler and Lewis 2007; Grant et al. 2008). 

The direct removal of forest canopy affects rain interception (Prussian 2010), 

evapotranspiration, snow storage, snow melt, and soil moisture (Jones and Grant 

1996; Hubbart et al. 2007). After harvest is completed, soil moisture and 

transpiration changes continue in response to uptake and use of water by 

remaining and regenerating vegetation. Climate cycles also influence streamflow 

and probably confound most studies on the relationship between timber harvest 

and streamflow, which have not occurred over long enough timeframes to 

account for climate shifts (USGS 2000; Neal et al. 2002).

The complex relationships between these processes, how they are altered by 

timber harvest, the role other factors play, and the net effects on streamflow have 

been studied extensively in the Pacific Northwest, with varying conclusions. 

Nonetheless, the total acreage of timber harvest between alternatives, combined 

with road density (see Roads subsection below), provides a general indication to 

assess projected effects on water quantity. Table 3.4-4 provides the estimated 

maximum acres of harvest by alternative after full implementation (i.e., 100 

years) of the Forest Plan.
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-68 Final EIS

Table 3.4-4

Estimated Maximum Acres of Timber Harvest after 100 Years of 

Full Forest Plan Implementation1

Alternative

Maximum Likely Harvest (Acres) and Percent 

of Total Total Maximum 

Young Growth Old Growth Harvest (Acres)

1 209,882 77% 62,851 23% 272,733 

2 335,344 91% 32,609 9% 367,952 

3 313,216 90% 35,568 10% 348,783 

4 234,885 85% 42,597 16% 277,481 

5 284,144 87% 42,479 13% 326,623 1 Based on harvesting at the PTSQ level for 100 years.

As harvested forest areas mature, young growth is predicted to dominate harvest 

acreage over a 100-year period. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have the highest 

proportion young-growth harvest with at least 85 percent, while Alternative 5 would be 

at least 87 percent and, Alternative 1 the lowest proportion with only 77 percent younggrowth harvest. Projected acres of young-growth harvest would range from about 

209,882 under Alternative 1 to 335,344 under Alternative 2 (see Table 3.4-4).

Included in the estimated maximum acres of timber harvest in Table 3.4-4,

young-growth area beach/estuary fringe and RMA harvest have the potential to 

directly affect the nearshore marine system and stream channels through 

increased runoff associated with forest clearing. Table 3.4-5 quantifies the 

estimated amount of harvest by alternative within the beach/estuary fringe and 

RMA after 100 years of full implementation.

Table 3.4-5

Estimated Harvest (acres) of Young-Growth by All Harvest 

Methods (e.g., even aged, group selection, commercial thin) in 

Beach Fringe and Riparian Management Area (RMA) after 100 

Years by Alternative1

Alternative Beach/Estuary Fringe RMA

1 0 0

2 21,871 26,030

3 30,769 0

4 11,114 0

5 3,903 1,089 1 Alternative 2 allows clearcutting in Beach/Estuary for the first 15 years and then only commercial 

thinning. Only commercial thinning is allowed in RMA.

 Alternatives 3 and 4 allow only commercial thinning in the Beach/Estuary Fringe.

 Alternative 5 allows harvest openings up to 10 acres maximum and commercial thinning in both 

Beach/Estuary Fringe (with a 200 foot no cut beach buffer) and RMA.

Based on Tables 3.4-4 and 3.4-5, Alternative 2 would likely have the greatest 

effect on water quantity based solely on the acres of harvest across the Forest 

and within the beach/estuary fringe and RMA. Although Alternative 1 would have 

no harvest within the beach fringe or RMA, it has the largest amount of acreage 

within POG. Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2, with the exception of 

no harvest within RMA (see Table 3.4-5). This would likely reduce the effects on 

water quantity and watershed condition (see Watershed Condition subsection 

below) of Alternative 3 relative to Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would have similar 

effects as Alternative 1, although with a greater extent in young growth, lesser in 

POG, and much greater in beach/estuary fringe. Alternative 5 would also have 

similar effects as Alternative 1, with the exceptions of lower harvest in POG and 

greater harvest in beach/estuary fringe and RMA. Relative to Alternative 4, 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-69 Water

Alternative 5 would have similar effects associated with harvest in POG and less 

effects in beach/estuary fringe, but slightly greater effects within RMA.

As previously described, the effects from changes in stream flows in a particular 

subwatershed can only be estimated during project planning, during which the 

rate of entry into subwatersheds and locations of proposed harvest units and 

roads would be analyzed. The actual effects on stream flows can only be 

determined by site-specific monitoring. The Watershed Condition subsection 

below provides further information related to RMA and beach/estuary fringe.

Roads

Compounding the difficulty of identifying streamflow responses to timber harvest 

is the influence of the road network. Roads can contribute towards increases in 

peak flow to streams (Grant et al. 2008). Increases in peak flows can result in 

stream channel erosion and bed scour (Tonina et al. 2008), affecting stream bed 

and bank stability, and adverse effects on fisheries resources (see the Fish

section). Roads can potentially create areas of hillslope instability resulting in 

landslide generation, contribute fine sediment from surface erosion, and alter 

surface and subsurface water flow patterns. Some studies suggest that the 

influence of roads on the hydrologic cycle is just as significant as timber harvest, 

with the roads interacting positively with the vegetation removal to speed the 

delivery of water to channels during storm events (Jones and Grant 1996). 

Furthermore, mid-slope roads intercept subsurface flow paths, converting 

subsurface waters to surface waters (McGee 2000; Coe 2004), which can further 

contribute to increased peak flows (Jones and Grant 1996; Wemple and Jones 

2003). In addition, road ditches integrate with and extend the stream network, 

thereby increasing transport efficiency to streams (Montgomery 1994; Wemple et 

al. 1996). 

Removal of forested wetland acres for timber harvest and roads can result in 

increased soil moisture due to reduced evapotranspiration (Cox et al. 2013), as 

is expected to occur when forest canopy is removed. Replacement of wetland 

area with road surface can disrupt flow paths, decrease storage capacity, and 

increase sedimentation. Based on research regarding the effect of road 

construction impacts on adjacent wetlands in Southeast Alaska, effects to 

wetland hydrology and vegetation adjacent to roads are expected to be limited to 

a few meters of the road (Glaser 1999; Kahklen and Moll 1999; McGee 2000). 

Although timber harvest and roads on the Tongass National Forest may increase 

soil moisture, disrupt flow paths, decrease storage capacity, and increase 

sedimentation, these effects would likely only be measurable in those 

subwatersheds exceeding road density thresholds identified by the WCF. 

The WCF concluded as part of their assessment that watersheds with fewer 

roads generally have healthier overall resources (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 

Specifically, the Forest Service (2011a) noted the following: 1) a watershed with 

road density of less than 1 mile per square mile would be considered “good” or 

“properly functioning,” 2) watersheds with road density of 1 to 2.4 miles per 

square mile were “fair’ or “functioning at risk,” and 3) watersheds with road 

density greater than 2.4 miles per square mile were rated as “poor” or “impaired 

function.” Based on this information, the frequency of occurrence of road 

densities exceeding the “properly functioning” value of 1 mile of road per square 

miles was used as a general index of relative effects of roads on water quantity

and quality. Table 3.4-6 provides total road miles and road density under 

existing conditions and after 100 years of full implementation.
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-70 Final EIS

Table 3.4-6

Estimated Road Miles and Percent of 6th Field Subwatersheds in Road Density 

Categories on NFS Lands under Existing Conditions and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation1

Road Type

Alternative

Existing 1 2 3 4 5

Existing Roads 2 (miles) 5,093 5,093 5,093 5,093 5,093 5,093

New Road Construction (miles) – 944 1,056 1,020 871 994

Road Construction over Decommissioned 

Roadbeds (miles) – 428 600 566 445 527

Road Reconstruction3 (miles) – 887 1,191 1,129 900 1,058

Total Roads (miles) 5,093 6,036 6,148 6,113 5,964 6,086

Percent New Road Increase - 19% 21% 20% 17% 19%

Road Density Categories (Mi/Sq. Mi.)4

0 66.6% 57.1% 54.6% 56.4% 62.4% 60.8%

>0 - 1.0 23.9% 32.4% 34.5% 32.5% 27.0% 27.9%

>1.0 - 2.4 8.4% 8.2% 8.4% 8.6% 8.2% 8.6%

>2.4 - 3.0 0.8% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

>3.0 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1%

Percent of watersheds with Average Road 

Density less than 1.0 mile/sq. mi. 90.5% 89.4% 89.1% 88.9% 89.3% 88.8%

Average Road Density (miles/sq. mi.) for 

all NFS Lands 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23

1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan at PTSQ levels. Includes adjusted road miles estimated to be needed to harvest all 

scheduled timber in the alternative. 2 Note that the 5,093 miles of existing roads consists of 46% open roads, 27% closed roads (i.e., in storage), and 27% 

decommissioned roads.

3 Estimated existing road miles that would need to be reconstructed.

4 Percentages are based on 927 6th field subwatersheds that contain at least 100 acres of NFS lands. 

Under existing conditions, the average road density on NFS lands in all 

subwatersheds is about 0.20 mile per square mile (see Table 3.4-6). This 

translates into about 91 percent of all subwatersheds with road densities

currently in the “properly functioning” range (less than 1 mile of road per square 

mile) for NFS lands. 

Total road miles and road density would increase under all alternatives and 

follow a similar pattern (Table 3.4-6). The increase in new road miles over 100 

years relative to existing conditions could range from 17 to 21 percent for the 

alternatives. The increase in new road construction would be greatest under 

Alternative 2 and least under Alternative 4, while the amount of reconstructed 

roads would be highest under Alternative 2, but lowest under Alternative 1. The

percentage of reconstructed roads is lowest for Alternatives 1 and 4 (17 percent

for both alternatives) and higher for Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 (21 to 23 percent).

The number of subwatersheds that have no roads on NFS lands is currently 

about 67 percent (Existing, see Table 3.4-6); this percentage would decrease to 

between 55 and 63 percent under all alternatives. Increases in road densities 

would be primarily in subwatersheds that already have roads. Alternative 3 and 

5 would have slightly higher frequency of subwatersheds with road densities 

between 1.0 and 2.4 mile(s) per square mile than the other alternatives. In 

addition, Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 would have slightly higher frequencies of 

subwatersheds with road densities greater than 3.0 miles per square mile. 

Overall, the alternatives would reduce the portion of subwatersheds with road 

densities less than 1 mile per square mile on NFS lands from 90.5 percent under 

existing conditions to between 88 and 90 percent (Table 3.4-6). After more than 

100 years of Forest Plan implementation, the estimated overall road densities on 

NFS lands would remain nearly unchanged, increasing slightly from 0.20 to 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-71 Water

between 0.23 and 0.24 mile per square mile under all alternatives. On average, 

all of these densities are within the range of what the WCF (USDA Forest 

Service 2011a) characterized as “properly functioning” watershed road densities. 

Included in the estimated total road miles, young-growth area beach/estuary

fringe and RMA roads have the potential to directly affect the nearshore marine 

system and stream channels through increased runoff associated with the road 

network. Table 3.4-7 quantifies the estimated amount of road miles by 

alternative within the beach/estuary fringe and RMA after 100 years of full 

implementation.

Table 3.4-7

Estimated Road Construction and Reconstruction (miles) in Beach/Estuary 

Fringe and Riparian Management Area (RMA) after 100 Years by Alternative

Alternative

Beach/Estuary Fringe RMA

Road 

Construction1 Road Reconstruction

Road 

Construction1

Road 

Reconstruction

1 21 13 110 71

2 116 88 241 179

3 152 116 127 90

4 66 49 105 72

5 39 28 126 88 1 Includes new road construction and road construction over decommissioned roadbeds.

In beach/estuary fringe areas, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the highest 

number of road construction and reconstruction miles (Table 3.4-7). Alternatives 

1, 4, and 5 would have substantially lower amounts of road construction and 

reconstruction in beach/estuary fringe areas than Alternatives 2 and 3, while 

Alternative 1 would have the least among the alternatives. In the RMAs, 

Alternative 2 would have substantially more miles of road construction and 

reconstruction (420 total miles, nearly double the amount of the other 

alternatives) than any of the other alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 4 and 

Alternatives 3 and 5 would have similar amounts of road construction and 

reconstruction within the RMAs, with Alternatives 3 and 5 slightly higher than 

Alternatives 1 and 4, with all four alternatives much less than Alternative 2.

Potential effects that additional road construction and increases in road densities 

would have on any specific subwatershed and related watershed condition would 

ultimately be estimated during project planning, at which point the rate of entry 

into subwatersheds and locations of proposed harvest units and roads would be 

analyzed. The actual effects on stream flows can only be determined by sitespecific monitoring. The Water Quality and Watershed Condition subsections 

below provide further information related to roads within the RMA and 

beach/estuary fringe.

Water Quality

As described in the Affected Environment section, changes in stream 

temperature and sediment and other factors are the two primary environmental 

consequences associated with proposed timber management activities. The 

subsections below evaluate the potential effects on stream temperature and 

sediment and other factors associated with timber harvest and roads for the 

alternatives.
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-72 Final EIS

Stream Temperature

As described in the Affected Environment subsection, riparian vegetation 

shading helps maintain stream temperature along most streams. Under each of 

the alternatives, riparian tree retention would be adequate to maintain stream 

temperatures. DeWalle (2010) examined the effect of riparian vegetation height, 

width, and density relative to stream width at maintaining adequate shade on 

streams. DeWalle (2010) concluded that for moderate to high density canopy 

thickness, a ratio of buffer height to stream width of five would maintain adequate 

shade to control effects of solar heating on stream temperature. Because on the 

Tongass National Forest all Class I, II, and III streams have no-cut buffers

(except some areas for Class III streams under Alternatives 2 and 5, with at most 

35 percent of trees removed in any stand along Class III streams), only Class IV 

streams in clear-cut units are likely to experience increased solar radiation due to 

harvest. 

Class IV streams are small (between 1 and 5 feet in bankfull width) and are 

typically only delineated by conducting detailed ground surveys during the 

planning stages of specific proposed timber management activities. Because 

Class IV streams are typically only located during a specific proposed project, 

they are substantially underestimated in the Tongass National Forest streams 

dataset, in both harvested and unharvested subwatersheds. Due to the 

underestimate of Class IV streams, effects analysis associated with these 

streams and subwatersheds are best conducted during the planning stages of a 

specific proposed timber management activity.

Based on the DeWalle (2010) model, moderately dense vegetation or stream 

banks with heights of 5 to 25 feet (for streams 1 to 5 feet wide) would be 

sufficient to adequately prevent solar-induced heating of these streams. Many of 

these Class IV streams would initially be nearly fully shaded from banks or other 

remaining vegetation, and would soon be fully shaded from bank brush and 

sapling tree regeneration following timber harvest. In addition to the DeWalle 

(2010) model results, Janisch et al. (2012) found that, in Washington coast 

forests, unbuffered small headwater streams had a maximum summer 

temperature increase that was only about 1.5°C greater in unharvested control 

streams than harvested. Janisch et al. (2012) also found that within 3 years of 

harvest maximum temperatures were further reduced (less than 1.0°C greater 

than unharvested control streams). These results, combined with the supporting 

studies in the Affected Environment subsection, suggest that clearing along 

Class IV streams is not likely to significantly affect stream temperatures. 

Although the main concern for potential stream temperature increases is riparian 

removal associated with direct timber harvest, removal due to road development

through riparian areas and crossing of streams, may also be a contributing 

factor. Generally, road crossings of streams are the most common locations

where associated removal of riparian vegetation decrease stream shade and 

contribute to solar radiation. Such removal would likely have little to no effect on 

increasing stream temperature at any one site because the clearing area is 

typically limited and the stream crossing structure (e.g., culvert, bridge) would 

contribute full shading to the stream. In some studies from other forested areas,

stream temperature changes below road-stream crossings have been noted 

(Story et al. 2003), while other studies have found no change in stream 

temperature from before and after road crossing installations (Aust et al. 2011). 

A study conducted by Tucker and Thompson (2010) on the Tongass National Forest 

assessed some of the effects of harvest-related actions, including roads, on stream 

temperature. It was found that all studied drainages had exceedances of state water

temperature criteria, with effects of past harvest practices on stream temperature not 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-73 Water

apparent. As described in the Affected Environment subsection, Tucker and 

Thompson (2010) concluded that drainage characteristics and local weather may have 

masked changes in stream temperature from upland and riparian harvest. Based on 

these studies and those presented in the Affected Environment section, stream 

temperature is not expected to change appreciably by alternative, even when effects 

from climate change are considered, and therefore no further discussion is provided in 

this section.

Sediment and Other Factors

As described in the Affected Environment subsection, road and timber landings 

construction near streams, even where the road does not actually cross the 

stream, may contribute to increased sediment loads in streams, and poses a 

potential risk to overall watershed conditions (Reid and Dunn 1984; Furniss et al. 

1991; Rashin et al. 1999; Gucinski et al. 2001; Luce and Wemple 2001; Gomi et 

al. 2005). Road location, or the distance between soil disturbance and a stream, 

as well as the presence of vegetation (riparian) buffers between roads and 

streams, affects the amount of sediment delivered to a stream through hill-slope 

runoff, road runoff, or roadside ditches (MacDonald et al. 2001; Croke and 

Hairsine 2006; Rashin et al. 2006, Steel et al. 2007; McCune 2010). 

Projected effects on water quality within subwatersheds Forest-wide can be 

generally assessed by the amount of timber harvest, road miles and density 

(including on unstable slopes), landslide potential, and road-stream crossings. 

This subsection provides estimated landslide potential and road miles on 

potentially unstable soils. Additionally, and as described in the Affected 

Environment subsection, the Forest Service Watershed Condition Classification 

Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2011a) uses the percent of road miles 

within 300 feet of waterbodies as one of the metrics to indicate watershed 

functional status condition relative to hydrologic and sediment regimes. The 

estimates of timber harvest and road miles and densities on NFS lands under 

existing conditions and after 100 years of full implementation for each of the 

alternatives were discussed above under the Water Quantity subsection. 

Although the amount of timber harvest, road miles and densities (including on 

unstable slopes), landslide potential, and stream crossings provides a general 

approach to assessing projected effects on water quality, the potential effects on 

water quality within subwatersheds Forest-wide are expected to vary depending 

on the relative amount of timber harvest and roads within a given subwatershed 

and the applicable Forest-wide standards and guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 

and Appendix D of the Forest Plan). The effects from changes in water quality in 

a particular subwatershed can only be estimated during project planning, when

the rate of entry into subwatersheds and locations of proposed roads and harvest 

units would be analyzed in further detail. The actual effects on water quality can 

only be determined by site-specific monitoring.

Landslides and roads are two of the greatest contributors of sediment to stream 

channels. Landslide debris (e.g., sediment, large wood) that enters streams may 

block or shift channels, fill pools, and increase the presence of fine sediment in 

the channel network. Increased sediment yield, including yields during road 

construction, road use during timber harvest activities, roads on unstable slopes, 

and lack of sufficient maintenance or proper closure following timber harvest 

activities, are all viewed as potential areas of risk for increased sediment to 

stream channels.
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-74 Final EIS

Landslides

Timber harvest on high gradient unstable slopes can potentially increase 

landslides that may add debris and sediment to streams, thereby affecting overall 

water quality. Unstable soils can cause slumping and mass wasting, and while 

most of the soil types of highest risk potential would be excluded from timber 

harvest, some areas may still be harvested. The Soils section provides 

estimates of landslides in the next 25 years. These estimates are used to 

compare the long-term landslide estimates that may result from the individual 

harvest levels proposed under each alternative. Based on the data presented in 

the Soils section, all proposed alternatives have a higher landslide potential (i.e.,

maximum increase in number of landslides over first 25 years) than under the 

2008 Forest Plan (Alternative 1) because there are more total acres being 

harvested in order to transition to young-growth harvest. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 

would have slightly lower potential increase in the number of landslides than 

Alternatives 2. Alternative 2 has an estimated increase of 13 landslides over 25 

years when compared to the 2008 Forest Plan (Alternative 1). See the Soils

section for additional information.

Roads

Roads built on unstable soils are considered at greater risk of slumping or mass 

failure, and thereby increasing the chance of large amounts of sediment entering 

streams. Soils of high risk for landslide or mass wasting failure are those 

indicated as a mass movement index of 3 (MMI 3) (generally gradient of 55 to 72 

percent). The upper ranges of these soils (65 to 72 percent) generally have the 

higher risk of slope failure. Those soils with slopes greater than 72 percent mass 

movement index of 4 (MMI 4) are removed from the suitable timber base, but 

may have small inclusions within the MMI 3 layer. In addition, current standards 

and guidelines, in consideration of these concerns, recommend avoiding building 

roads on slopes greater than 67 percent. Based on these recommendations, 

roads built on soils with slopes greater than 67 percent are considered the 

greatest risk for affecting water quality.

The miles of road likely to be constructed on soils greater than 67 percent are 

shown in Table 3.4-8. Although the amount of road miles are small among all 

alternatives, due to the limited number of new roads and standards and 

guidelines that restrict construction of roads in regions of this slope category, the

differences among the alternatives demonstrate those with the greatest potential 

to effect water quality. Overall, Alternatives 2 and 3 have the highest portion of 

new roads on potentially unstable soils, with Alternatives 1 and 4 the least. 

Alternatives 5 would have intermediate potential effects to water quality, which 

would be greater than Alternatives 1 and 4, but less than Alternatives 2 and 3.

Table 3.4-8

Estimated Maximum Road Miles on Potentially Unstable Soils

Based on Slopes Greater Than 67 Percent over the Length of the 

Project (approximately 100 years)1

Road Type

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Road miles > 67% Slope 9 11 11 9 10 1 Includes both new road construction and road construction on decommissioned roadbeds.

Based on the proportion of existing roads on slopes greater than 67 percent.

In addition to sediment contributions from the construction of roads on unstable

slope, stream channel erosion has the potential to increase from the construction 

of roads because of the destabilizing effect of cuts, fills, and drainage alterations, 

and the lack of protective vegetation cover on road surfaces and other disturbed 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-75 Water

areas. In young-growth stands, there are existing legacy roads with detrimental 

soil conditions that may be reconstructed for future young growth harvests. 

Table 3.4-6 above provides the amount of reconstructed roads by alternatives 

and Table 3.4-8 above provides the amount of road miles on slopes greater than 

67 percent by alternatives.

The amount of road construction by alternative is used as a measure of both soil 

productivity losses and erosion potential. In one attempt to quantify road induced 

erosion, Kahklen and Hartsog (1999) developed a multiple regression analysis 

based on road induced erosion studies in the Tongass National Forest, but found 

that road induced erosion was highly variable. The primary variables that 

correlated with greater sediment yields were heavier traffic volumes, more 

rainfall, higher road gradients, and lack of road resurfacing. These and other 

site-specific variables would be evaluated more precisely during project planning, 

based on the specific conditions found at the project site, and would vary based 

on soil parent materials, rock durability, slope, location within a subwatershed, 

mass movement hazard, and other factors. 

Paustian (1987) measured short-term effects of road building on soil erosion in 

the Kadashan watershed that resulted in increased suspended sediment yield 

equivalent to 2 percent of the estimated annual sediment yields. Potential 

increases in total estimated sediment yield over a 2-year post-road construction 

period ranged from 20 to 66 percent in three Kadashan study streams. 

Montgomery (1994) found that drainage concentration from ridgetop roads 

caused both landsliding and integration of the channel and road networks. Road 

drainage concentration increased the effective length of the channel network and

strongly influenced the distribution of erosional processes in Southeast Alaska. 

As discussed in the Affected Environment subsection, Bryant et al. (2004) and 

Woodsmith et al. (2005) did not find a statistical relationship between fine 

streambed sediment and subwatershed disturbance in Southeast Alaska. Ross 

(2013) found evidence of smaller median particle size in stream substrate in 

watersheds with historical timber harvest along stream banks. Cederholm et al. 

(1981) conducted a study on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula that found that the 

accumulation of fine sediment in streambeds was highest in basins where the 

road area exceeded 2.5 percent of the basin area. Road construction near 

streams, even where the road does not actually cross the stream, may contribute 

to increased sediment loads in streams, and poses a potential risk to overall 

watershed conditions (Reid and Dunn 1984; Furniss et al. 1991; Gucinski et al. 

2001; Luce and Wemple 2001; Gomi et al. 2005). 

Roads in beach/estuary fringe and RMAs have the potential to more directly 

affect water quantity and quality than those in other areas due to their proximity 

to nearshore marine system and stream channels. As noted in the Affected 

Environment subsection, the percentage of waterbodies within 300 feet of roads 

is considered an indicator for watershed conditions: the higher the percentage,

the more likely the watershed function, relative to hydrology and sediment, would 

be reduced. All alternatives propose road construction and reconstruction within 

both the beach/estuary fringe and RMA, where waterbodies would be present 

(Table 3.4-7). Alternatives 2 and 3 propose the most road construction and 

reconstruction miles within both the beach/estuary fringe and RMA. Alternative 1 

has the least amount of road miles within both the beach/estuary fringe and 

RMA, while Alternatives 4 and 5 have greater road miles than Alternative 1, but 

less than Alternatives 2 and 3. Because roads in most beach/estuary fringes and 

RMAs would be within 300 feet of streams, Alternatives 2 and 3 would likely have 

the greatest increases in the percent of subwatersheds with waterbodies within 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-76 Final EIS

300 feet of roads. This could increase the risk of sediment entering waterbodies, 

affect overall water quality, and ultimately reduce watershed function level. 

While riparian protection (e.g., buffers) can greatly reduce sediment delivery to 

streams (Chamberlin et al. 1991; Belt et al. 1992), they provide little reduction in 

the risks to stream channels caused by roads during construction or 

reconstruction. Road construction and reconstruction practices require 

additional attention and adherence to BMPs to ensure that risks to fish (see the 

Fish section) and stream channels are minimized. The effects in a particular 

subwatershed can only be estimated during project planning, after which point 

the rate of entry into subwatersheds and locations of proposed roads and harvest 

units would be analyzed in further detail. The actual effects on water quality can 

only be determined by site-specific monitoring.

In addition to the effects of roads near waterbodies, the number of road 

crossings of streams increases the risk of adding sediment to streams. 

Generally, the greater the number of road crossings by alternative the greater the 

chance of increased sediment to streams, with new crossings on average having 

a greater risk of affecting sediment than rebuilt crossings. Currently, about 6,102

Class I, II, and III stream crossings exist on the Tongass National Forest. The 

various alternatives would add between 1,714 and 2,177 new stream crossings 

on Class I, II, and III streams, and a similar number of reconstructed stream 

crossings, increasing the risk of introducing sediment to streams (see Table 3.6-

4 in the Fish section). The relative ranking of the alternatives for potential 

sediment effects to streams based on the number of new crossings is discussed 

in the Fish section.

The specific effects in a particular subwatershed at any individual site would be 

influenced by the existing conditions at the crossing. Some existing crossings 

needing reconstruction may require minimal changes because the stream 

crossing structures are fully adequate to meet new road uses. Conversely, other 

crossings may require complete reconstruction. An index of risks of added 

sediment from road crossings based primarily on new crossing is shown in the 

Fish section. The application of BMPs found in the National Core BMP Technical 

Guide FS-990a (USDA Forest Service 2012b) and the Alaska Region Soil and 

Water Conservation Handbook, FSH 2509.22 for all alternatives combined with 

the Fish and Riparian Standards and Guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 and 

Appendix D of the Forest Plan) would help minimize or prevent adverse effects 

on water quality from the amount of riparian area with forest clearing (only 

Alternatives 2 and 5) and road construction (all alternatives), yarding corridors, 

and stream road crossings, and from any non-commercial timber harvest that 

may occur.

Watershed Condition

As described in the Affected Environment subsection, the WCF established a 

nationally consistent approach for classifying watershed condition (USDA Forest 

Service 2011a). Based on this approach, indicators associated with water

quantity and quality were evaluated in the previous sections. Using this 

approach, watershed function associated with existing conditions and each of the 

proposed alternatives were evaluated. The Riparian Areas and Beach Fringe

subsections below provide further evaluation of watershed conditions specifically

within the RMAs for existing conditions and each of the proposed alternatives.

Riparian Areas

Riparian areas, as a component of aquatic and riparian ecosystems, would 

continue to be protected through use of the Fish and Riparian Standards and
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-77 Water

Guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 and Appendix D of the Forest Plan) under all 

alternatives, which protects water quality parameters such as stream turbidity, 

temperature, and nutrients. This protection includes the no-harvest buffers 

included in the past Forest Plans to reduce impacts and risk of impacts to water 

quality and fish bearing streams. As previously described, these areas include 

the 1990 TTRA 100-foot buffers and additional distances intended to preserve 

the functions of the riparian areas with the sum of both designated as RMA. 

These RMA buffers, including the RAW buffers, reduce sediment runoff and 

instability from steep slopes adjacent to streams, and are included in riparian 

management to reduce windthrow. 

For the FP process group, the RMA allows for stream channel braiding, 

migration, and storage of flood flows. For the AF process group, the RMA allows 

adequate buffer for channel movement, sediment deposition, and peak flow 

dispersion. Timber harvest and road construction within an RMA buffer reduce 

the function of the riparian areas, especially for floodplain and alluvial fan 

channels, but also have the potential to affect riparian/wetland soil polygon

areas. Effects in general from harvest within the RMA include reduction in 

available large woody debris (LWD) and direct sediment contribution to 

riparian/wetland soil polygon areas.

As part of the no-harvest TTRA buffers included in the past Forest Plans 

reducing impacts and risks of impacts to water quality and fish-bearing streams, 

these buffers helped ensure adequate LWD is supplied to streams. LWD 

contributes towards sediment sorting and routing and fish habitat structure (see 

the Fish section). Nearly all LWD to streams is supplied from a stream-side 

distance of one site potential tree height (SPTH) (McDade et al. 1990). The 

SPTH along Tongass streams generally ranges from about 85 to 140 feet 

depending on process group, with nearly all LWD supplied within the 100 foot of 

the stream bank (Murphy and Koski 1989; Martin et al. 1998). In addition, most 

other important functions, such as allochthonous input, shade, overland sediment 

trapping, occur within the SPTH (Murphy 1995). 

Although most of the LWD (generally greater than 90 percent) recruited to 

stream channels would occur from the TTRA buffer, some reduction in LWD in 

stream channels could occur over time if harvest occurs in RMAs outside of the 

TTRA buffer. This has the greatest potential to affect LWD for FP and AF 

process groups due to the mobility of these channel types and possibilities of realignment within RMA harvested areas. Collins et al. (2011) noted that in 

floodplain channels, structure and maintenance is dependent on development of 

mature trees in the floodplain. Latterell and Naiman (2007) found in a floodplain 

river system in Washington that large wood was contributed from all across the 

floodplain width over time. Floodplains in some larger channels in the Tongass 

can be over 200 feet wide (Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan). This suggests 

that, over the long term, floodplain channel movement has the potential to result 

in wood sources entering from outside of a TTRA buffer. Removal of trees from 

the floodplain tends to destabilize the areas (Collins et al. 2011). Similar to the 

FP process group, the loss of large wood outside of the TTRA buffer could 

destabilize the areas and alter channel characteristics.

Riparian soils may be one of the more sensitive to ground-disturbing actions in 

the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2015c). The harvesting methods within the 

RMAs associated with FP and AF process group areas are likely to include 

tractor logging (Landwehr et al. 2012). Soil disturbance would have local longterm effects on future development of large trees, as red alder dominate these 

disturbed areas inhibiting growth of large conifers, especially in the alluvial soils 

found in floodplain and alluvial fan channels (USDA Forest Service 2014d).
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-78 Final EIS

Future disturbance of similar areas would likely also be recolonized with red 

alder. The function of these areas is important to overall watershed condition. 

In addition to the FP and AF process groups, should harvest occur in RMA

buffers along channels associated with the HC process group, increased 

sediment to downstream MM, FP, and AF process group’s may occur from 

upslope harvest and loss of bank stability as these streams typically have no 

TTRA buffers. For other riparian/wetland soil polygon areas, such as lakes, the 

RMA buffers supply some of the same functions as on streams (e.g. reducing 

sediment input, adding allochthonous input). These areas have no TTRA buffer,

so RMA harvest could occur to the lake shoreline under Alternatives 2 and 5

which could result in increased sediment entry to lakes. Regardless of process 

group, because the RMAs are ecologically tailored to ensure the integrity of the 

stream channel, maintain supply of large wood, and protect other functions

critical to soil, water, fish, and wildlife in Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest Service 

2015c), any timber harvest or roads within the RMA have the potential to 

decrease the overall watershed condition.

The 2008 Forest Plan indicates that site-specific adjustments to the RMA

Standards and Guidelines may be changed, but only if the adjustments will achieve 

channel process group objectives. A determination of whether the objectives can 

be maintained by modification of RMA buffers can only be made through a 

watershed analysis (see Forest Plan, Appendix C). For Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, no 

harvest is proposed within the RMA. For Alternatives 2 and 5, some timber harvest 

and road construction in young-growth RMA outside of TTRA buffers is proposed 

(see Table 3.4-9). The largest portion (approximately 49 percent for both 

Alternatives 2 and 5) of projected harvest of RMA would occur in the “other” 

category (i.e., riparian/wetland soil polygon), which includes likely wooded suitable 

wetland habitat not directly adjacent to any stream process group. However, a

portion of RMA affected under these two alternatives would occur on some of the 

most sensitive and productive alluvial soil areas (i.e., floodplains and alluvial fans). 

The function of these areas in providing LWD supply to streams is important to 

maintaining stream channel processes, which would be reduced where timber 

harvest occurs. Although there is some uncertainty regarding the outcome of the 

proposed treatments in Alternatives 2 and 5, silvicultural treatments that defer late 

seral forest conditions of large, widely spaced conifers would not achieve the 

desired future condition of these riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2015c). 

Although functions associated with floodplain and alluvial fan channels would be 

impacted where timber harvest occurs, the overall areas affected under 

Alternatives 2 and 5 (see Table 3.4-9) would be small relative to the portions of 

these floodplain and alluvial fan channel types available on the Forest. The effects 

associated with timber harvest in the RMA are quantified under the Water Quantity 

and Water Quality subsections above, with additional information provided in 

Table 3.4-9 and below.

No RMA harvest would occur and current Riparian Management objectives 

would be maintained as proposed under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 (see Table 3.4-

9). Alternatives 2 and 5 require that management in young-growth riparian areas 

accelerate POG characteristics to improve riparian function, but would allow 

some harvest in young-growth RMA outside of TTRA buffer areas (see Table 

3.4-9). Alternative 5 would allow up to 10-acre maximum open cut areas and 

commercial thinning of up to 35 percent of the total stand acres, while Alternative 

2 would allow only commercial thinning of up to 33 percent of the stand in these 

RMAs outside of TTRA buffers. Alternative 5 has the highest potential to reduce 

stream function in primarily FP and AF channels through group selection 

harvested areas plus commercial thinning where it occurs. Overall, the area

harvested under Alternative 5 would be small, because this would only occur in 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-79 Water

development LUDs and temporarily within the Old-growth Habitat LUD, and 

planned selections of harvest in RMAs would have to meet stream process group 

objectives. The estimated overall area affected over a 15-year period, with no 

additional harvest occurring in the remainder of a 100-year projected harvest 

period, would be low (1,089 acres) under Alternative 5 (see Table 3.4-9). 

While the estimates (see Table 3.4-9) suggest that overall harvest area in the RMA

for Alternative 5 would be relatively small, if this harvest type were widespread it 

could have more pronounced effects on water quantity and quality, although there 

are no current plans for this to occur. As previously described, this could reduce 

wood supply and channel stability in primarily FP and AF channels by removing 

trees in the RMA outside of the TTRA buffers. Because these channels migrate, 

the associated process groups require expansive floodplain extents. If through 

migration these channels re-align into the group selection harvested areas (i.e., up 

to 10-acre clearings), the area would be set back from achieving its management 

objectives of meeting old-growth characteristics. Old-growth areas would supply 

the larger pieces of wood needed to develop “key pieces” for the formation of 

structural wood jams, and associated bars and large pool formation, all necessary 

for a functioning watershed condition in these systems. In addition to harvestrelated effects, access to these areas would likely be through shovel logging that 

could cause additional impacts to these sensitive FP and AF areas. Although 

Alternative 5 has the potential to have more pronounced effects on water quantity 

and quality, it includes restrictions to only occur in the first 15 years and no more 

than 35 percent of the current stand. With these restrictions, the overall areas 

affected would be small relative to the portions of these process groups available in 

the Tongass. 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-80 Final EIS

Table 3.4-9

Riparian Management Area (RMA) Acres and Past and Future Young-Growth Harvest (see note) by Process Group by 

Alternative

Total/Harvest Period

Process Group (acres)

AF ES FP GO1 HC LC MC MM PA UC Lake2 Other3 Grand Total

Total RMA 50,622 12,450 199,299 52,890 366,730 12,726 75,692 118,433 63,093 25 81,243 229,329 1,262,531

Harvest—1991-2015 359 0 328 7 2,611 16 150 501 60 1 19 975 5,025

Harvest—Pre TTRA 4,958 201 9,620 698 12,960 369 1,457 6,910 1,298 7 254 14,171 52,904

Total Past Harvest in RMAs4 5,317 201 9,948 705 15,571 385 1,607 7,411 1,358 8 273 15,145 57,928

Alternative 1 – Harvest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative 2 – Harvest (CT)5 1,504 37 3,317 134 6,968 3 51 1,077 21 1 230 12,688 26,030

Alternative 3 – Harvest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative 4 – Harvest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alternative 5 – Harvest (OC and CT)6 62 0 140 6 291 0 2 45 1 0 1 540 1,089

See Table 3.4-1 for process group definitions

Note that young-growth harvest is conducted on past harvest so no additional RMA is added to the total harvest area. 1 All glacial outwash channel types included under the GO designation. 2 Lake = RMA lake buffers 3 “Other” includes riparian/wetland soil polygon designations adjacent to other stream RMAs. 4 A total of 30,291 (52%) of the Grand Total past RMA harvest occurred in RMA areas outside of the TTRA buffers. 5 Commercial thinning. 6 Open cut (up to 10 acre openings) and commercial thinning, except no RMA harvest within 100-foot buffer around all lakes and a 200-foot no-cut beach buffer.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-81 Water

There would be some potential for reduced function in Alternative 2 through 

thinning due to potential loss of organic matter and LWD input, should channels 

move to areas of harvest before forest regrowth occurs. However, because RMA

harvest would also occur in non-development LUDs, the area of RMA affected 

would be much larger (26,030 acres) under Alternative 2. This could result in a 

loss of LWD to primarily FP and AF channels over a large area, but with 

relatively low overall loss per acre because future growth may augment some of 

the loss, although ground disturbance, which could affect future tree large conifer 

tree development affecting LWD supply, may be substantial. 

Although the overall RMA affected under Alternatives 2 and 5 would be small

(see Table 3.4-9) relative to the portions on the Forest, a watershed analysis (as 

described in the Forest Plan Appendix C) would still be needed for implementing 

any alternative that proposed to enter the RMA. In addition, the application of 

BMPs found in the National Core BMP Technical Guide FS-990a (USDA Forest 

Service 2012b) and the Alaska Region Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, 

FSH 2509.22 for all alternatives combined with the Fish and Riparian Standards 

and Guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 of the Forest Plan) would minimize or 

prevent adverse effects on water quality from the limited amount of riparian area 

with forest clearing (only Alternatives 2 and 5) and road construction (all 

alternatives), yarding corridors, and stream road crossings, and from any noncommercial timber harvest that may occur. 

Beach Fringe

Beach fringe harvest under Alternatives 2 through 5 may have an effect on water

quantity and quality, and thereby overall watershed condition, due to proximity to 

the marine system and potential for nearshore benthic disturbance (see Fish

section for details of biologic effects). Young-growth area beach fringe harvest 

has the potential to affect the nearshore marine system from the timber removal 

methods that may be employed. Some of the potential harvest areas would not 

be directly accessible by new or reconstructed roads, or be harvested by 

helicopter. The result would be that some harvest activity could occur directly 

from beach areas. This would be less for Alternative 5 than Alternative 2 

because Alternative 5 would have a 200-foot no-cut beach buffer. 

Harvest in the beach fringe may include shovel logging or A-frame yarding to or 

across the beach (see Timber section). This could include logging equipment 

directly traveling over intertidal areas, landing craft affecting these areas, and, in 

the case of floating or beached A-frame harvest, possible subtidal disturbance 

from anchors. These activities may cause increased local sediment runoff to the 

nearshore waters, which could exceed water quality criteria in local areas. The 

amount of harvest by alternative in the beach fringe is shown in Table 3.4-5. 

Generally, the greater the harvest, the higher the potential impact on water 

quantity and quality, although the type of harvest that is permitted would

influence the level of impact to overall watershed condition. 

As previously described, the effects from changes in water quantity and quality, 

and thereby watershed condition, in a particular subwatershed can only be 

estimated during project planning, after which point the rate of entry into 

subwatersheds and locations of proposed harvest units and roads would be 

analyzed. The actual effects on watershed condition can only be determined by 

site-specific monitoring. See the Fish section for overall alternative ranking of 

potential biological and fish effects.
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-82 Final EIS

Water Use

The Municipal Watershed LUD is applied to 45,236 acres in 11 watersheds 

serving the 9 incorporated cities and boroughs (Ketchikan, Petersburg, Sitka, 

Juneau, Wrangell, Kake, Klawock, Craig, and Hydaburg [see the Forest Plan, 

Chapter 3, Municipal Watershed]). All of the alternatives would include the same 

protections to these watersheds. Watersheds serving the Community Water

System category and the other three water system categories would be 

managed under Forest-wide standards and guidelines (see Chapters 4 and 5 of 

the Forest Plan). None of the alternatives propose timber harvest in the 

Municipal Watershed LUD. While most of the public water systems across the 

Forest have LUD designations that do not allow timber harvest and road 

construction under any alternative, some watersheds and the associated stream 

network that supply water may have LUD designations that allow timber harvest. 

Effects on water supply in a particular watershed can only be estimated during 

project planning. In addition, prior to actions in any of these watersheds, the 

Forest Plan (Chapter 4, Soils and Water Standards) requires the Forest Service 

to conduct a watershed analysis and consult with the ADEC, as well as with 

owners and operators of public water systems, prior to authorizing management 

activities that may cause pollution.

Renewable Energy Development

All renewable energy development projects in Southeast Alaska have to meet 

detailed local, state, and, in most cases, federal laws, regulations, and 

requirements to be developed and operated. Additionally, the Tongass National 

Forest applies land use restrictions for energy development, which would remain 

in place under Alternative 1, but these restrictions would be removed under all 

other alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5) and replaced by new Plan direction 

for Renewable Energy. The Renewable Energy sections supplies the details of 

the alternatives.

Renewable energy projects include a variety of ways to produce energy that 

include wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, biomass, and hydroelectric. Most 

energy projects on the Forest are hydroelectric, supplying 96 percent of all 

energy in Southeast Alaska. Future plans of development are mostly 

hydroelectric (see Renewable Energy section for details of type and number).

The types of effects from renewable energy projects, including hydroelectric 

projects, on water and fish resources are discussed in more detail under the Fish

section. In summary for hydroelectric projects, these types of projects can have 

effects on flow quantity and timing from water diversion and storage (e.g., lakes 

and reservoirs) and sediment from construction of roads and other facilities (e.g.

dams, powerhouse, diversion structures). Furthermore, hydroelectric projects

can have effects on water quality, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and 

nutrient levels, from water storage and diversion practices. In addition, the 

construction and maintenance of transmission lines for a project has the potential 

to reduce streamside vegetation from right-of-way clearing over streams (e.g., 

affecting local runoff and stream temperatures) and increase the miles of roads 

in watersheds (e.g., affecting runoff and sedimentation) (see Fish section for 

more details).

Although there is some potential for increasing the number or timing of projects 

and related effects from changes in the standards and guidelines (see Chapters 

4 and 5 of the Forest Plan) over the current conditions (Alternative 1), the chance 

of this is low as projects are still likely to be built under the 2008 Forest Plan 

standard and guidelines. The largest effect from Alternatives 2 through 5 is in
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-83 Water

the permitting process for the developer; the process would likely be less 

burdensome and result in more rapid permitting for a site, but not a substantial 

increase in the number of sites developed. Regarding the current number of new 

projects, these are widely distributed across the Forest. The spread of these 

projects across the Forest would likely reduce cumulative effects of these actions

on any specific watershed. Overall, Alternatives 2 through 5 would likely have 

little effect to water quantity, use, and quality on the Forest relative to current 

conditions (Alternative 1).

One of the main cumulative factors affecting water quantity, quality, and use, in 

addition to actions taken on NFS lands, is ongoing and additional regional land 

development actions on non-NFS lands. These actions, in addition to the 

various effects of the considered alternatives, may have compounding effects on 

water resources. While BMPs applied on NFS lands would moderate these 

effects, some effects on water quantity, quality, and use may remain, and with 

the addition of other actions, may increase risk to water resources. Appendix C 

provides a full list of all the projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Factors associated with potentially adverse effects to water resources are timber 

harvest, roads, including culvert and bridge installation, and potential hazardous 

substance spills. While the main factor contributing toward potential adverse effects 

on water resources in and near the Tongass National Forest is potential future 

timber harvest-related activity, other expected future activities have the potential to 

contribute toward cumulative effects to water and watershed resources. As listed in 

the Introduction and Appendix C, these other potential contributing cumulative 

effects could include activities such as mining, transmission line interties, future 

transportation facilities, hydroelectric site developments, watershed restoration 

actions, and a variety of miscellaneous land development–related actions and 

natural conditions like windthrow and climate change. 

Mining, which is occurring or may be developed at more than five locations on the 

Tongass, includes the development of roads, water use, and potential discharge of 

sediment and potentially hazardous substances like heavy metals to streams. 

Some transboundary mining issues, including at least three mines in Canada, could

potentially affect water quality relative to potentially toxic substances, including 

possibly heavy metals, in transboundary waters. Transmission interties, like that 

proposed for Kake to Petersburg, can include the development of roads, culverts,

and forest clearing along a linear route that could potentially influence sediment and 

temperature in streams. Transportation projects, primarily roads, are anticipated to 

be developed in several community areas; these would add to road density in

watersheds that could have cumulative local affects in some areas. Approximately

nine hydroelectric projects are proposed for future development (see Table 3.12b-3)

and these projects can modify water flow in a subwatershed and potentially lead to

the development of small reservoirs in stream habitat. Watershed restoration 

activities are occurring and will continue in the future based partly on the WCF rating 

of watershed conditions in 2011. Some of these restoration activities, which may 

include road maintenance and improvements, road closures, and/or stream habitat 

improvements (e.g., LWD additions, riparian plantings), could, in the short-term, add 

sediment to streams. In the long term, restoration activities could result in higher 

quality and function in watershed conditions by improving overall water quality. 

Climate change, which was incorporated in the preceding subsections, may 

contribute to varied watershed and water quantity and quality changes, including 

negative effects. Although these other potential contributing cumulative effects

could contribute to lower water quality and watershed conditions in the Tongass

cumulatively, these actions would occur in relatively limited areas and the permitting 

process would greatly restrict future effects from these activities and developments

on water resources.

Cumulative 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-84 Final EIS

As a partial indicator of cumulative effects region-wide to water resources, the 

amount of timber harvest provides an indication of cumulative effects to water 

quantity, use, and quality because of potential effects on stream flows, sediment 

and stream detritus input, and flow patterns. Tree harvest areas in the Tongass 

National Forest are primarily characterized as POG vegetation regions. POG in 

1954 accounted for about 35 percent of the land area within the Tongass 

National Forest boundary, which includes NFS lands as well as state and private 

lands. Therefore, land disturbance related to harvest is primarily limited to a 

small portion of the total land area. Non-POG areas include areas with small 

trees, muskeg, or wetlands; all regions where streams may be common; and ice 

fields and rocky mountainous areas where few streams may be present. 

Table 3.4-10 indicates the cumulative portion of POG area that would be 

harvested within the Forest boundary (including all non-NFS lands) under each 

alternative, and the portion of all lands inside the Forest boundary that would 

potentially be disturbed by forest clearing. This latter calculation represents an 

index of overall watershed disturbance associated with vegetation removal by 

forest clearing and does not consider roads outside of harvest units, urban areas,

etc., which are a minor portion of the total disturbance area. 

Table 3.4-10

Percent of Original POG Remaining on All Lands within the Tongass Forest

Boundary and Percent of All Lands inside the Boundary that are Not Directly

Disturbed by Timber Harvest after Full Implementation of the Forest Plan 

(approximately 100+ years)1

Alternative

Percent of All Original POG 

Remaining 2

Approximate Percent of All Lands Not 

Disturbed by Timber Harvest 3

Existing 86% 95%

1 83% 94%

2 83% 94%

3 83% 94%

4 83% 94%

5 83% 94% 1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan plus future non-NFS harvest for 100 years. 2 Original POG equals about 35 percent of all land area (17,934,000 acres) of this region. 3 Value represents the percent of all 17,934,000 acres inside the Tongass boundary (plus Annette Island)

covering Biogeographic Provinces 1 through 21, that would be disturbed by timber harvest and is used as an

index of overall watershed disturbance associated with timber harvest. It does not include the acreage of other

forms of ground disturbance (e.g., roads, towns) beyond the harvest of POG.

Currently, most (86 percent) of the POG acreage within the Forest boundary has 

not been harvested. Considering all lands inside the Forest boundary, 95 percent 

of the total land base has not been harvested (Table 3.4-10). Alternative 1, 

including non-NFS harvest, would result in a reduction in POG area to 82 percent 

of the original acreage; 94 percent of all lands inside the Forest boundary would 

remain undisturbed by direct timber harvest. Alternatives 2 through 5 would also 

result in 83 percent of the POG remaining; 94 percent of all lands would remain 

undisturbed by direct timber harvest after 100 years of projected harvest. It is likely 

some local effects on water quantity and quality from all alternatives. On a Forestwide basis, however, the overall effects would be very minor for all alternatives. As 

noted above for roads, lesser riparian protections on state and private lands would 

have a greater likelihood of causing adverse effects to water quantity and quality in 

watersheds on non-NFS lands, which could be compounded if NFS lands are 

harvested in the same watersheds. Potential cumulative effects of timber harvest, 

road construction, and other actions would be evaluated at the project-specific level 

in order to ensure that any adverse effects to water resources would be reduced,

moderated, mitigated, or eliminated.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-85 Water

In addition to the amount of timber harvest as a partial indicator of cumulative effects

region-wide to water resources, the amount of roads provides an indication of 

cumulative effects to water quantity, quality, watershed condition, and water use

because of potential effects on stream flows, sediment and stream detritus input, 

and flow patterns. While the effects would vary with location and type of activity, the 

amount of road miles is a partial indicator of cumulative effects region-wide. Table 

3.4-11 shows the change in road miles on a regional basis, including non-NFS 

roads. Currently, there are about 5,093 total road miles (including all authorized and 

non-system roads) on NFS lands and an additional 4,258 miles on adjacent nonNFS lands (Table 3.4-11). Many of these roads are associated with non-NFS timber 

harvest activities. In general, timber harvest activities on non-NFS areas are not as 

protective of stream riparian areas. Reduced protection of these areas has a 

greater risk of increasing impacts to water quality and resident fish species. 

Therefore, roads constructed on non-NFS lands may be associated with greater 

water quantity and quality impacts per mile of road than on NFS lands. Generally,

however, the amount of roads (i.e., existing, new, and reconstructed) may be an 

indicator of cumulative effects on water resources of the Tongass National Forest 

and adjacent areas; therefore, the cumulative effects to water resources would 

generally be proportional to overall changes in road miles. 

Table 3.4-11

Estimated Number of Road Miles on All Lands within the Tongass Forest

Boundary for Each Alternative after Full Implementation of the Forest Plan for 

approximately 100 years1

Alternative

Road Categories Existing 1 2 3 4 5

Total New Miles on NFS Lands 0 944 1,056 1,020 871 994

Total Miles on NFS Lands 5,093 6,036 6,148 6,113 5,964 6,086

Total Miles on Non-NFS Lands2 4,258 6,593 6,593 6,593 6,593 6,593

Total Miles on All Lands 9,351 12,629 12,741 12,705 12,556 12,679 1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan plus future non-NFS harvest. 2 Assumes an increase of 2,335 road miles on non-NFS lands by state, private, and municipalities over 100 years.

Annette Island is included because it is surrounded by areas within the Forest boundary.

Road development on NFS lands under Alternative 4 would have the lowest 

contribution to cumulative effects by increasing total road miles on NFS lands by 

about 16 percent over existing conditions after 100 years; however, road 

construction on both NFS and non-NFS lands together would result in a total 

increase in road miles of about 34 percent because non-NFS road development 

would likely increase substantially. Alternative 2 would have the largest cumulative 

effect when including all roads, resulting in an increase in cumulative road miles 

equal to about 36 percent over existing conditions. The other alternatives (1, 3, 

and 5) would result in a cumulative increase in road miles equal to about 35 to 36

percent over existing conditions, when both NFS and non-NFS roads are included. 

In addition to total road miles, the greater the density of roads in a subwatershed, 

the greater risk there is water quantity, quality, and use. As previously described,

“properly functioning” watersheds are defined as 1 mile per square mile, with 

increased risk to watershed condition as road densities increase beyond this 

value. The average road densities by alternative and for the region are shown in 

Table 3.4-12. For the purposes of this cumulative effects evaluation, an increase 

in road miles on non-NFS lands for the life of the project (100+ years) was 

assumed. The average road density on non-NFS lands is much higher than on 

NFS lands. This higher average density is partly the result of the high number of 

road miles in city areas, as well as concentrated timber harvest areas. Even 

though the amount of non-NFS land area is relatively low, high road density on 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-86 Final EIS

these lands results in the overall average densities increasing sharply relative to 

NFS lands. Even with these increases, overall averages remain relatively low and 

consistent for all alternatives at 0.45 mile per square mile. 

Table 3.4-12

Estimated Average Total Road Density on Tongass NFS Lands and Non-NFS Lands 

within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by Alternative over 100+ years1

Alternative

Road Density as Miles/Square Mile

Road Density on NFS 

Lands

Road Density on Non-NFS 

Lands2

Total Road Density All 

Lands

Existing 0.20 2.29 0.33

Alternative 1 0.23 3.55 0.45

Alternative 2 0.24 3.55 0.45

Alternative 3 0.23 3.55 0.45

Alternative 4 0.23 3.55 0.45

Alternative 5 0.23 3.55 0.45 1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan at PTSQ levels plus future non-NFS harvest. Includes adjusted roads miles 

estimated to be needed to harvest all scheduled timber in the alternative. Annette Island is included because it is 

surrounded by areas within the Forest boundary.). Annette Island is included because it is surrounded by areas within the 

Forest boundary.

2 Assumes an estimated the increase in non-NFS road miles within the Forest boundary from 4,258 miles at present to 

6,593 after 100 years.

Although overall averages remain relatively low for any alternative, there are 

watersheds that have higher road densities that are increased by the addition of 

roads from the alternatives (Table 3.4-13). Currently, most (66.6 percent) of the 

watersheds on NFS lands have no roads and only just over 10 percent have road 

densities exceeding 1 mile per square mile. The inclusion of non-NFS lands 

reduces the percentage of watersheds with no roads to 60.2 percent and 

increases the portion of watersheds exceeding 1 mile per square mile by 

approximately 15.4 percent. Under Alternative 3 for all lands combined, the 

percentage of watersheds exceeding 1 mile per square mile would increase by 

20 percent after 100 years. In contrast, under Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5, the 

percentage of watersheds exceeding 1 mile per square mile would increase 

between 19.6 and 20.2 percent. 

Table 3.4-13

Estimated Road Miles and Percent of Watersheds in Road Density Categories on NFS 

Lands and on All Lands Combined within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by 

Alternative after 100+ years of Full Implementation1

Road Density 

Categories2

Alternative

Existing 1 2 3 4 5

Road Miles Per Sq. Mi. NFS Lands NFS Lands NFS Lands NFS Lands NFS Lands NFS Lands

0 66.6% 57.1% 54.6% 56.4% 62.4% 60.8%

>0 - <1.0 23.9% 32.4% 34.5% 32.5% 27.0% 27.9%

1.0 - 2.4 8.4% 8.2% 8.4% 8.6% 8.2% 8.6%

>2.4 - 3.0 0.8% 1.3% 1.4% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%

>3.0 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.1%

New Road 

Construction - 944 1,056 1,020 871 994

Construction on 

Decom. Roads & 

Reconstruction 

- 1,315 1,791 1,695 1,345 1,585 

Total Miles (after 100 

years) 5,093 6,036 6,148 6,113 5,964 6,086 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-87 Water

Table 3.4-13 (continued)

Estimated Road Miles and Percent of Watersheds in Road Density Categories on NFS 

Lands and on All Lands Combined within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by 

Alternative after 100+ years of Full Implementation1

Road Density 

Categories2

Alternative

Existing 1 2 3 4 5

Road Miles Per Sq. Mi. All Lands All Lands All Lands All Lands All Lands All Lands

0 60.2% 50.5% 49.1% 48.8% 51.5% 51.0%

>0 - <1.0 24.5% 29.8% 30.9% 31.0% 28.9% 29.2%

1.0 - 2.4 12.8% 13.7% 14.1% 14.3% 13.6% 13.8%

>2.4 - 3.0 1.6% 3.0% 2.9% 2.9% 3.1% 3.0%

>3.0 1.0% 2.9% 3.0% 3.0% 2.9% 3.1%

New Miles

Constructed - 3,278 3,390 3,335 3,206 3,328

Total Miles 9,351 12,629 12,741 12,705 12,556 12,679 1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan at PTSQ levels plus future non-NFS harvest for 100+ years. Estimated the increase 

in non-NFS road miles within the Forest boundary from 4,258 miles at present to 6,593 after 100+ years. Annette Island is 

included as a VCU because it is surrounded by areas within the Forest boundary. 

2 For NFS lands, percentages are based on 927, sixth-field watersheds that contain at least 100 acres of NFS lands. For all lands, 

percentages are based on all 932, 6th field watersheds inside the Forest boundary, including Annette Island.

Climate Change

Climate change has the potential to affect water quantity and quality on the 

Tongass National Forest. Several modeled results presented in recent literature 

demonstrate that precipitation and air temperatures in Southeast Alaska and the 

Tongass National Forest will increase this century (EcoAdapt 2014; Shanley et 

al. 2015), although the degree to which changes occur vary substantially 

between areas across the Forest. In general, increases in air temperature are 

expected in the winter months with increases in precipitation expected in the fall 

and winter, with much of the precipitation occurring as rain instead of snow 

(EcoAdapt 2014). The warmer air temperatures would likely result in much of the 

precipitation occurring as rain instead of snow and contribute to the melting of 

glaciers, higher peak flows in the fall and winter in most streams other than 

glacial-fed streams, and lower summer flows primarily in snow-melt and rain 

dominated watersheds (Shanley and Albert 2014; Shanley et al. 2015). In 

addition, the warmer air temperatures may result in increased stream 

temperatures, but the degree to which increases would occur depend greatly on 

local factors (e.g., glacial systems, groundwater inputs, presence of lakes and 

ponds, and stream shading) and any potential increase may be lessened by the 

potential increases in rainfall occurring in the summer and fall (EcoAdapt 2014). 

Southeast Alaska is characterized by high rainfall, so small reductions in 

precipitation have limited potential to significantly reduce stream flows. Because 

Southeast Alaska is dominated by high rainfall, increased precipitation as rain 

instead of snow in the fall and winter has the potential to increase peak flows in 

most streams and alter the overall timing and frequency of events in a given 

watershed. Although increased peak flows and altered timing and frequency are 

likely, the degree to which water quantity in a given watershed is affected by 

climate change will be based primarily on local factors. Whether water quantity 

will be affected by the combination of climate change and the cumulative effects

associated with timber harvest and road construction between each alternative is 

uncertain; however, because the cumulative effects do not differ substantially 

amongst the alternatives, changes in water quantity Forest-wide will likely be 

dictated more by climate change locally than by the alternatives. In addition, 

given the short-term that the Forest Plan will be in place before being modified 
3 Environment and Effects

Water 3-88 Final EIS

again (likely 10 to 15 years), large magnitude changes in water quantity are

highly unlikely.

Streams on the Tongass National Forest, both in harvested and unharvested 

watersheds, have occasionally been documented with brief periods of 

temperature criteria exceedances. Theoretically, if air temperature changes 

were large enough, these exceedances could become more frequent. Currently,

there are no 303(d) streams listed for temperature exceedance. Whether 

temperature changes associated with climate change, even when combined with 

the cumulative effects associated with forest clearing and road construction 

between each alternative, would be large enough to cause changes to this level 

are unknown. However, in the short-term that the Forest Plan will be in place 

before being modified again (likely 10 to 15 years), large magnitude changes in 

stream temperature are highly unlikely. 

In summary, there is general agreement that the climate is warming, precipitation 

will increase, flows will increase in the fall and winter, but decrease in the summer 

in snow- and rain-dominated watersheds. However, there is considerable 

uncertainty surrounding specific predictions of when and the magnitude, and even 

more uncertainty regarding the effect of these changes on water quantity and 

quality.
Environment and Effects 3

Wetlands

Affected Environment........................................................................................3-89

Definition and Regulatory Aspects ................................................................3-89

Wetland Mapping, Classification, and Distribution........................................3-89

Past Wetland Impacts....................................................................................3-91

Environmental Consequences .........................................................................3-92

Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................................................3-92

Cumulative Effects.........................................................................................3-99

Affected Environment

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) jointly define wetlands 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. Wetlands

generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.” Wetlands are 

considered to be important for the physical, biological, chemical, social and/or 

economic functions they provide. These functions include flood flow moderation, 

groundwater recharge and discharge, nutrient cycling, wildlife and fish habitat, 

and water quality protection. 

The Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 

1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 

Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2; USACE 2007), collectively, “The 

Manual,” provide the standards for determining areas of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats. Areas are defined as wetlands when soil, hydrology, and vegetation all 

meet the technical criteria defined in The Manual for identifying wetlands. 

For federal regulatory purposes, wetlands are considered a subclass of Special 

Aquatic Sites (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 230.3) and most, 

but not all wetlands, have been deemed Waters of the United States (33 CFR 

328.3). All waters of the United States are subject to regulation through the 

Clean Water Act by the Corps and EPA. Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean 

Water Act were created specifically with the intent “to restore and maintain the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our Nation’s waters.” Executive 

Order 11990, as amended (42 United States Code 4321 et. seq.), requires 

federal agencies “to avoid...adverse impacts associated with the destruction or 

modification of wetlands...wherever there is a practicable alternative” and to 

“include all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.” Further, the 

agencies are required to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values 

of wetlands in carrying out their responsibilities.

On the Tongass, wetlands may be found from sea level to alpine elevations, and in

marine, estuarine and riparian settings. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) has mapped wetlands on the 

Tongass National Forest based on aerial photo interpretation and limited ground 

verification. The NWI classifies wetland types using a classification system 

(described below), developed by Cowardin et al. (1979).

Palustrine wetlands include the vegetated wetlands traditionally referred to as

marshes, swamps, bogs, fens, and prairies. They include all nontidal wetlands 

dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, mosses or lichens, and 

all such wetlands where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. 

Palustrine wetland classes on the Tongass include emergent wetlands (including 

Definition and 

Regulatory 

Aspects

Wetland 

Mapping, 

Classification, 

and Distribution

Final EIS 3-89 Wetlands
3 Environment and Effects

peatlands), scrub-shrub wetlands, forested wetlands, and other palustrine 

classes. Classes are described in the following paragraphs.

Forested class. Over half (52 percent) of the NWI-mapped wetland acres on the 

Tongass are forested wetlands. Forested wetlands are characterized by woody 

vegetation greater than 20 feet tall. Vegetation ranges from scrubby mixed 

conifer forests to mixed conifer, western, or mountain hemlock stands. Shrubs 

and forbs dominate the understory. 

Emergent class. Approximately 25 percent of the NWI-mapped wetland acres on 

the Tongass are classified as emergent. The emergent class is characterized by 

erect, rooted herbaceous plants, and mosses and lichens. Peatlands (muskegs) 

are included in the emergent class of wetland. In Southeast Alaska, all relatively 

open bogs that have a groundcover high in sphagnum mosses and/or sedges are 

called “muskegs,” and are a type of peatland. 

Scrub-Shrub class. Approximately 13 percent of the NWI-mapped wetland acres 

on the Tongass are scrub-shrub. Scrub-shrub wetlands include wetlands 

dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall. This class is the most 

vegetatively varied wetland class in Southeast Alaska. Plant species may 

include true shrubs, young trees, and tree and/or shrubs that are small or stunted 

because of environmental conditions. Scrub-shrub wetlands are associated with 

three broad wetland plant communities: scrub-shrub alder/willow, scrub-shrub 

evergreen/emergent, and forested scrub-shrub evergreen/emergent. 

Other classes. Approximately 1 percent of the NWI-mapped wetland acres on 

the Tongass consist of other palustrine classes including aquatic bed, open

water, unconsolidated bottom, and unconsolidated shore. Aquatic bed wetlands 

include areas dominated by floating or submerged vegetation (i.e., plants that 

grow primarily on or below the surface of the water for most of the growing 

season in most years). Open water includes small bodies of water such as 

ponds. Both unconsolidated bottom and unconsolidated shore include wetlands 

with varying substrates, but both types have less than 30 percent cover of 

vegetation. 

Lacustrine wetlands include all permanently flooded lakes, reservoirs, and tidal 

lakes with ocean-derived salinities below 0.5 parts per thousand, larger than 20 

acres. Approximately 4 percent of the NWI-mapped wetland acres on the 

Tongass are lacustrine. 

Estuarine wetland system. Estuarine wetlands are those areas that are 

predominantly intertidal, and are those parts of the rivers or streams or other 

bodies of water having an unimpaired connection with the open sea, where the 

sea water is diluted with freshwater derived from land drainage. Approximately 2 

percent of the NWI-mapped wetland acres on the Tongass are estuarine. 

Riverine wetland system. The riverine wetland system includes all channelcontained streams and rivers. These areas are bounded by uplands, channel banks,

or palustrine wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, emergent mosses or lichens. In 

braided streams, the riverine wetland system is bounded by the banks forming the 

outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. Approximately 1

percent of the NWI-mapped wetland acres on the Tongass are riverine.

Wetlands 3-90 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.5-1

Mapped Acres of Wetlands on the Tongass National Forest by Wetland 

System and Class

Wetland Systems Wetland Classes Acres

Palustrine Forested 2,114,432

Emergent (including peatlands/muskegs) 1,015,739

Scrub-shrub 535,922

Palustrine - other 51,465

Lacustrine 187,224

Estuarine 82,759

Riverine 59,779

Total Wetlands 4,047,320

Source: National Wetland Inventory Database, USFWS 2006a, and Tongass National Forest GIS database.

Due to the prevalence of wetlands in Southeast Alaska, total avoidance of 

wetlands during timber harvest, road construction, and other activities (e.g., utility 

line projects, mining) on the Tongass has not been possible. Past timber harvest 

has impacted approximately 35,156 acres of wetlands (Table 3.5-2). 

Additionally, there are approximately 1,193 miles of roads within wetlands on the

Tongass, including non-system roads and closed roads (Table 3.5-2). This 

represents 23 percent of the 5,155 total road miles on the Tongass. The majority 

of these roads were constructed as part of forestry activities and the majority of 

these roads (877 miles) have impacted forested wetlands (Table 3.5-2). 

Previously logged forested wetlands are in the process of regenerating and 

support young forests. Past road construction; however, in wetlands is 

considered a permanent wetland impact.

Table 3.5-2

Past Acres of Timber Harvest and Existing Miles of Roads in Wetlands on 

the Tongass

Palustrine Wetlands

Lacustrine WetlandsEstuarine/Marine WetlandsRiverine WetlandsTotal Wetlands2

Forested

ScrubShrub

Emergent (including peatlands / muskegs)

Other1

Timber

Harvest 

(Acres)3

27,188 2,552 3,714 240 70 1,074 415 35,253

Existing 

Roads 

(Miles)

877 62 225 5 1 12 11 1,193

1 “Other” includes aquatic bed, moss-lichen, unconsolidated bottom, and unconsolidated shore. 2 Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.

3 Acres are based on NWI wetland data superimposed on harvest unit data; this results in numerous small 

inclusions of non-forested wetland types being included in the harvest units. These non-forested wetland 

areas are avoided during harvest.

 Source: NWI database (USFWS 2006a) and Tongass National Forest GIS database. 

Past Wetland 

Impacts

Final EIS 3-91 Wetlands
3 Environment and Effects

Environmental Consequences

The physical, biological, and chemical integrity of wetlands on the Tongass has 

been, and is currently, affected primarily through timber harvest operations, 

which includes the construction and maintenance of roads, landings, stream 

crossing structures, marine access points, and log transfer facilities (LTFs). The 

magnitude of timber harvest-related effects to wetlands depends, in part, on the 

intensity, location, and duration of the timber harvest activity or road construction. 

In addition to timber harvest and road construction, development of renewable 

energy (e.g., hydroelectric power) projects have impacted, and will continue to 

impact, wetlands on the Tongass. 

Limited research has been conducted on the effects of timber harvest, road 

construction, or renewable energy and utility line projects on wetlands in 

Southeast Alaska. Research on the effects of timber harvest on wetland systems 

have been primarily focused on regeneration of trees (Julin and D’Amore 2003;

Duncan 2002). Studies on road construction on wetland sites have been focused 

on the effects to hydrology, and only a few wetland sites were studied (Glaser 

1999; Kahklen and Moll 1999; McGee 2000). 

Silvicultural operations, such as harvesting trees, are generally exempt from 

Corps’ permitting requirements (33 CFR 323.4). The construction or 

maintenance of forest roads in support of silvicultural practices, and temporary 

roads for moving mining equipment, are also generally covered under this 

exemption for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 

States. This exemption is contingent on construction and maintenance being 

conducted in accordance with the Corps’ Best Management Practices (BMPs) as 

stated in 33 CFR 323.4(a)(6). These practices have been incorporated into BMP 

12.5 of the Alaska Region’s BMP Handbook (Forest Service Handbook 2509.22). 

Construction of roads not associated with silvicultural operations is not exempt 

and requires a Section 404 permit.

Under each of the alternatives, project-level analysis and planning would be used 

to avoid construction in wetlands, and would provide site-specific plans to 

minimize effects. Additionally, Forest-wide standards and guidelines (including 

BMPs) are applied to activities in and around wetlands. All Alternatives would 

follow the 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

standards and guidelines for wetlands which provide direction to avoid 

development activities in wetlands to the extent feasible, minimize effects on 

wetlands, and locate and design roads to minimize effects on wetlands. 

However, under Alternatives 2 through 5, additional guidelines specific to younggrowth timber harvest, as well as development of renewable energy projects are 

proposed (see Chapter 5). These objectives, standards, and guidelines would 

allow and/or facilitate young-growth timber harvest and renewable energy 

development in areas that currently would restrict these areas (e.g., beach and 

estuary fringe). Effects to wetlands from the Alternatives are discussed in more 

detail below. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Timber Harvest 

Timber harvesting on wetland sites would have direct effects on the wetlands

themselves and indirect effects on adjacent or nearby wetlands. The effects 

would potentially include altering hydrology, changing nutrient pathways, removal 

of nutrients, increased sedimentation (which can diminish water quality), 

increased soil temperature, alteration in water yield and stream flow patterns, 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Wetlands 3-92 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

change of plant species composition and growth, and reductions in available 

wildlife habitat. 

Removal of the forest canopy through timber harvest can increase the amount of 

precipitation reaching the ground surface and lower evapotranspiration rates, 

which can lead to an increase in soil moisture and slower growth in seedlings 

and saplings (USDA Forest Service 2013). Additionally, removal of vegetation 

also allows precipitation to reach the soil surface faster, resulting in soil 

saturation occurring more rapidly, which can result in accumulation of water on 

the surface of the wetland (Sheldon et al. 2005). Effects on soil moisture within 

harvested wetlands are less in partially harvested stands. 

Forested wetlands in Southeast Alaska have been found to successfully 

regenerate and grow into dense, differentiated stands after clearcutting (Julin and 

D’Amore 2003; Duncan 2002). According to a study on regeneration of forested 

wetlands, tree growth was slow but consistent on histosols (wet, organic soils), 

and exceeded the minimum USDA Forest Service volume-production standard 

for commercial timberland (Julin and D’Amore 2003). Revegetation of forested 

wetland sites is expected to occur in the same timeframe as other forested sites. 

Site quality on wetland soils; however, may be lower than on sites with better 

drainage, and may require additional time for trees to reach merchantable size 

on wetlands compared to drier sites.

Although timber harvest can result in a short-term reduction in hydrologic and 

biogeochemical wetland functions, these functions begin to return as soon as 

there is tree revegetation. The habitat functions provided by forest areas may 

require more time and forest regrowth to return. Some of the habitat functions 

are dependent on, or related to, characteristics of the old-growth ecosystem. 

Habitat values for many species using forested habitat are discussed in the 

Wildlife section of this chapter. 

Road Construction and Reconstruction

Construction of roads within wetlands permanently removes the wetland area 

and wetland functions under the roadbed itself. Within the disturbed soil corridor 

wetland soils are excavated, buried, and/or compacted and water movement 

over and through soils within the disturbed soil corridor is altered (Landwehr 

2011). Constructing roads across wetlands can also affect hydrologic 

connectivity across the wetland due to road ditches or road fills (USDA Forest 

Service 2013). Additionally, crossing wetlands with roads without adequate 

provision for cross-drainage could lead to sedimentation from road construction 

or changes in hydrologic patterns. 

In deep peat wetlands, road construction can crush “soil pipes” (subsurface flow 

paths) that allow the wetland to process extra water without surface erosion. 

This can result in saturation of the site and increased water on the surface of the 

wetland (Landwehr 2011). It may take many years, up to 30 years, for the

resulting hydrologic and vegetation changes to become evident (Holden et al. as 

cited in Landwehr 2011). Road construction can also directly impact wetland 

vegetation through the removal of vegetation within the road clearing and 

grubbing limits and indirectly impact wetland vegetation as a result of changes in 

soil hydrology adjacent to road clearing limits or grubbing and fill areas 

(Landwehr 2007).

As stated above, there are approximately 1,193 existing road miles on wetlands 

on the Tongass. There has been limited research on the effects of forestry roads 

constructed in the past on wetlands or uplands in the Tongass National Forest. 

The results of the wetland and upland studies on the Tongass suggest that the 

Final EIS 3-93 Wetlands
3 Environment and Effects

hydrologic effects of roads remain within a few meters of the road (Glaser 1999;

Kahklen and Moll 1999; McGee 2000). In Southeast Alaska, this limited 

hydrologic effect appears to be primarily due to the low hydraulic conductivity of 

peat wetlands and relatively high rainfall through the year (Landwehr 2011).

Studies conducted in other areas with similar climates (cool, moist, and yearround precipitation) have found similar results. In northern England, researchers 

studied the effects of ditching on peatlands and found that the measurable 

effects of ditches on peatland hydrology were limited to less than 3 meters from 

the ditches (Stewart and Lance 1991; Coulson et al. 1990). Data collected 

during wetland implementation and effectiveness monitoring on the Tongass 

have indicated that the impacts to wetland vegetation from road construction is 

also limited, typically to less than 5 meters beyond the physically disturbed soil 

corridor (Landwehr 2011). 

Monitoring was conducted on the Tongass in 2006, 2008, and 2011 to document 

whether BMPs have been implemented during road construction activities on the 

Tongass and whether these BMPs were effective at minimizing or avoiding 

impacts to wetlands (Landwehr 2007, 2008b, and 2011). The most recent 2011 

monitoring assessment indicates that wetlands were avoided to the extent 

practicable while meeting project goals and objectives and impacts to wetlands 

were minimized (Landwehr 2011).

Reconstruction of a road for timber harvest maintains the original investment and

makes it suitable and safe for the intended use. Reconstruction involves 

rehabilitation of the original roadbed and can include cleaning ditches, replacing 

drainage structures, reinstalling bridges, and grading and shaping. Generally, 

reconstruction of existing roadbeds for timber harvest would not add 

impermeable surface to wetlands. However, some reconstruction can include 

upgrading a road and widening the roadbed. Widening an existing roadbed in 

wetlands adds to the impermeable surface and increases the total effects to 

wetlands. 

Some road reconstruction activities, such as replacing drainage structures or 

cleaning road ditches, have potential to affect wetland hydrology. These 

activities may have a positive or negative effect on wetland hydrology depending 

on the condition of the existing road in the wetland. Road maintenance can 

include reconditioning the original road template, grading the road surface, 

cleaning roadside ditches, and removing vegetation that may encroach upon the 

road or block vision. In general, this would have no effect, or it could improve 

wetland hydrology in areas where drainage has become blocked.

Renewable Energy Development

In addition to timber harvest and road construction, wetlands on the Tongass 

would also be impacted by development of renewable energy sites (e.g., 

hydroelectric) under each of the alternatives. There are 11 renewable energy 

projects in Southeast Alaska that are currently actively being proposed (see 

Renewable Energy section). Six of these projects are hydroelectric projects, 

three are non-FERC hydroelectric projects, one is a geothermal project, and one 

is a wave energy project. All 11 active projects are either on or considered likely 

to affect National Forest System (NFS) lands. Additionally, many of the 

proposed projects include associated transmission lines and in some cases, 

access roads on NFS lands.

Hydroelectric power projects can be either a reservoir or “run-of-the river” 

system. For reservoir projects, a dam is constructed across the entire stream 

and a reservoir is created behind the dam. For run-of-the river (or streaming) 

projects, either a diversion system (also called a diversion dam) diverts a portion 

Wetlands 3-94 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

of the stream or river through the hydroelectric turbines, or a relatively small 

impoundment with limited storage is created by a dam, known as pondage. Runof-the river hydroelectric power projects may divert flow which could result in a 

reduction in stream water flow, or they could rely on an upstream larger reservoir

or reservoirs. Construction of dams may involve impoundment of stream flow 

and creation of ponds or reservoirs. These ponds or reservoirs could flood 

adjacent wetlands, if present, and wetland resources could be permanently 

and/or seasonally lost due to inundation. Over time, similar wetland communities

may develop adjacent to the new reservoir margins depending on steepness of 

the adjacent slope. Rising and/or fluctuating reservoir levels due to operation of 

the hydroelectric power facility could alter hydrology and wetland functions of 

non-inundated adjacent wetlands and indirectly alter the nature, composition, and 

stability of the adjacent wetland vegetation. Alteration of species composition 

and hydrologic regimes in these wetlands could also result in the loss or 

modification of wetland habitat. Although the impacts would likely be less, 

diversion of stream flow for run-of-the river hydroelectric projects could also 

affect wetlands adjacent to the riverine system where flow is diverted. Wetland 

hydrology and, in turn, wetland vegetation could be affected by run-of-the river 

hydroelectric projects depending on the timing and magnitude of stream flow 

being diverted, as well as the length of the diversion.

In addition to creation of a reservoir or diversion of stream flow, facilities and 

activities that could directly or indirectly affect wetlands, depending on the 

project, include construction and operation of a dam and/or diversion dams, 

intake structures, power plants (powerhouse), surge tanks, pipeline (penstock), 

access spur roads, and temporary staging areas. Impacts to wetlands from 

construction and operation of hydroelectric projects could include temporary and 

permanent loss of wetlands, vegetation removal, soil disturbance, and hydrologic 

changes. In addition to the permanent loss of wetlands, introduction of fill 

material for construction of permanent facilities could affect surface or subsurface 

hydrology. 

Impacts to wetlands from utility line construction and operation could result from

structure installation, construction of new access roads and access spur roads, 

reconstruction of existing access roads, construction of helicopter pads, and/or

right-of-way clearing and maintenance. Impacts to wetlands from these activities 

include temporary or permanent fill of wetlands, soil disturbance, and vegetation 

clearing. Effects to wetlands from access and spur roads would be similar to 

those described for road construction above.

Right-of-way clearing for utility lines would primarily affect forested wetlands. The 

effects of right-of-way clearing on wetlands would be similar to effects resulting 

from timber harvesting as described above. Where removed for construction, 

shrubs and trees would be expected to quickly revegetate the right-of-way 

allowing soil moisture levels and hydrology to partially return to normal. However, 

unlike timber harvest, future vegetation maintenance would prevent trees from 

growing to maturity in areas along the right-of-way needed for maintenance of 

the utility line. This vegetation maintenance might not convert wetlands to 

uplands; however, it could convert forested wetlands to shrub or emergent 

wetlands.

Final EIS 3-95 Wetlands
3 Environment and Effects

Renewable energy sites, under all alternatives, would be subject to analysis 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and may require a Section 

404 permit. Additionally, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to wetlands 

would be implemented. Mitigation measures for hydroelectric power projects 

may include:

• Siting project facilities (including utility lines) to avoid wetlands to the extent 

possible;

• Ensuring project design minimizes the amount of wetland fill required to the 

extent practicable;

• Revegetating temporarily disturbed areas and slopes subject to erosion to 

minimize erosion and sedimentation; 

• Implementing sediment prevention measures;

• Stockpiling materials in upland areas; and

• Implementation of BMPs and Forest Service Standards and Guidelines.

Effects Specific to Each Alternative

The difference between alternatives on the effects to wetlands generally falls 

within three categories: 1) short-term or long-term effects due to timber harvest,

2) loss of wetland acres and function due to road construction, and/or 3) shortterm or long-term effects and/or loss of wetland acres from construction and

operation of renewable energy sites. The effects to wetlands from these 

activities under each alternative are discussed below. 

Timber Harvest and Road Construction

Acres of timber harvest and miles of road construction in wetlands can be used 

to provide comparisons between alternatives. However, actual acres of harvest 

in wetlands are likely to be lower, particularly in scrub-shrub and emergent 

wetlands, when acres are dropped in units with poor timber volume. Miles of 

road would likely be less than shown in this analysis because road layout for 

individual projects would avoid wetlands to the extent feasible, as required in the 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines. 

Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, would follow the 2008 Forest Plan which

includes standards and guidelines to protect beach and estuarine, riverine, and 

lacustrine areas. Under the 2008 Forest Plan, the beach and estuary fringe, an 

area of 1,000 feet slope distance around all identified estuaries and from all 

saltwater shorelines, is classified as unsuitable for timber activities and roads are 

discouraged. Additionally, the standards and guidelines include riparian area 

protection. Riparian area protection varies depending on the classification of the 

stream and include restrictions on programmed timber harvest in riparian 

management areas (RMAs) and within 100 feet of Class I fish-bearing streams 

as well as Class II streams that flow into Class I streams. These standards and 

guidelines would provide further protection for wetlands that occur in estuarine, 

riparian, and lacustrine areas under Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would allow for young-growth timber harvest in the 

beach and estuary fringe (Table 3.5-3). Alternative 2 would allow young-growth 

clearcut timber harvest in the beach and estuary fringe for 15 years; thereafter,

timber harvest would be restricted to commercial thin harvest in the beach and 

estuarine fringe. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, young-growth commercial thin 

harvest would be allowed in beach and estuary fringe and under Alternative 5, 

young-growth group selection harvest, with the size of harvest openings limited 

Wetlands 3-96 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

to less than 10 acres, would be allowed within beach and estuary fringe areas. 

However, under Alternative 5, young-growth harvest is not allowed within a 200-

foot buffer area extending from the shore. 

Young-growth timber harvest would also be allowed in RMAs under Alternatives

2 and 5. Alternative 2 would allow young-growth commercial thin harvest and 

Alternative 5 would allow group selection harvest in RMAs but would restrict 

harvest openings to less than 10 acres and limited harvest to one entry. 

Commercial young-growth timber harvest would not be allowed within RMAs

under Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. Thus, Alternatives 2 and 5 do not provide the 

same level of protection for wetlands in beach, estuarine and riparian areas as 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. 

Table 3.5-3

Alternatives that Allow for Harvest in Beach and Estuary Fringe and RMAs

Conservation Strategy 

Component

Harvest Allowed (Yes/No)?

Alt 1 Alt 21 Alt 32 Alt 43 Alt 54

Harvest in Beach Buffer No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Harvest in RMA No Yes No No Yes 1 Alt 2 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Clearcutting is permitted in Beach Buffer for first 15 years; thereafter, only 

Commercial Thinning is permitted. Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in RMAs. 2 Alt 3 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in Beach Fringe. 3 Alt 4 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in Beach Fringe. 4 Alt 5 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Group Selection and Commercial Thinning are permitted in Beach Buffers and RMAs 

subject to a one time entry limitation; thereafter, no harvest is permitted; Harvest openings would be restricted to less than 

10 acres in RMAs. Harvest in the beach fringe must leave a 200 foot buffer along the seaward edge.

The alternatives also differ in the maximum acres of timber harvest and miles of 

road construction that would potentially occur in wetlands. Table 3.5-4 displays 

the proposed maximum acres of young-growth and old-growth timber harvest

within mapped wetlands under the proposed alternatives. 

Timber harvest activities would impact the fewest acres of wetlands under 

Alternative 4 (maximum harvest of 31,291 acres over 100+ years); whereas, 

timber harvest activities under Alternative 2 would have the greatest impact on 

wetlands (maximum harvest of 36,625 acres over 100+ years). However, oldgrowth harvest within wetlands under Alternative 2 would be lower (9,200 acres) 

than under any of the other alternatives. Alternative 1 would conduct harvest 

activities on a maximum of 34,416 acres of wetlands, less than Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 5; however, it would result in the greatest acres of old-growth harvest 

(17,672 acres) of all the alternatives. Alternatives 3 and 5 would conduct harvest 

activities on a maximum of 35,805 acres and 33,815 acres of wetlands, 

respectively (Table 3.5-4).

Over time, Alternative 2 would have a higher risk of direct and indirect effects to 

wetlands due to timber harvest activities than the other alternatives. However, 

Alternative 1 would result in the greatest acres of old-growth harvest in wetlands 

than the other alternatives. Return to pre-harvest conditions following old-growth 

timber harvest in wetlands would take longer than a return to pre-harvest 

conditions following young-growth harvest within wetlands. Alternative 4, which 

would result in the lowest total maximum acres of harvest in wetlands, would 

have the lowest overall risk of effects to wetlands from timber harvest activities. 

Final EIS 3-97 Wetlands
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.5-4

Maximum Harvest Area in Mapped Wetlands by Alternative after 100+ Years of Full 

Implementation1

Alternativ

e

Palustrine Wetlands

Lacustrine 

Wetlands2

Estuarine/ 

Marine 

Wetlands2

Riverine 

Wetlands

Total 

Wetlands1 Forested

ScrubShrub

Emergent 

(including 

peatlands and 

muskegs)2

Other 3

1 OG 14,746 557 2,300 20 3 36 10 17,672

YG 14,562 428 1,675 31 3 26 19 16,744

Total 29,308 985 3,975 51 6 62 29 34,416

2 OG 7,689 289 1,187 10 2 18 5 9,200

YG 21,694 1,786 2,807 165 39 770 165 27,425

Total 29,383 2,075 3,994 175 41 788 170 36,625

3 OG 8,474 432 1,525 11 2 10 3 10,457

YG 20,787 1,139 2,528 136 9 718 31 25,348

Total 29,261 1,571 4,053 147 11 728 34 35,805

4 OG 10,595 355 1,711 12 2 17 5 12,697

YG 15,950 464 1,808 30 4 329 9 18,594

Total 26,545 819 3,519 42 6 346 14 31,291

5 OG 9,217 291 1,430 11 2 15 5 10,975

YG 18,790 1,402 2,330 122 11 43 142 22,840

Total 28,007 1,693 3,760 133 13 58 147 33,815 1 Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding. 2 Fractional acres mapped as marine wetlands occur within the alternatives.

3 “Other” includes aquatic bed, unconsolidated bottom, and unconsolidated shore. 

Source: NWI database, USFWS 2006a; Tongass National Forest GIS database. 

The alternatives also differ in the maximum miles of new roads that would 

potentially be constructed within wetlands. Table 3.5-5 displays the maximum 

miles of new roads in wetlands under the proposed alternatives. Alternative 1

would result in the most miles (160 miles) of new road construction in wetlands; 

whereas Alternatives 2 and 5 would result in the least miles (130 miles) of new 

road construction in wetlands. Alternatives 3 and 4 would be in the middle of the 

alternatives with a maximum of 133 and 131 miles of roads constructed in 

wetlands, respectively. 

Table 3.5-5

Maximum Miles of New Roads in Wetlands by Alternative after 100+ Years1

Alternatives

Palustrine Wetlands

Lacustrine 

Wetlands

Estuarine 

Wetlands

Riverine 

Forested Wetlands All Wetlands

ScrubShrub

Emergent 

(including 

peatlands/ 

muskegs) Other2

1 135 5 20 +3 + + + 160

2 105 6 15 + + 2 + 130

3 108 6 16 + + 2 + 133

4 111 4 16 + + 1 + 131

5 108 5 15 + + + + 130 1 Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.

2 “Other” includes aquatic bed, unconsolidated bottom, and unconsolidated shore. 

3 A “+” indicates >0 but <0.5 mile of new roads.

Note: This assumes that the full Projected Timber Sale Quantity is harvested each year for 100 years and that wetland 

avoidance is not practiced.

 Source: NWI database (USFWS 2006a) and Tongass National Forest GIS database. 

Wetlands 3-98 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Over time, Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, and Alternative 5 would have 

a higher risk of direct and indirect effects to wetlands due to road construction 

than the other Alternatives. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the lowest risk of 

effects to wetlands from road construction. 

Renewable Energy Development

Development of renewable energy sites would occur under all alternatives; 

however, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would include new management direction

(i.e., plan components) in the Forest Plan that improves flexibility in renewable 

energy development. Alternative 1 would not facilitate the development of 

renewable energy sites to the extent that Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would. 

Therefore, these alternatives could result in greater impacts to wetlands than 

Alternative 1 from development of renewable energy sites. Under all 

alternatives, however, renewable energy site development would be subject to 

site-specific environmental analysis under NEPA and will also be subject to 

Section 404 permitting. 

When considering cumulative effects to wetlands, it is important to look at 

incremental effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities

both on and off NFS lands. Individual wetlands provide important physical, 

biological, and chemical functions, and are not isolated from each other or from 

other resources when viewed on a larger scale. Surface and subsurface water, 

along with many organisms, move through the landscape. As discussed in the 

direct and indirect effects section, changes to or loss of functions in an individual 

wetland can have effects that extend beyond individual wetlands as they 

contribute to the overall functioning within a watershed and landscape.

Each landscape area or watershed has different physical, chemical, and 

biological characteristics and vegetation patterns. The importance of incremental 

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities to individual 

wetlands would depend on the amount and type of disturbance in the analysis 

area, wetland locations and distribution in the watersheds, the distance to other 

wetlands and waterbodies, and connectivity of hydrology and habitat between 

them. Assessing cumulative effects to wetlands will be done for individual 

projects for the relevant analysis area as part of the NEPA process under all 

alternatives. However, past plus expected timber harvest, road construction for 

forestry and other uses, and development of renewable energy sites on all land 

ownerships within the Tongass National Forest boundary can be used to 

compare the risk of the alternatives adding to cumulative effects to wetlands.

Appendix C provides a full list of all the projects considered in the cumulative 

effects analysis. 

Impacts from Timber Harvest and Road Construction 

Non-NFS lands comprise approximately 6 percent of the lands within the 

Tongass National Forest boundary and 22 percent of Southeast Alaska. 

Silviculture on NFS and non-NFS lands are generally exempt from the Corps’ 

permitting requirements contingent on the construction and maintenance of roads 

being conducted in accordance with the general Corps’ BMPs as stated in 33 

CFR 323.4(a)(6). Timber harvest on state, municipal, and private land is also 

governed by the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act (AS 41.17). Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Regulations (Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources [ADNR] 2013) includes regulations designed to prevent adverse 

impacts to fish habitat and water quality from timber operations. The regulations 

are less extensive than the standards and guidelines that direct activities on the 

Forest. The state regulations provide direction to avoid and minimize road 

building, sedimentation, establishment of landings, and damage to vegetative 

Cumulative 

Effects

Final EIS 3-99 Wetlands
3 Environment and Effects

cover of marshes and non-forested muskegs. The regulations also provide 

buffers for forested wetlands if classified as anadromous water bodies or 

tributaries to anadromous water bodies. Harvest and associated activities are 

not specifically regulated on forested wetlands that are otherwise classified. 

As stated above, timber harvest can alter wetland function and type but is not 

expected to convert wetlands to uplands. The hydrologic and biogeochemical 

functions begin to return as soon as there is tree revegetation, but the habitat 

functions provided by forested areas may take longer and more forest regrowth 

to return. This is especially true for timber harvest activities within forested 

wetlands in old-growth. Some of the habitat functions are dependent on, or 

related to, characteristics of the old-growth ecosystem, which would not develop 

during the life of the Forest Plan (10 to 15 years). Therefore, the effects of a 

project may add to cumulative effects to wetlands or their functions, particularly 

habitat functions in an area. Habitat and habitat changes are discussed in 

greater depth in the Biodiversity section. 

To compare the potential for cumulative effects due to timber harvest activities on 

wetlands, past, present, and future harvest within wetlands was analyzed for all

lands, regardless of ownership, within the Tongass Forest Boundary (plus 

Annette Island, which is surrounded by the Forest). Table 3.5-6 displays the 

potential cumulative impacts to wetlands from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable timber harvest on the Tongass and adjacent non-NFS land under 

each of the alternatives. Without any future harvest on NFS land, an estimated 

2.0 percent of all wetlands on NFS and non-NFS lands will have been harvested 

after 100 years. With implementation of one of the alternatives, the percent of 

wetlands harvested will range from 2.1 to 2.4 (Table 3.5-6).

Table 3.5-6

Estimated Cumulative Percent of each Wetland Category Harvested on All 

Ownerships within the Forest Boundary under each Alternative after 100 

Years1

Alternative

Palustrine Wetlands

Lacustrine WetlandsEstuarine/Marine WetlandsRiverine WetlandsTotal Wetlands1

Forested

ScrubShrub

Emergent (including peatlands / muskegs)

Other2

1 3.5 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.1 1.7 1..8 2.4

2 3.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.1 1.7 1.7 2.1

3 3.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.1 1.7 1.7 2.2

4 3.3 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.1 1.7 1.7 2.2

5 3.3 1.1 1.0 1.2 0.1 1.7 1.7 2.2 1 “Totals may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.

2 Other” includes aquatic bed, unconsolidated bottom, and unconsolidated shore.

 Source: NWI database (USFWS 2006a) and Tongass National Forest GIS database. 

Increases in impervious surfaces, such as through construction of roads, alters 

the movement of water through the watershed by increasing surface runoff and 

reducing infiltration. This typically reduces the time that water resides in 

wetlands or streams in a watershed and can lead to more severe flooding or 

more dry spells in streams. Research has observed that the percent of 

impervious area and percent of forested cover governs the extent of alteration of

hydrologic process and impacts to aquatic habitats, including wetlands, within a 

watershed (Sheldon et al. 2005). 

Wetlands 3-100 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

No documentation was found regarding a threshold at which impervious surfaces 

(such as roads) interact to an extent to have a qualitatively or quantitatively 

substantial effect on wetlands in Southeast Alaska. Research in the State of 

Washington and in southern Ontario has indicated that impacts to the integrity 

and functions of wetlands and streams occurred when impervious surfaces 

reached 10 to 20 percent within a watershed (Steedman 1988; Taylor 1993 as 

cited in Sheldon et al. 2005; Booth and Jackson 1997). However, many 

scientists hold the opinion that there is no accurate threshold and that 

deterioration begins immediately (Booth et al. 2002; Sheldon et al. 2005). 

On the Tongass, impervious surfaces are generally forestry roads. The 

cumulative effect of road construction in an individual wetland, when added to 

other alterations to the hydrology in an area, could result in significant alterations

in hydrologic process and functions of wetlands and streams within the 

watershed (Azous and Horner 2001 as cited in Sheldon et al. 2005). Thus, road 

density (miles per square mile) within the National Forest Boundary regardless of 

land ownership can be used to examine cumulative effects from road 

construction. 

Table 3.5-7 shows the existing and maximum average future road density for 

each for all land ownerships within the Forest boundary under each alternative. 

It includes forestry and other roads proposed for construction on NFS land and 

reasonably foreseeable roads on non-NFS lands. All alternatives would result in 

approximately the same maximum future average road density. Therefore, 

management actions under all alternatives, would have similar risks of 

cumulative effects to wetlands from impervious surfaces. 

Table 3.5-7

Existing and Estimated Future Maximum Road Density (miles per square 

mile) for NFS Lands and for All Ownerships within the Forest Boundary by 

Alternative after 100+ Years1

Existing Road Density 

(miles per square mile)

Estimated Future Road Density by Alternative 

(miles per square mile)

1 2 3 4 5

National Forest 

System Land

0.20 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23

All Ownerships 0.33 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 1 Road density is for all lands of all ownerships within the Forest boundary, not just roads within wetlands. 

Impacts from Renewable Energy Site Development and Other Activities 

Other past, present, and foreseeable activities also need to be considered when 

determining cumulative effects to wetlands. These activities include mineral 

extraction, renewable energy site projects, transportation developments, and 

urban and recreational site development. 

Existing mining includes Greens Creek on Admiralty Island, Kensington Gold 

Mine north of Juneau, as well as other existing locations. Potential future mining 

sites include the Bokan Mountain and Niblack sites on the southern end of Prince 

of Wales Island. There are also several regional transportation projects and 

regional energy and utility line projects planned for construction, including the 

Kake to Petersburg Transmission Line Intertie Project, regional transportation 

development defined in the Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan and Forest 

Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan, road paving on Prince 

of Wales Island, and construction of the Angoon Airport. Urban and recreational 

site development includes the growth in the cruise ship and guiding industries, 

Final EIS 3-101 Wetlands
3 Environment and Effects

development of fishing, other lodges, and recreational cabins, and expansion of 

cities including Juneau and Ketchikan. 

Existing and foreseeable renewable energy projects within the Tongass National 

Forest Boundary include the potential geothermal development at Bell Island, 

potential hydroelectric development at Angoon, Sweetheart Lake, and Soule 

River, and expansion of the Swan Lake hydroelectric facility. 

Each of the activities described above could include impacts to wetlands during 

construction and operations. Therefore, these activities have the potential to 

affect wetlands and their functions and these effects would be considered during 

individual project analysis. The effects of these projects would be the same for 

each alternative.

Impacts from Climate Change

Changes in Southeast Alaska’s climate (discussed in the Climate and Air section) 

could affect the size, type, and functions of wetlands and, therefore, could add to 

cumulative effects. While the models do not fully agree on the climate change 

predictions for Southeast Alaska, they generally predict warmer weather, 

increased rainfall, and a decrease in snowfall in some areas. Recent research 

by Shanley et al. (2015) predicted an increase in mean annual temperature of 

approximately 3 to 10°F, a 3 to 18 percent increase in mean annual precipitation, 

and a 22 to 58 percent decrease in snowfall in Southeast Alaska by the 2080s 

(Shanley et al. 2015). These changes would potentially result in lower soil 

moisture due to increased evaporation during warmer summer months. Also, a 

precipitation shift from snow to rain could lead to more water running off the 

landscape rather than being stored as snow. Snowmelt is an important water 

source for wetlands in the spring and summer. Thus, increased evaporation and 

less water storage could lead to drier meadows or bogs and, possibly, fewer 

wetlands. Additionally, sea level is projected to rise under current climate 

change scenarios, which could lead to the loss of tidal wetlands (Shanley et al. 

2015).

Changes in temperature could favor some plants and stress others. Longer 

growing seasons with warmer temperatures would likely result in faster growth. 

Those conditions would also favor increased rates of decomposition that could 

lead to changes in the organic matter in wetland soils. Changes in climate could 

shift wetlands from being carbon sinks to sources of aerial and aquatic carbon 

due to more rapid decomposition during warmer summers. All of these factors 

could lead to changes in wetland types, such as shifts in vegetation from 

herbaceous to shrub, from shrubs to trees, or from bogs to more productive 

forests. However, as discussed in the Climate and Air section, the models do not 

always agree and the predictions for total precipitation in portions of Southeast 

Alaska differ.

Wetlands 3-102 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Fish

Affected Environment......................................................................................3-103

Fish Habitat .................................................................................................3-108

Important Components of Fish Habitat .................................................3-108

Effects of Past Forest Management Practices on Salmonid Fish

Stocks....................................................................................................3-112

Stream Classification on the Tongass...................................................3-113

Fish Habitat Enhancement and Restoration .........................................3-114

Special Status and Invasive Species ..........................................................3-118

Fish Management Indicator Species.....................................................3-118

Threatened and Endangered Fish Species ..........................................3-118

Essential Fish Habitat............................................................................3-120

Sensitive Fish Species ..........................................................................3-120

Invasive Aquatic Species ......................................................................3-121

Renewable Energy Projects..................................................................3-122

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................3-122

Direct and Indirect Effects ...........................................................................3-122

Fish Habitat ...........................................................................................3-122

Special Status and Invasive Species Assessments..............................3-134

Conclusions – Direct and Indirect Effects .............................................3-137

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-137

General..................................................................................................3-137

Climate Change.....................................................................................3-138

Conclusions – Cumulative Effects.........................................................3-141

Affected Environment

Fish and the aquatic resources on the Tongass National Forest provide major 

subsistence, commercial, and sport fisheries, as well as support traditional and 

cultural values. Abundant rainfall, streams with glacial origins, and watersheds 

with high stream densities provide an unusual number and diversity of freshwater 

fish habitats. These abundant aquatic systems of the Tongass provide spawning 

and rearing habitats for the majority of fish produced in Southeast Alaska. 

Maintenance of this habitat, and associated high-quality water, is a focal point of 

public, state, and federal natural resource agencies, as well as user groups, 

Native organizations, and individuals.

Through involvement of private and public groups and agencies, a number of 

watersheds and Value Comparison Units (VCUs) in the Tongass have recently 

been evaluated for relative importance for several metrics relating to fish and 

wildlife. Included among these are conservation priority areas identified by the 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Audubon Alaska (Audubon Alaska and The 

Nature Conservancy 2007), and the “Tongass 77” (T77)1 watersheds identified 

by Trout Unlimited. Audubon Alaska and TNC identified conservation priority 

watersheds that include high-value intact watersheds in primarily intact 

conditions and generally encompass the highest current ecological values within 

each province; these areas were recommended to be managed for intact 

ecological values and habitat productivity. Trout Unlimited’s evaluation 

1 The Tongass 77 (T77) refers to VCUs, which approximate major watersheds located on National 

Forest System lands that Trout Unlimited, Alaska Program, identified as priority salmon watersheds. 

Four watersheds were removed from the T77 in 2014 as a result of the Sealaska Land Entitlement 

Finalization in the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).

Final EIS 3-103 Fish

 
3 Environment and Effects

concluded that, based on their outstanding habitat values, fish production, and 

diversity of fish species present, the highest and best use of these TNC/Audubon 

conservation priority areas and T77 watersheds should be for the production of 

salmon and trout (Trout Unlimited undated; The Tongass 77 undated). Further 

assessment, considering land use designations and land transfer, resulted in 

some changes to the ranking. Some watersheds were removed and some 

added, with the final number of the T77 changing to 73. (See Chapter 2,

Alternative 5 description; Hieronymus 2016). 

About 46,000 stream miles and 213,000 acres of lakes and ponds are present on 

Tongass National Forest lands (Table 3.6-1). Of these, approximately 14,900

stream miles and 3,300 lakes and ponds are mapped as Class I water bodies 

(based on Tongass Geographic Information System [GIS] data); these water 

bodies are considered to be anadromous or high-value resident fish habitat. 

Another 9,500 stream miles and 1,000 lakes and ponds are mapped as resident 

fish habitat. Most of the Forest’s streams and rivers empty into bays or 

estuaries, which are important during some life stages of anadromous species, 

as well as for many saltwater fish species. Marine invertebrates, such as clams 

and crabs, are commonly found in the estuaries and nearshore marine 

environment of Southeast Alaska. Some marine animals, including Dungeness 

crab (Cancer magister), butter clams (Saxidomes giganteus), and other benthic 

and epibenthic organisms primarily in nearshore or estuarine areas, may be 

affected by upland management activities, such as timber harvest, road 

construction, and related log transfer and storage facilities. 

Table 3.6-1

Mapped Amount of Streams, Lakes and Ponds on the Tongass National 

Forest Lands

Water Type

Classification1

Anadromous Resident

Non-Fish

(Class 3)

Non-Fish

(Class 4)

No 

Designation Total

Stream 

Miles

14,873 9,478 21,691 1,619 375 48,036

Number of 

Lakes/Ponds

3,268 993 849 39 15,512 20,661

Acres of 

Lakes/Ponds

123,173 21,081 40,279 149 28,813 213,495

1 Some small streams may not be included, mostly class 4, as their locations require ground surveys, which have

not occurred in all areas.

Lake class determined by GIS stream layer in lake, so “no designation” lakes have no associated stream layer.

Values are only on National Forest System Lands.

Subsistence, commercial, and sport fisheries are all important to the way of life 

for Southeast Alaskan residents. Sport fishing is a favorite activity of residents 

and visitors. Hatcheries, and the enhancement of wild fish, among other 

aquaculture projects, contribute to resource availability and abundance. The 

primary fish species harvested in these fisheries are shown in Table 3.6-2. 

Fish 3-104 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.6-2

Commonly Caught or Harvested Sport, Subsistence, and Commercial 

Fish

Species1 Sport Subsistence Commercial

Pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) X X X

Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) X X X

Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) X X X

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) X X X

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha)

X X X

Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) X X

Rainbow trout and steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss)

X X

Dolly Varden char (Salvelinus malma) X X

Eulachon smelt (Thaleichthys pacificus) X 1 Alternate names commonly used for the same species include pink or humpback; chum or dog; coho 

or silver; sockeye or red; Chinook or king; and eulachon, hooligan, or candlefish.

Commercial fish harvest in the waters of Southeast Alaska (includes Yakutat area 

harvest) can fluctuate widely from year to year. For example, salmon harvest in 

Southeast Alaska averaged approximately 50 million fish between 1935 and 1940. It 

then declined steadily to less than 20 million fish in 1950. From 1950 to 1975, harvests 

were generally low, falling below 6 million fish in 1975 (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). Since 

1975, harvest has generally increased in Southeast Alaska. Peak annual harvests

since Alaska statehood have all occurred since 1975. Record harvest occurred for 

each of the main species: Chinook (2004), sockeye (1993), coho (1994), pink (2013), 

and chum salmon (1996) (Conrad and Gray 2014a). Record harvest of total salmon 

occurred in 2013, when 112 million salmon were captured (Conrad and Gray 2014a). 

Overall, commercial salmon harvest since early to mid-1990s has generally been high 

but with large fluctuations in the last decade due to the relatively weak returns of pink 

salmon in even years. This species has averaged 76 percent of total commercial 

harvest since 1962 (Conrad and Gray 2014a) (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2). 

Figure 3.6-1

Commercial Harvest of Chinook, Sockeye and Coho Salmon in 

Southeast Alaska 1960–2013

Data Sources: Bachman et al. 2005; Conrad and Gray 2014a

Final EIS 3-105 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

Figure 3.6-2

Commercial Harvest of Pink, Chum, and Total Salmon in Southeast 

Alaska 1960-2013

Data Sources: Bachman et al. 2005; Conrad and Gray 2014a

Based on the estimated portions of each species originating from the Tongass 

National Forest, about 80 percent of the total harvested fish began their life in 

streams and lakes within the Forest boundaries. Fluctuations in commercial 

harvest trends are partly attributable to changes in ocean productivity. The 

productivity of marine waters in the Gulf of Alaska, and the survival of salmon 

and steelhead trout, is both highly variable and cyclic. From the mid-1970s into 

the mid-1990s, favorable ocean currents have resulted in high productivity and, 

consequently, high marine survival of salmon (USDA Forest Service 1995). 

Survival, growth or production of varied southeast Alaska salmon stocks have 

correlated with changes in indexes of ocean conditions and have been more 

variable in recent years (Malick et al. 2009; Wertheimer et al. 2013; Beamish et 

al. 2009; Shaul et al. 2008 and 2011).

Based on the estimate of salmon produced from streams originating in the 

Tongass National Forest, estimated annual average commercial salmon harvest 

(1984 to 2013) was over 176 million pounds, with a wholesale value (ex-vessel 

value) over $93 million (adjusted to 2013 dollars) (Figure 3.6-3). The harvesting 

and processing of these salmon provided a substantial number of direct and 

indirect jobs in Southeast Alaska. In the most recent year reported, 2013, more 

than 335 million pounds of salmon were harvested worth more than $153 million 

in Southeast Alaska (Figure 3.6-3). The contribution of commercial fishing to the 

regional economy is discussed in more detail in the Economic and Social 

Environment section of this document.

Fish 3-106 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Figure 3.6-3

Commercial Harvest and Wholesale (Ex-vessel) CPI Adjusted Value 

of Salmon Produced from the Tongass National Forest, Southeast 

Alaska (1984-2013)

Data Sources: Martin 2006; Bachman et al. 2005; Jacobson 2014

Hatchery production has also contributed substantially in overall fish production 

regionally. Hatchery production statewide has greatly increased since 1977 with 

releases of more than 1 billion fish occurring annually since 1988, peaking in 

2012 with about 1.7 billion juvenile fish released statewide (Vercessi 2014). A 

substantial portion of hatchery production and harvest occurs in Southeast 

Alaska, with juvenile salmon releases equaling over one-third of total state 

release in 2013 (Vercessi 2014). Harvest of hatchery fish is a substantial portion 

of total salmon harvest in the Southeast Alaska region. Overall, an increasing

period of hatchery-produced fish occurred from 1977 to about the mid-1990s. 

From 1994 through 2013, commercially harvested fish (including cost recovery 

harvest) in Southeast Alaska averaged about 22 percent of the total number of 

commercially harvested fish, or about 12 million fish annually (Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] 2004; Vercessi 2014). Chum salmon 

have been the most intensively cultured salmon species in Southeast Alaska,

averaging over 80 percent of all commercial harvest of this species from 1994 to 

2013. Average hatchery fish harvest of other species was 30 percent or less 

over this same period. 

State subsistence and personal use salmon fisheries averaged 50,000 fish from 

2004 to 2013 for Southeast Alaska and Yakutat, down from an average of 61,000 

fish in the 10 years prior (1994–2003). Sockeye salmon account for 

approximately 83 percent of the reported harvest for Southeast Alaska and 

Yakutat combined since 1994 (Conrad and Gray 2014b). Subsistence and/or 

personal use permits issued averaged 3,374 in Southeast Alaska and Yakutat 

combined from 2004 to 2013 and 3,931 in the 10 years prior to that (1994–2003).

This includes Haines management area subsistence permits (Conrad and Gray 

2014b). 

Final EIS 3-107 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

In addition to the State managed subsistence and personal use salmon fisheries, 

federal subsistence fishing permits for salmon have been issued in Southeast 

Alaska and Yakutat since 2002. In 2004, a subsistence fishery for salmon on the 

Stikine River was established under terms of a separate federal subsistence 

permit. Federal harvest is typically far lower than harvests reported on stateissued permits, as federal jurisdiction does not include marine waters (Reeves 

2016). Federal subsistence salmon fisheries averaged 2,511 fish from 2004 to 

2013 for Southeast Alaska and Yakutat. Sockeye salmon account for 

approximately 64 percent of the reported federal harvest for Southeast Alaska 

and Yakutat combined since 2004. Federal subsistence permits issued 

averaged 299 in Southeast Alaska and Yakutat combined from 2004 to 2015 

(Office of Subsistence Management 2016).

Approximately 85 percent of Southeast Alaska's sport fishing occurs in the 

vicinity of the Tongass National Forest. Sport fishing for salmon has been 

substantial over the last two decades (averaging over 400,000 fish per year) 

without distinctive trends in number harvested (ADF&G Sport Fish Survey data 

1996-2013, at https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportfishingsurvey/

index.cfm?ADFG=region.home).

With more than 46,600 miles of streams and 212,000 acres of ponds and lakes 

(based on GIS measurements), the Forest provides abundant fish habitat. The 

habitat has been inventoried and classified, and estimates have been made of 

fish production. This section begins with a description of key habitat 

components, then presents a review of information on the effects of past harvest 

in Southeast Alaska on salmonid stocks, includes a description of how fish 

habitat is mapped and classified on the Tongass, and finishes with a summary of 

fish habitat enhancement and restoration.

Important Components of Fish Habitat

Stream Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

Salmon and trout have optimum temperature ranges for rearing, spawning, and 

adult migration. Generally, salmonid require cool stream temperature to thrive in 

most stream conditions (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). While very cool water

conditions can be a limiting factor to salmon and trout survival and production,

warmer temperatures are most often the more limiting condition within most of 

the range of Pacific salmon. However, in much of Southeast Alaska, increased 

summer temperature is much less of a concern than for more southerly regions 

due to the normal cool climatic conditions (Murphy and Milner 1997). Heating of 

streams reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, which can be 

detrimental to salmonid production and survival. Past and potential effects of 

timber harvest on stream temperature are discussed in the Water section.

Situations where elevated temperature and low dissolved oxygen have been 

found to occur, and associated with fish die-offs, have been related mostly to the 

characteristics of stream morphology, hydrology, season, and number of fish 

present, not past timber harvest (Pentec 1991; Murphy 1985; Murphy and Milner 

1997). Generally, small basins of low elevation, low stream flow, confined 

intertidal conditions, with high numbers of adult fish during warm weather periods 

were areas that occasionally had die-offs of adult salmon due to low oxygen 

(Murphy and Milner 1997).

Sediment

Sediment includes both the coarse (gravel, cobble, bolder, bedrock) and fine 

(sand, silt) substrate composition in the stream channel. The relative 

composition affects many factors in stream production, including spawning areas 

Fish Habitat

Fish 3-108 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

and spawning success for salmon and trout, and benthic organism composition, 

which is an important food resource for fish. The amount of coarse sediment 

affects available spawning habitat and influences pool filling and bank stability 

(Spence et al. 1996). High levels of fines also affect pool filling, but also greatly 

influence survival of eggs and fry in spawning nests of salmon and trout 

(Chapman and McLeod 1987; Chapman 1988; Iwamoto et al. 1978; Gregory and 

Bisson 1997; McNeil 1964). Generally, the greater the portion of fines in 

spawning areas, the lower the survival of eggs and fry (McNeil 1964; Koski 1972;

Chapman 1988). Increased fines in streams also reduce interstitial spaces in 

large substrate that are important habitat for many common cool water mountain 

stream aquatic insects. Effects that timber harvest may have on sediment levels 

in streams are provided in the Water section.

Large Woody Debris

Large woody debris (LWD) in stream channels includes entire trees, rootwads, 

and larger branches. LWD is an important component of good trout and salmon 

habitat, especially in heavily wooded regions (Swanson et al. 1976; Bisson et al. 

1987; Naiman et al. 1992; Beechie and Sibley 1997; Spence et al. 1996; Murphy 

et al. 1986). LWD provides channel complexity, cover, and is especially 

important in the formation of pools (Bisson et al. 1987; Sullivan et al 1987; Benda 

et al. 2003). LWD has been found to form over 70 percent of all pools in a typical 

Alaskan valley bottom stream (Heifetz et al. 1986). The benefits of LWD in 

streams include critical sediment retention (Keller and Swanson 1979; Sedell et 

al. 1988), structural diversity (Ralph et al. 1994), gradient modification (Bilby

1979), nutrient production (Cummins 1974), and protective cover from predators. 

Its presence is often critical for overwinter habitat for various salmon and trout 

(Murphy and Milner 1997; Murphy et al. 1985; Koski et al.1984). Wood controls 

sediment movement downstream, minimizing the risk of debris flows in small 

headwater streams. In large streams, coarse sediment accumulated behind 

LWD often provides spawning gravels (Bilby and Bisson 1998; Montgomery et al. 

2003). LWD has been found to increase spawning habitat and use for both coho 

salmon and steelhead (House and Boehne 1985). Newly entered LWD plays an 

important role in streams by providing inputs of leaf litter and needles and, as it 

ages, enhances nutrient dynamics.

Sources of LWD to streams include a variety of processes such as windthrow, 

stream bank erosion, natural tree mortality, and debris slides, deep-seated mass 

soil movement, and input from upstream areas (Swanson and Lienkaemper

1978; Benda et al. 2003). Small headwater streams can provide wood to larger 

channels downstream (Potts and Anderson 1990; Prichard et al. 1998; Coho and 

Burges 1991; Benda et al. 2003; Reeves et al. 2003). 

Debris flows and dam-break floods during high flow occurrences can cause the 

transport of wood from upstream to downstream regions (Swanson and 

Lienkaemper 1978). Because of the large size of much of the wood that enters 

streams, its ability to float during this type of event is limited to larger third- to 

fifth-order streams (Swanson and Lienkaemper 1978). While much less frequent 

than high-flow events, large amounts of LWD can be added by debris torrents 

(Lamberti et al. 1991). The entry of LWD and coarse sediment at tributary 

junctions by debris torrents can form complex habitat, including pools and cover,

and add spawning gravel to the main channel (Benda et al. 2003).

In streams of the Tongass, Murphy and Koski (1986) found that 40 percent of 

LWD in streams originated within 3 feet of the bank and 99 percent within 100 

feet of the stream channel. Martin et al. (1998) found similar results estimating 

that 94 percent of LWD entered streams in unharvested Southeast Alaska areas 

originated within 98 feet of the stream channel. There may be exceptions to this 

Final EIS 3-109 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

in certain streams. Reeves et al. (2003) found that about 65 percent of the LWD 

pieces in Oregon coastal streams originated in upslope areas, primarily from 

steep slopes intersecting stream channels. Reeves et al. (2003) noted that 

similar conditions were observed in California and Washington states. The width 

of the stream valley and the slope of intersecting tributaries were the main factors 

determining the portion of wood entering from side streams. Reeves et al. (2016)

summarized information developed in Washington and Oregon Cascade and 

coastal forests that indicated 95 percent of wood in streams originated from 0.46 

to 0.82 of site potential tree height. While there are some areas that have trees 

over 100 feet tall along Alaska streams, a buffer of 100 feet would, in nearly all 

cases, maintain complete LWD supply to these streams, especially the larger 

size pieces that are most critical to habitat development and maintenance. 

The primary timber-related actions that may affect LWD supply to streams 

include buffer width along streams, stream class and channel characteristics that 

buffers are placed on, size of trees remaining in the buffer area, and effects on 

windthrow from adjacent harvest. 

Murphy and Koski (1989) used a model to estimate that, for moderate-sized 

valley bottom streams in Southeast Alaska with no buffers, LWD would decrease 

to about 30 percent of pre-harvest levels in about 90 years. Some studies have 

documented reduced LWD in Alaska clearcut streams relative to old-growth 

stream channels over time (Heifetz et al. 1986; Johnson et al. 1986, Murphy et 

al. 1986; Murphy and Milner 1997; Tucker and Caouette 2008). In the short 

term, however, LWD may be higher in clearcut areas (Lisle 1986) and may 

persist at elevated levels in some areas for years (Gomi et al. 2001). Limited 

long-term monitoring has occurred on Southeast Alaska streams to document 

changes. However, it was found that Maybeso Creek had a decrease in number 

and size of LWD 30 years after harvest (Bryant 1980) with similar changes in 

Harris River (Bryant 1985, cited in Murphy and Milner 1997). Some Tongass 

forest-wide monitoring has found statistically significant lower LWD values in 

streams of past harvested areas relative to unharvested area streams (Tucker 

and Caouette 2008). However, most of these watersheds were intensively 

logged under conditions that had no buffer strips on streams; buffers were almost 

completely absent during timber harvest until the late 1980s. Buffer strips have 

greatly increased in frequency and size since then. 

Ross (2013) also compared habitat factors in streams from past harvest 

practices (harvest to stream banks primarily 1980-1990) with streams in

unharvested area in Southeast Alaska. While Ross did not examine differences 

in LWD composition between harvested and unharvested streams, he noted that 

remnant wood entering the stream prior to harvest was still common in the 

harvested reaches and, based on riparian conditions, future wood entering the 

streams would be smaller and less functional at forming habitat than is currently 

present. His assessment of stream habitat factors typically controlled by LWD in 

streams in Southeast Alaska found no significant differences in major pool 

characteristics (residual depth, pool area, pool density) between harvested and 

unharvested riparian stream reaches, but noted this was likely affected by the 

presence of remnant wood in harvested streams.

Buffer strip blowdown affects timing of LWD entry to streams. Several studies 

have shown that blowdown in buffers increases after harvest, primarily in the 

short term (Pentec 1996; Martin 1996). Effects were short term, however, with 

rate of blowdown decreasing over time and the effects on total LWD loading to 

streams slight. There has been some documentation of a large increase in 

rootwads in a stream due to blowdown, which was considered beneficial to fish

habitat (Murphy and Milner 1997). Recent monitoring of newly harvest areas 

Fish 3-110 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

(between 2000 and 2007) has found highly variable rates and amounts of 

windthrow adjacent to harvest units currently averaging about 7 percent (median 

1 percent) of the trees in the monitored buffer areas, with decreasing rates of 

windthrow over time; however, effects on stream LWD supply were not assessed 

(USDA Forest Service 2014a). However, Martin and Grotefendt (2007) found 

that windthrow on non-National Forest System (NFS) lands with 20-meter buffers 

would, on average, reduce the long-term LWD supply in Southeast Alaska forest 

streams by about 5 percent relative to unharvested areas (an additional 5 

percent would be lost due to harvest).

Thinning or partial cutting in older even-aged stands can greatly reduce 

windfirmness (Harris 1989). This vulnerability might be offset through light 

thinning treatments that begin early in the life of the stand. In addition to 

consideration of topographic variability and stand species composition factors, 

young-growth stands with high height-to-diameter ratios and/or low live crown 

ratios that are exposed to prevailing winds or local winds will be at higher risk of 

windthrow. This is especially true for those stands that have not been previously 

thinned and consist of trees that have adapted their crown ratios and roots to 

stand conditions of competition mortality. These stands are relatively unprepared 

for clearcut harvest edges and are vulnerable to windthrow. To aid in reducing 

the chance of loss of buffer due to windthrow, the Reasonable Assurance of 

Windfirmness (RAW) buffer documents by Landwehr (2007) and Harris (1989)

are used to provide guidance when establishing these buffers during planning

and final layout. 

Food Sources

Food sources for stream fish can originate directly within the stream or enter from 

the adjacent terrestrial environment, upstream aquatic environment, or returning 

salmon. The main sources are from leaf and litter deposits from the adjacent 

riparian vegetation, algae growth and production on the stream bottom, and from 

returning salmon carcasses. This is ultimately the food base for smaller aquatic 

organisms (e.g., aquatic insects) that become food sources for stream fish. 

Detrital input is the main source from heavily shaded small- and medium-sized 

streams (Richardson 1992; Gregory et al. 1991). Larger streams in contrast 

derive much more of their food sources from algae production. Nutrient and 

organic input from returning salmon are also important but highly variable (Wipfli 

et al. 1998; Tiegs et al. 2009; Ruegg et al. 2011; Janetski et al. 2009). Past 

timber harvest has been found to influence the contribution of this nutrient input 

from returning salmon, with a greater watershed timber harvest rate 

corresponding to reduction in the quantity of salmon nutrient influence in 

Southeast Alaska river systems studied (Tiegs et al. 2008). The primary 

mechanism is likely a change in substrate size in harvested systems, which 

overall is still within that of unharvested systems (Tiegs et al. 2008). Small 

streams, many of which are not fish-bearing, also supply nutrients that contribute 

substantially to larger streams (Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team 

1999). When riparian trees are removed, the primary source of food is initially 

shifted to algae production within the stream and is derived less from leaf and 

needle organic matter (Murphy and Milner 1997). Basin timber harvest may also 

contribute to increased dissolved plant nutrients downstream (Gravelle et al. 

2009). Overall production along many streams with canopy removal in 

Southeast Alaska actually increased (those where light was limiting), while in 

some there was no change (Murphy and Milner 1997; Hernandez et al. 2005). 

When second-growth areas regrow, however, production may be reduced due to 

increased shade compared to shade produced by the original old growth. Small 

streams in Alaska have also been found to substantially contribute food for fish to 

larger streams through downstream transport of terrestrial and aquatic prey 

Final EIS 3-111 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

directly and detritus resources indirectly for fish (Wipfli 1997, Wipfli and 

Gregovich 2002, Piccolo and Wipfli 2002, Wipfli et al. 2007). The type of riparian 

forest along these small streams affects both the amount and type of resources 

passed downstream. In some cases, the regrowth of alder trees along streams 

following harvest has resulted in higher amount of resources both locally and to 

downstream fish streams (Piccolo and Wipfli 2002, Hernandez et al. 2005). 

While changes to riparian vegetation on fishless streams will alter the 

composition of the food sources transported downstream, the overall effect on 

downstream fish streams over the long term is not clear, as actions near these 

small stream may have additional effects (e.g. sedimentation) on stream 

production (Wipfli and Gregovich 2002).

Habitat Access and Passage

Fish passage and access to suitable habitat in streams and lakes is critical to fish

stocks. Natural falls and barriers in systems have been found in some areas to 

prevent the use of suitable fish habitat especially for anadromous stocks in some 

natural systems. Man-made barriers in the form of dams, diversion, and road 

crossing structures have been common partial or complete barriers to fish 

movement in much of the developed areas where fish are present. Road 

crossings (e.g., culverts) over much of the range of salmonids in the Pacific

Northwest have often reduced or eliminated access to substantial portions of 

habitat to migratory fish use. 

Effects of Past Forest Management Practices on Salmonid Fish Stocks

Past timber harvest practices and related actions in many regions of native 

Pacific salmon distribution range have been associated with declines of fish

stocks (Everest and Reeves 2007). Reductions in salmon stocks have not been 

observed in Alaska (Bryant and Everest 1998). This may be partly because 

other human-induced disturbances (e.g., agriculture, dams, urban development), 

which are common in other regions, are rare in Southeast Alaska. As noted 

above, older forest practices (mostly prior to 1980) in the Tongass National 

Forest have had documented adverse effects to anadromous fish habitat

conditions, including spawning habitat, rearing habitat, and migration conditions 

(Murphy and Milner 1997). Harvest during this timeframe accounts for about 60 

percent of all timber harvest on the Tongass National Forest. In one study of 

multiple streams in Southeast Alaska, numbers of summer fry coho salmon 

increased in clearcut areas, but fall and winter stages of juvenile coho had 

reduced numbers similar to old-growth systems (Murphy et al. 1986). In another 

study, increased summer abundance of coho salmon juveniles in clearcut areas 

had reduced the number of outmigrating coho salmon smolts relative to oldgrowth areas (Thedinga et al. 1989). Similarly, juvenile steelhead abundance, 

while high in unbuffered clearcut streams in the summer, became very low in the 

winter as these fish moved to buffered and old-growth habitats where cover was 

higher (Johnson et al. 1986). One study of a historically heavily harvested 

Tongass watershed (Staney Creek), showed with modeling, that improving 

watershed and stream conditions to pre-harvest status would more than double 

current average coho salmon production (Stillwater Science 2012). 

However, studies addressing potential long-term effects of timber harvest and 

related actions on actual numbers of fish produced are rare within the range of 

Pacific salmon, including Alaska (Bryant and Wright unpublished manuscript). 

Bryant and Wright (unpublished manuscript) compiled and analyzed the data 

from multiple juvenile fish studies in 26 streams in Southeast Alaska in an 

attempt to determine what long-term effects past harvest management actions 

have had on fish production by comparing fish abundance in managed and oldgrowth watershed streams. The managed watershed all had timber harvest 

Fish 3-112 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

activity prior to 1980, which generally included clearcutting of riparian trees. 

Partly because most studies examined were not specifically designed to address 

long-term effects, overall results of this analysis were limited. They examined 

population densities of juvenile fish from studies conducted from 1978 to 2000, 

including data on coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. 

Even with the variability of data, they found statistically significant differences 

between the managed and old-growth watersheds. Coho salmon and Dolly 

Varden densities were significantly lower in harvested areas, while steelhead 

density was greater in harvested areas. Where long-term trends were significant,

they were downward in harvested areas. There were many differences in overall 

production among regions, differences between seasons, and morphological 

differences among streams that contributed to much overlap in abundance 

between treatment groups and the lack of clear results. Overall, this study 

suggests some negative effects on some populations from older harvest 

practices (prior to 1980). New forest practices in the Tongass National Forest 

are intended to prevent the habitat degradation in riparian areas and headwater 

streams that have contributed to these adverse effects on populations (Bryant 

and Wright unpublished manuscript).

Monitoring of resident stream fish populations (Dolly Varden and cutthroat trout) 

was performed beginning in 1999, based on specific sampling designs intended 

to assess effects of recent timber harvest practices under forest management 

standards and guidelines for fish habitat as outlined in the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 2014a). 

However, after 11 years of data collection (1999-2009), an insufficient number of 

the monitored streams had timber harvest treatments completed to meet the 

criteria of the sample design. The result was that monitoring plan changes were 

needed in design and protocol to represent the range and degree of 

management prescriptions across the Tongass. These new designs and 

sampling have been implemented but statistical results of past monitoring and 

the new design results are not yet available. Thus, determinations cannot yet be 

made about effects of management practices on resident fish populations (USDA 

Forest Service 2014a). 

As shown earlier (Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2), overall trends in Southeast Alaska 

commercial harvests from 1960 to 2013, including coho, pink, chum, and 

sockeye salmon, do not indicate specific downward trends in these populations, 

or specific trends that could be correlated with amounts of timber harvest activity. 

In addition, wild coho salmon abundance estimates, excluding hatchery coho 

salmon, have remained fairly constant over the time (1997–2013), and Southeast 

Alaska stocks are considered in excellent condition (USDA Forest Service 

2014a) which may suggest limited affects to these fish from any land based 

activities. While many factors outside of forest management practices in 

Southeast Alaska (e.g., ocean conditions, weather, hatchery releases, harvest 

management, watershed conditions in other areas) influence these numbers, no 

obvious effects can be discerned from harvest or escapement data. However, 

the effects of these moderating factors may be too great to permit harvest data to 

demonstrate any effects on fish populations resulting from timber harvest in 

specific Southeast Alaska watersheds, particularly if they are relatively small 

(Bryant and Wright unpublished manuscript; Bryant and Everest 1998).

Stream Classification on the Tongass

Fish habitat on the Tongass is classified, for management purposes, using two 

classification systems (see the Water section of this chapter). The first is stream 

class, which relates primarily to presence or absence of fish, type of fish, and 

water quality. The second category is stream process group, which

Final EIS 3-113 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

characterizes streams based on channel and drainage basin morphological 

conditions.

Stream Class Inventory

Streams are categorized by stream class, a classification system designed to 

categorize stream channels based on their fish production values. The value 

classes do not imply either ecological importance or prioritization of fish harvest 

over maintenance of watershed function. Class I streams are anadromous and 

high-value resident fish streams or habitat upstream of fish migration barriers 

known to provide reasonable enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish, 

Class II streams are other resident fish streams, Class III streams have no fish 

populations or fish habitat but have immediate influence on downstream water

quality and fish habitat capability, and Class IV streams are small streams that do 

not directly influence downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. Refer to 

the Water section for more detailed descriptions (also see the Glossary in the

Forest Plan volume for more complete definitions.) 

Channel Type Inventory

Perennial and many intermittent streams on the Forest have been inventoried for 

channel type. The channel types provide a system to estimate the amount and 

quality of fish habitat, and can be used to predict their physical response and 

sensitivity to different management activities. Channel types have been categorized 

into distinct groups, called “stream process groups.” Process groups describe the 

interrelationship between watershed runoff, landform relief, geology, and glacial or 

tidal influences on fluvial erosion or depositional processes. They are described in 

Channel Type User Guide Tongass National Forest Southeast Alaska (Paustian et 

al. 1992, as amended in 2010). Process groups, in conjunction with stream class, 

are used for assigning the Riparian Standards and Guidelines. The estimated miles 

of stream by process group and class within the Tongass National Forest are shown 

in Table 3.4-1 in the Water section of this chapter. 

Fish Habitat Enhancement and Restoration

Fisheries Habitat Enhancement

Much emphasis has been placed on the enhancement of fish habitat on the 

Tongass National Forest. From 1980 to 1995, the Forest Service implemented 

148 fisheries habitat enhancement projects on the Tongass (USDA Forest 

Service 1997a, Appendix H). In more recent years, enhancement projects have 

continued with 53 total project completed between 1996 and 2014 (Table 3.6-3).

Future known planned or evaluated projects include similar project types and are 

noted as part of the Tongass Integrated Plan on the Tongass National Forest 

web site (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tongass/landmanagement/?cid=stelprd3812864

[Accessed September 2015]).

Table 3.6-3

Tongass National Forest Fish Habitat Enhancement and Restoration 

Projects Completed During 1996-2014

Activity

Number of 

Projects

Fishways 7

Falls Modification 9

Spawning Channels 1

Debris Removal Sites 0

Lake/Stream Fertilization 5

Lake Stocking 7

Stream Stocking 8

Fish 3-114 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.6-3 (continued)

Tongass National Forest Fish Habitat Enhancement and Restoration 

Projects Completed During 1996-2014

Activity

Number of 

Projects

Rearing Ponds 16

Incubation Boxes 0

Total Enhancement Activities 53

Restoration Activity

In-stream Large Wood Debris Management 70

Culvert Replacement and Removal 1 513

Total Restoration Activities 583 1 Number of culverts since 1998.

Many of the fish habitat enhancement projects implemented on the Tongass 

National Forest are cooperative projects involving multiple agencies and 

organizations, including the Forest Service, ADF&G, Regional Aquaculture 

Associations, timber companies, and other non-profit hatcheries. Types and 

numbers of enhancement projects prior to 1996 are presented in Appendix H of 

the 1997 Forest Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Similar project 

types have been developed since than as shown in Table 3.6-3. 

The anticipated salmon production from fish habitat enhancement projects on the 

Tongass National Forest is calculated based on site-specific habitat conditions 

and an analysis of limiting factors for salmon production. The test for these 

habitat production estimates consists of monitoring conducted on individual 

projects and the subsequent feedback of the monitoring results into the project 

planning process. 

The 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) identified 158 potential projects for initiation during the first 10 

years of implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1997a). The 

plan was part of the Forest Service implementation of the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) process in forest planning and has not 

been modified since its initial development. The extent of implementation of 

these projects has been varied across the Forest. The public continues to expect 

the maintenance or improvement of fish habitat values. Public interest for 

subsistence, commercial, and sport-harvested fish remains high. 

Demand for subsistence fish is discussed in the Subsistence section of this 

chapter, while commercial and sport fish demand is reviewed in this section. 

Commercial fish demand is calculated based on goals set by Regional Salmon 

Planning Teams for annual fish production for several species. Some of the 

“year 2000” harvest goals, were set in 1981 in the Comprehensive Salmon Plan 

for Southeast Alaska, Phase I (Joint Southeast Alaska Planning Team 1981). 

The updated Comprehensive Salmon Enhancement Plan for Southeast Alaska: 

Phase III (ADF&G 2004) did not specifically carry these harvest objectives 

forward. Comparison of annual harvest numbers to these original harvest 

objectives did, however, supply a metric to evaluate how recent harvest 

compares to these values. Annual commercial harvest usually achieved these 

harvest objectives for pink salmon (70 percent), but infrequently for coho salmon 

(44 percent), and sockeye salmon (17 percent), and chum salmon (26 percent) 

for the period of 1991 through 2013 (ADF&G 2004; Vercessi 2014; other ADF&G 

annual reports). Harvest has been highly variable during this period. Tongass 

rivers, lakes, and streams produce 80 percent of the commercial salmon annually 

harvested from Southeast Alaska, which is about 49 million salmon per year 

(USDA Forest Service 2015d).

Final EIS 3-115 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

Given the abundant fish resources in the fresh and marine waters of Southeast 

Alaska, there has been considerable sport fishing effort in this area, as indicated 

by both license sales and overall fishing effort. Alaska sport fishing licenses sold 

have exceeded 400,000 since 1994 (Jennings et al. 2011a). The number of 

anglers in Southeast Alaska has had an increasing trend from about 60,000 in 

1984 to about 110,000 in 1994. Numbers remained fairly stable from 1994 

through 2003 at 105,000 to 115,000, followed by a sharp increase to about 

130,000 from 2004 to 2008, before falling back to about 110,000 in 2009–2010 

(Mills 1991; Howe et al. 1995; Walker et al. 2003; Jennings et al. 2011a;

Jennings et al. 2011b). However, the number of Southeast Alaska resident 

anglers has had a slight declining trend from a high of about 37,000 in 1991 to 

28,000 in 2010, mostly ranging from 28,000 to 32,000 per year from 2001 to 

2010. In contrast, non-resident licenses in Southeast Alaska have been on an 

increasing trend from 1991 numbers (about 59,000) to a high of about 100,000 

for 2004-2008, with a sharp decline again in 2009–2010, possibly related to the

national economic downturn (Mills 1991; Howe et al. 1995; Walker et al. 2003;

Jennings et al. 2011a; Jennings et al. 2011b). 

The sport fishing effort in Southeast Alaska from 1996 through 2014 followed 

somewhat similar trends where data are comparable to that of license sales. 

Effort was lowest during the 1996–1998 period ranging from about 370,000 to 

440,000 angler days (ADF&G 2016). Effort increased in 1999 and remained 

fairly constant through 2009, ranging from 469,000 to 568,000 angler days, 

peaking in 2005 when license sales were also high. Effort decreased in 2010, 

similar to license sales, but has been on an increasing trend through 2014 

ranging from 444,000 to 564,000 angler days. 

Fish Habitat Restoration

Along with enhancement, substantial effort and funding have been directed at 

restoring or supplying access to habitat that was affected by past timber harvest 

practices. This effort has included in-stream and road-related activities. The 

restoration efforts have included primarily in-stream and stream bank restoration 

based primarily on LWD addition and replacement or removal of road-stream 

crossing structures, primarily culverts that failed to meet current juvenile fish

passage design criteria. From 1980 to 1995, the Forest Service implemented 28

fisheries habitat restoration projects on the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 

1997a, Appendix H). In more recent years, restoration projects have continued 

with 70 LWD projects and 266 fish culvert replacements or removals completed 

between 1996 and 2014 (Table 3.6-3). Like enhancement projects, these may 

be cooperative projects involving multiple organizations. 

Restoration actions have been partly based on watershed condition ratings, use,

and aquatic value criteria (see the Water section for more on watershed 

condition). This led to designation of Priority Watersheds for restoration focus. 

The Forest Supervisor formally established seven Priority Watersheds (Harris 

River, Twelvemile Creek, Staney Creek, Luck/Eagle Creek, Saginaw Creek, 

Sitkoh River, and Sitkoh Creek) in 2011. Watershed improvement activities 

include a variety of actions that were primarily direct stream habitat restoration 

(e.g., LWD placement), riparian vegetation improvement, upland vegetation 

improvement, road storage and decommissioning, and improved road drainage 

structures to reduce sediment entry to streams and improve fish passage. A 

variety of these actions have occurred and continue in the Priority Watersheds 

noted above. Watershed condition has since been restored and is considered 

“functioning properly” in the Harris River and Twelvemile Creek watersheds on 

Prince of Wales Island and Sitkoh River and Sitkoh Creek watersheds on 

Chichagof Island. Restoration also continues in the other Priority Watersheds. 

Another Priority Watershed (Iris Meadows/Shelikof Creek on Kruzof Island) was 

Fish 3-116 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

added to the list in 2014. Other watersheds are slated for improvement actions 

as funding becomes available.

Large Wood Debris Management including In-Stream and Streambank

Restoration

LWD structures are sometimes constructed in stream channels and on 

floodplains to stabilize spawning gravels, form and maintain pools, provide cover 

and temperature regulation, produce aquatic insects, and capture plant litter, all 

of which are important to the various life stages of wild salmon and other fish and 

organisms. Although individual structures can be low in cost, costs vary 

depending on construction technique utilized, channel size, and site access. 

Larger stream channels need to utilize excavators and/or helicopter for wood 

placement and construction, while smaller streams might utilize hand crews to 

place wood. 

Culvert Replacements/Removals at Road-Stream Crossings

Providing for fish passage at stream and road intersections to ensure fish 

migration is an important consideration when constructing, reconstructing, or 

storing forest roads. Improperly located, installed, or maintained stream crossing 

structures can restrict these migrations, thereby adversely affecting fish 

populations. These structures can present a variety of potential obstacles to fish 

migration. The most common obstacles are excessive vertical barriers, debris 

blockages, and extreme water velocities that can inhibit fish passage, especially 

for smaller or juvenile fish. Fish passage standards and guidelines including 

drainage structure design criteria have evolved over time, and are still evolving 

as information on fish swimming performance, fish movement patterns, and 

culvert hydraulics is improved. 

Culvert replacement and repair has been an ongoing activity to improve access 

for anadromous and resident fish that were cut off from full access by the culvert 

designs that did not meet current juvenile fish passage design criteria. A survey 

of most of the approximately 5,000 miles of Forest Service roads (4,055 miles 

permanent and 953 miles of temporary roads) found about 3,700 fish stream 

crossings (Jacobson 2016; USDA Forest Service 2014a). About 90 percent of all 

fish stream road crossings (about 55 percent of the crossings are culverts) have 

been assessed as to their suitability to ensure juvenile fish passage. About 

1,100 of the assessed crossings, or 35 percent of all crossings (mostly culverts),

did not meet current juvenile fish passage standards (Jacobson 2015). Of those 

not meeting standards, more than 83 percent were on Class II streams. Habitat 

upstream of the crossings with passage problems was estimated to equal about 

0.5 percent and 2.0 percent of all Class I and Class II stream miles on the 

Tongass National Forest, respectively. However, the amount of habitat actually 

prevented from use by resident and anadromous fish by structures (e.g.,

culverts) is likely much less than these estimates. For example, about 66 and 72

percent of the habitat reaches upstream of culverts, estimated to be passage

barriers for anadromous and resident fish, respectively, have resident or 

anadromous fish present (Alaska Forest Association undated). Additionally, the 

criteria used to indicate a passage structure is a blockage is conservative, 

meaning during many flow conditions various life stages of fish would be able to 

pass many of these structures, which is confirmed by fish presence upstream of 

many of these structures. Considering these factors, the overall habitat area 

completely restricted to fish access from road crossing structures is slight.

Nevertheless, even though the habitat area may be small, averaging about onequarter mile of fish habitat upstream of each crossing, the effect on an individual 

stock may be important. Most of these culverts were installed prior to 

implementation of the 1997 Forest Plan standards and guidelines for culvert

Final EIS 3-117 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

installation. Since 1998, about 513 crossing structures (mostly culverts) have 

been removed, replaced, or retrofitted. About half of the recently installed 

culverts have been monitored for suitability of meeting fish passage criteria. 

About 95 percent of these meet present criteria (USDA Forest Service 2014a).

Many of those not meeting passage criteria were installed on streams not 

considered, at the time of installation, as being fish streams. Culvert 

replacement, removal, or retrofitting is an active, ongoing process. 

From 1998 through 2014, about $18.5 million (2015 dollars) has been spent on 

stream crossing remediation, about $11.1 million just on culvert replacement

(Jacobson personal communication 2015). This has included repair or removal 

of about 513 structures (mostly culverts) to improve known fish passage issues. 

The removal and repair rate of known or potential fish passage barrier structures

has been fairly consistent over this period, averaging about 31 structures a year. 

Fish Management Indicator Species 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) regulations direct the use of 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) in forest planning to help display the effects 

of forest management. MIS are species whose population changes are believed 

to indicate the effects of land management activities. For the 1997 Forest Plan, 

pink salmon, coho salmon, Dolly Varden char, and cutthroat trout were selected 

as MIS. Pink salmon were selected to represent anadromous fish that are limited 

in their freshwater life period by spawning gravel quality and quantity; coho 

salmon to represent anadromous fish that are generally limited in their freshwater 

life period by stream and lake rearing area; Dolly Varden char because of their 

ubiquitous distribution in freshwater habitats; and cutthroat trout because of their 

dependency on small freshwater stream systems, which are most susceptible to 

effects from management activities. These MIS, and their habitats, are described 

in the 1997 Forest Plan Revision FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997a). 

A series of workshops were held in 2011 with representatives from ADF&G, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), and the Forest Service to evaluate the current Tongass MIS and 

develop a set of proposed MIS that would more effectively serve the needs of the 

Tongass concerning indicators of land management practice effects. After 

following a structured process used to revise MIS lists elsewhere on NFS lands 

(Hayward et al. 2004), the group recommended retaining coho salmon, Dolly 

Varden char, and cutthroat trout on the current aquatics species MIS list, and 

dropping pink salmon (Hayward and Jacobson 2011). 

Threatened and Endangered Fish Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal 

species formally listed by the USFWS or NMFS, under authority of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. An endangered species is 

defined as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range. A threatened species is defined as one that is likely to become an 

endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range.

No federally listed fish species or stocks originate from Alaska streams. 

However, some federally listed fish stocks may occur in marine waters within the 

boundary of the Tongass National Forest (NMFS 2015a). These fish include the 

following:

Special Status 

and Invasive

Species

Fish 3-118 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Endangered species:

• Snake River sockeye salmon 

• Upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon 

Threatened species:

• Upper Columbia River steelhead

• Snake River spring/summer Chinook salmon 

• Snake River fall Chinook salmon 

• Puget Sound Chinook salmon 

• Lower Columbia River Chinook salmon 

• Upper Willamette River Chinook salmon 

• Hood Canal summer chum salmon

• Lower Columbia River coho salmon

• Snake River Basin steelhead

• Lower Columbia River steelhead

• Upper Willamette River steelhead

• Middle Columbia River steelhead

• Green Sturgeon – Southern DPS

These listed stocks of salmon and steelhead do not spawn in Alaska, but are 

known to seasonally inhabit marine waters on the outside coast to the west and 

occasionally in inside waters of the Tongass National Forest (McNeil and 

Himsworth 1980; Trudel et al. 2004; Trudel et al. 2009; Burgner 1991; Haggerty 

2009; Groot and Margolis 1991; Tucker et al. 2011). They may feed on fish that 

are dependent on coastal marine waters of the Tongass National Forest at some 

stages of their lives. The southern distinct population segment (DPS) of the 

green sturgeon is an anadromous species that spawns in the Sacramento River 

in California (NMFS 2015b). Green sturgeon also do not rear or spawn in 

freshwaters of Southeast Alaska but have been rarely found to be present in 

marine waters of Southeast Alaska and may feed on benthic organisms found in

these waters, likely in waters less than 100 meters deep (Lindley et al. 2008; Huff 

2012; Colway and Stevenson 2007). One tagged green sturgeon was detected 

at an acoustic array in the Cape Spencer area (Lindley et al. 2008). Several 

specimens have been collected in the Taku River/Stephens Passage area of 

Southeast Alaska (Mecklenburg et al. 2002). Green sturgeon could be present in 

the inside waters of Southeast Alaska, particularly during the winter. 

Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, a Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared to 

assess the effects of the 1997 Forest Plan revision on the endangered Snake 

River sockeye salmon and the threatened Snake River spring/summer Chinook 

salmon and Snake River fall Chinook salmon, and submitted to NMFS for review 

and concurrence in the Tongass Forest Plan process (Appendix J of the 1997 

Tongass Forest Plan Revision EIS). This assessment was updated to address 

the listed fish species relative to the alternatives considered in the Forest Plan

amendment of 2008 (see Appendix F of the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment ).

Final EIS 3-119 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

BAs evaluating the effects of the selected alternative of this Forest Plan 

amendment on listed species have been prepared (one containing fish and 

wildlife species to NMFS and another containing one wildlife species to USFWS) 

and are included in the planning record. In accordance with Forest Service 

Manual 2670, a Biological Evaluation (BE) covering federally listed threatened 

and endangered and Region 10 sensitive species (no sensitive fish species) was 

also prepared (Krosse 2016); this BE contains an evaluation and comparison of 

all alternatives and is also in the planning record.

Essential Fish Habitat

The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandates 

that agencies initiate consultation with NMFS for any activities that could affect 

essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH has been broadly defined by Congress for 

federally managed species to be “those waters and substrate necessary to fish

for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” 

NMFS (2005) clarified what the specific definition is for EFH in Alaskan waters. 

EFH is the general distribution of a species described by life stage. It is generally 

the habitat area that includes 95 percent of that life stage, where it is known, to 

occur. Where distribution data is unknown, surrogate species may be assumed. 

Maps were presented in NMFS (2005) defining EFH for species and life stages;

other than for salmon species, little EFH is present in the inside waters of 

Southeast Alaska. Those groundfish species that are present include some sole 

species life stages only. Several other species, however, have some life stages 

located in the marine waters offshore of Southeast Alaska and some enter outer 

nearshore waters. In general, EFH for marine groundfish species (e.g., rockfish, 

sablefish, sole, plaice, cod, pollock), are extremely limited near Tongass waters. 

EFH information underwent a thorough review in 2010 in the 5-Year EFH Review 

(NMFS 2011). EFH amendments were made to five of six federal fishery 

management plans. The 2010 modifications are modest and slightly refined

EFH, better aligning the Habitat Areas of Particular Concern process schedule, 

and included updated research priorities. 

Salmon EFH covers freshwater, estuarine, and marine waters from the high tide 

level to 200 meters deep and out to the 200 nautical mile U.S. exclusion zone, 

depending on life stage. The freshwater EFH is defined primarily by what is 

present in the ADF&G’s Catalogue of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, 

or Migrations of Anadromous Fishes (Johnson and Litchfield 2015). Freshwater 

EFH for salmon in the Tongass would include all streams, lakes, ponds, and 

wetlands currently or historically accessible to salmon. The shallow marine 

waters adjacent to forest lands are considered EFH for salmon, but little of this 

area is EFH for most groundfish species.

Sensitive Fish Species

Sensitive species are those plant and animal species identified by the Regional 

Forester for which population viability is a concern on NFS lands within the 

region. The goal of the Forest Service Sensitive Species Program (Forest 

Service Manual 2670) is to ensure that species numbers and population 

distribution are adequate so that no federal listing will be required and no 

extirpation will occur on NFS lands.

The Alaska Region Sensitive Species List was updated in 2009 (USDA Forest 

Service 2009b). There currently are no fish species designated as sensitive 

species in the Alaska Region. 

Fish 3-120 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Invasive Aquatic Species

Species are considered invasive if they are not native to an ecosystem, and if 

they are likely to cause harm to human health, the economy, or the environment 

(Executive Order 13112). Due to its remote landscape, northern climate, small 

human population, and few concentrated disturbed habitat areas, Alaska has 

relatively few invasive species compared to the rest of the United States. 

However, as of 2008, Alaska has 116 non-native species according to ADF&G’s 

Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan (Fay 2002; Alaska Invasive 

Species Working Group 2010). However, factors such as altered disturbance 

patterns, constant flow of marine-based shipping and cruise ships, fishing and 

recreational boating traffic, and climate change may increase the prevalence of 

invasive aquatic species. The most significant vectors for transport of invasive 

species in Alaska marine waters include oil and liquid natural gas tanker traffic, 

military vessels, oil and gas drilling rigs, cruise ships and other commercial 

recreational barges and vessels (Alaska Invasive Species Working Group 2010). 

Global climate change may create conditions suitable for new invasives, as well 

as range expansions, by altering geographic range limits and making habitats no 

longer as suitable for existing native species.

Invasive aquatic species can affect native species by eating them, competing 

with them, hybridizing with them, disrupting or destroying their habitat, or 

introducing pathogens or parasites that sicken or kill them (Schrader and Hennon 

2005). In addition to natural range extension, several potential pathways exist for 

introduction of invasive aquatic species. These pathways included fish farms, 

international and local movement of bait and game fish, trade in live seafood, 

aquaculture, and contaminated sport angle gear brought into Alaska, as well as 

ballast discharge from international vessels (Fay 2002; Schrader and Hennon 

2005). Several aquatic species have been noted as potential threats to Alaska, 

including fish (northern pike, Atlantic salmon, yellow perch, ornamental aquarium 

fish), invertebrates (green crab, New Zealand mudsnail, Chinese mitten crab, 

zebra mussel, signal crayfish, spiny water flea), plant (cordgrass and Elodea),

and several additional miscellaneous taxa (Fay 2002; Schrader and Hennon 

2005). Additionally, eastern brook trout (non-native) and non-endemic rainbow 

trout have been stocked in many areas where they were not native and compete 

or hybridize with native trout (Schrader and Hennon 2005). Of these fish, 

transplanted northern pike and Atlantic salmon are the two fish species of 

greatest concern (Fay 2002). 

Even though the invertebrates Chinese mitten crab, green crab, and New 

Zealand mudsnail have not been found in Alaska, they are of major concern 

because of their potential to do serious damage to the Alaskan ecosystems 

(Hines et al. 2004; Schrader and Hennon 2005). The green crab, while not in 

Alaskan marine waters, has been reported to be in British Columbia coastal 

waters (ADF&G 2015a). Atlantic salmon that have escaped from fish farms off 

British Columbia and Washington State pose a threat to native salmon by 

competing for habitat and introducing diseases and parasites. This species has 

been observed in Southeast Alaska marine waters and, rarely, in streams (Fay

2002). Also, northern pike, which has not appeared in Southeast Alaska (with 

the exception of a native stock in Yakutat), have caused widespread damage to 

resident trout where they have been introduced, and could potentially affect coho 

salmon through predation. Northern pike have the potential to cause serious 

environmental and economic damage to highly productive salmon streams in 

Southeast Alaska (Fay 2002). In the Tongass, there is a risk that these and 

possibly other non-native sport fish may be introduced into lakes and rivers by 

individuals seeking to increase sport fishing opportunities. As the road network is 

extended into more areas and have more of Southeast Alaska and have greater 

Final EIS 3-121 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

use, this risk increases. Refer to the ADF&G Aquatic Nuisance Species 

Management Plan (Fay 2002) for additional details.

Renewable Energy Projects

Hydroelectric projects are the major non-diesel energy development project in 

Southeast Alaska and are an abundant renewable energy resource for the 

region. There are about 22 hydropower faculties currently in operation. 

Powerlines are associated with all of these projects. Currently, no other 

renewable facilities are in operation but some are planned. The deployment and 

operations of these and their infrastructure have the potential to affect fish

resources including potential fish blockage, flow modification, sediment input and 

loss of stream side vegetation. The details of current facilities are provided in the 

Renewable Energy section.

Environmental Consequences

The current standards and guidelines in the 2008 Forest Plan were developed 

substantially through work that was done initially by the Anadromous Fisheries 

Habitat Assessment (AFHA) (USDA Forest Service 1995). Follow-up work in the 

Tongass after 1995 and other studies have contributed to modifications of these 

standards and guidelines both in the 1997 and 2008 Forest Plans. Monitoring in 

the Tongass has helped confirm that the actions taken under the standards and 

guidelines have protected fisheries resources in the Tongass. The currently

considered actions will consider the information history of the implementation and 

evaluation of the Plans direction as well as how considered modification of the 

current plan considered under some alternatives may affect fish resources. 

Fish Habitat

Roads

Roads pose the greatest risk to fish resources on the Tongass (Dunlap 1996), 

partly because they pose the largest risk of management-caused sediment input 

to streams (Reid and Dunne 1984; Furniss et al. 1991; Gomi et al. 2005; Hassan 

et al. 2005). Road construction, road drainage, level of road use, number of road 

stream crossings, watershed road density and related actions in forested areas 

may all influence the amount of sediment to streams (Gomi et al. 2005; Furniss 

et al. 1991; Swanson et al. 1987; Chamberlin et al. 1991; Reid and Dunne 1984).

As discussed in the Water section, road effects to aquatic systems and fish are 

likely to vary among the alternatives. Factors that vary among alternative that 

would increase risk or harm to fish include:

• Miles of new and reconstructed roads

• Roads on steep or unstable slopes

• Road density 

• Roads in beach fringe

• Roads in riparian areas

• Number of streams crossed by roads

• Number of fish streams crossed by roads

Generally, the higher the number for each of the road parameters noted above,

the greater the risk to fish resources. While standards and guidelines are in 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Fish 3-122 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

place to help moderate these effects, some adverse effects, or increase in risk of 

adverse effects, would occur with these road parameters. 

Other than number of road crossing of streams, which is discussed below, the 

effect of each alternative relative to these parameters is presented in the Water

section and is summarized relative to fish resources in the Alternative Summary 

section below.

Fish Passage

Roads may also increase risk to fish movement due to improper construction 

affecting fish passage (Gibson et al. 2005) and blocked culverts. Stream-rearing 

fish, particularly cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden, which occupy the smaller 

headwater streams during some parts of their lives, are at the greatest risk. 

Juveniles of stream-rearing fish are often highly mobile during their freshwater 

stage, moving seasonally between stream reaches. 

The number of road crossings of streams increases the risk of both adding 

sediment to streams and impeding fish passage (Class I and II streams). While 

BMPs for constructing culverts and bridges reduce the risks for sediment and 

turbidity, monitoring of some streams has found occasional increases in turbidity,

at least in the short term, as described in the Forest Service Tongass Monitoring 

Reports (USDA Forest Service 2004a). Also, fish passage guidelines (Forest 

Service Handbook 2090.21 Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook [USDA 

Forest Service 2001]) for culvert design greatly reduces the risk of new culvert 

installation impeding fish passage on Class I and II streams, but some risks 

remain. 

Reconstruction of existing road crossings also carries risk relating to increased

sediment to streams but less than for new construction because in many cases 

much of the stream disturbance (e.g., new bank disturbance, tree removal) has 

already occurred. Sediment from reconstructed roads near stream crossings

would be less than from new roads as some of the sources of sediment have 

already had initial erosion (e.g., cut and fill areas), having lost some of the more 

mobile sediment and becoming more armored and revegetated, which helps

stabilize potential erosion areas (Baird et al. 2012). Additionally, the highest 

erosion rates from roads typically occurs in the first 2 years after construction. 

While reconstruction would disturb some of the area, it would be less than would 

occur from developing an entirely new road (e.g., limited new cut and fill, and 

retention of some bank vegetation). Additionally, some of the sites noted as 

needing reconstruction would require minimal changes because existing stream 

crossing structures are fully adequate to meet fish passage and new road uses. 

However, older reconstructed roads may require completely new structures. 

Because of this, crossings on roads that would be reconstructed over 

decommissioned roads were conservatively included in the new crossing 

category in this analysis. Some of the sites that would be reconstructed would 

also include replacing old non-fish-passable structures with new fish-passable 

structures, although this is not a project-level requirement. Thus, the number of 

reconstructed sites are not comparable in level of potential impact to fish streams 

as new crossings relative to potential sediment additions. 

Some of the original valley bottom crossings of important and sensitive fish

habitat areas (e.g., alluvial fans and floodplains) would also not be reconstructed 

due to cost and risk to fish, thus avoiding some of the potential areas of greater 

concern. At this planning stage, specific locations where roads would be 

reconstructed have not been determined. 

An index of risks of fish passage impedance based on total new and 

reconstructed crossings is shown in Table 3.6-4. Currently, about 3,700 fishFinal EIS 3-123 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

bearing stream crossings exist on the Tongass. Any of the alternatives would 

add substantially to this number, increasing risk. Based on the number of new 

and reconstructed crossings, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the greatest risk, 

while Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the least risk. Alternative 5 would be

intermediate based on the number of new and reconstructed crossings. The 

number of newly constructed crossings at Class I, II, and III streams would be the 

best indicator of potential sediment increases from crossing construction. The 

ranking of the alternatives based on the amount of sediment added, based on the 

number of new crossings only, would be the same as that noted for risk to fish 

passage impedance, with Alternatives 1 and 4 the least risk, and 2 and 3 the 

highest, Alternative 5 intermediate. 

Table 3.6-4 

Estimated Number of Existing1 and Maximum New Stream Crossings for New Roads2

and Reconstructed Roads3 Stream Crossing by Alternative over the Length of the 

Project (approximately 100+ years)

Stream 

Class

Alternative

Existing1

1 2 3 4 5

New2 Recon3 New Recon New Recon New Recon New Recon

I 1,312 384 259 466 355 438 331 367 262 414 300

II 2,357 691 465 838 639 787 595 660 471 743 539

III 2,433 720 484 873 666 820 620 688 491 775 562

Total 6,102 1,795 1,208 2,177 1,660 2,045 1,546 1,714 1,225 1,931 1,402

1 Based on USDA Forest Service 2016 stream crossing data file (Jacobson, personal communication, 2016). 2 Based on roads estimated to be needed to harvest all scheduled timber in the alternative. Includes new roads and new roads 

constructed over decommissioned road beds.

3 Maximum number of stream crossing to be constructed over stored (maintenance level 1) roads, some subset will need 

replacement or repair

Timber Harvest

Timber harvest activities can increase risk to fish resources. Protection of 

riparian areas, including floodplains, areas of riparian vegetation, and certain 

wetlands associated with riparian systems, is of particular concern. As discussed 

earlier, riparian vegetation serves many important functions for stream fish 

habitat, including supplying LWD, food input, and stream shade to name a few. 

Also of concern is the amount of protection afforded steeper channels (often not 

fish-bearing) in the headwaters areas and protection of steep hillslope areas. 

These streams (e.g., Class III streams) also require LWD to properly function 

(Paustian et al. 2006), as well as contributing nutrients, food resources, and, in 

some situations, LWD to downstream fish streams. Protection of estuaries and 

beach fringe is also important when locating roads and timber harvest units. The 

2008 Forest Plan standards and guidelines associated with riparian areas, 

wetlands, and beach and estuary fringe are expected to protect fish resources 

from significant impacts associated with timber harvest, but there is still some 

level of risk. 

Windthrow risk will be evaluated when prescribing thinning and openings 

treatments in current timber harvest areas and in RMA areas of some of the 

alternatives to minimize accelerated windthrow. In order to protect the RMA, a 

RAW zone adjacent to the RMA buffer will be established in situations where 

multiple high risk factors are present. The risk is related to the level of harvest, 

the portion of streams in the harvest area, and quantity of potentially unstable 

slopes in the harvest area associated with each alternative. However, some 

alternatives would increase the risk to fish and their habitat because Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines for young-growth harvest riparian areas, wetlands, and 

Fish 3-124 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

beach fringe would be less protective, especially during the first 15 to 25 years of 

the 100-year projected period under some alternatives.

Effects of timber harvest on water quality issues are addressed in the Water

section, including the potential for increased landslides that would affect stream 

habitat quality. The risk of landslides in the future will be moderated by the 

requirement to evaluate slope stability for slopes over 72 percent prior to 

approval to harvest, which would continue to be required for young-growth

harvest (see Soils section). Timber harvest activities on the Forest could 

potentially affect as many as 272,733 (Alternative 1) to 3367,952 total acres

(Alternative 2) after full implementation of the Forest Plan (100+ years) (see 

Water section Table 3.4-4). Alternative 1 would harvest the least acreage, 

followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3 and 2 (from least to greatest). The values are 

expected to reasonably approximate future Forest-wide harvest (see the Timber

section). Additionally, sediment to streams from landslides is likely to be the 

greatest under Alternative 2, which has highest estimated increase of landslides 

at 13 landslides over 25 years when compared to the 2008 Forest Plan 

(Alternative 1). See the Water section for details.

Beach Fringe Harvest

Marine riparian forest areas serve much of the same function in the marine 

environment as they do on streams (Brennan et al. 2009; Lemieux et al. 2004). 

This includes reduction of overland sediment entry to local marine waters (see 

Water section), shading primarily shoreline beach areas, adding LWD to the 

marine system, providing organic input such as insects (a food source for fish) 

and leaf fall, and bank stability from the root system of large trees. Thus, the 

harvest of beach fringe in Alternatives 2 through 5 could have some impact on 

marine and anadromous nearshore marine fish resources. The type of harvest, 

timber removal methods, and total acres affected differ between alternatives and 

would influence the magnitude of potential effects to fish and their habitat.

There are some important differences that likely reduce the overall effects from 

loss of marine riparian forest relative to flowing systems. In most areas, entry of

any increased sediment runoff to the marine system would be greatly diluted due 

to large volume of water in marine systems compared to streams, although some 

nearshore impacts could occur to benthic resources and, to a lesser extent, fish,

which would be more able to avoid such higher turbidity areas. Input of organics 

may be less important to the marine system due to the relatively high production 

in these systems relative to streams. However, input of insects to marine 

systems has been found in some areas to be important food sources for early 

rearing juvenile salmonids (e.g., Chinook, chum, pink, and coho salmon) 

(Brennan et al. 2004, 2009; Bollens et al. 2010; Duffy 2003; Moulton 1997;

Hillgruber et al. 2007; Fresh 2006; Salo 1991). Romanuk and Levings (2005) 

found that Pacific salmon (Chinook, chum, and pink) along the British Columbia 

coast obtained 6 to 40 percent of their carbon from supralittoral vegetation (which 

include insects), although in some studies insects appear to be very minor food 

source for juvenile salmonids in some marine waters (Godin 1981; Landingham 

et al. 1997; Salo 1991). The sources of insects in the marine systems include 

areas other than just the adjacent forest, such as stream drift and windblown 

swarms (Brennan et al. 2004). However, a study in Puget Sound found that 

reduced shoreline vegetation resulted in lower insect diversity and abundance 

entering the nearshore intertidal areas (Sobocinski et al. 2010). Thus, the 

importance of marine riparian forests could be highly variable for juvenile marine

rearing fish including commercial and recreationally important salmonids. 

While LWD in marine systems does not have as great a site-specific effect at 

forming important habitat as it does in streams, it serves many functions in the 

Final EIS 3-125 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

marine system (Brennan and Culverwell 2004). LWD helps trap and stabilize 

sediment in salt marshes where juvenile salmonids may feed, local falling trees 

on banks affect longshore movement of sediment, and some may become 

imbedded while others move on. Where LWD accumulates, it may aid in the 

development of wrack (vegetation derived from both aquatic and upland 

sources), which helps to stabilize beaches and develop diverse habitats and 

associated organisms. LWD also supplies substrate for organisms to attach and 

grow, and may supply cover for small fish to help reduce predation (Brennan and 

Culverwell 2004). The tree root systems, especially in steep areas, help protect 

areas from slumping into the marine environment. 

Shading from trees is unlikely to have much effect on local marine water

temperature, although shading of beach areas (overhanging branches, and 

abundant trees) has been found to help control sand habitat temperatures and 

possibly reduce sand desiccation when the tide is out (Rice 2006). These 

conditions have been found to be important in some areas for development and 

survival of some organisms. It was found in Puget Sound that surf smelt, which 

are present in Alaska and spawn in the upper intertidal region, had greater 

survival in shaded intertidal areas that remained moist and had lower 

temperature than unshaded areas (Brennan and Culverwell 2004; Rice 2006;

Rossell and Dinnel 2007).

The young-growth harvest methods including skid trails, beach traveling 

equipment, and marine yarding and transport of timber, may results in adverse 

effects on marine nearshore organisms (see Water section). In the short term,

benthic organisms may be directly killed in small areas, and fish shellfish 

resources, possibly including juvenile rearing salmonids, juvenile Dungeness 

crab, and other primarily juvenile stages of other marine fish, may be displaced 

while activities are occurring in the nearshore beach areas. While effects would 

likely be short term, they would be most pronounced for the alternatives 

removing the greatest number of acres (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4; Table 3.4-4 in 

the Water section). Harvest methods effects to the marine system from 

Alternative 5 would likely be less than from the other alternatives (except 

Alternative 1) because the area would be small and the 200-foot buffer would 

limit further shoreline harvest vehicle access and therefore disturbance. 

Overall, the total area of estuarine and shoreline areas that would be affected by 

any alternative would be small relative to the total shoreline area of the Tongass. 

Thus, fish resources that could potentially be affected would be slight for any 

action where harvest is allowed. 

Alternative 1 retains current protections allowing no commercial harvest within 

1,000 feet of estuarine or beach fringe fully protecting marine resources relative 

to potential nearshore effects (Table 3.4-4 in the Water section). The largest 

potential effect in the short term would be for Alternative 2, which would allow 

clearcut to the water edge for the first 15 years of harvesting as well as in nondevelopment Land Use Designations (LUDs), except for Congressionally 

designated and administratively withdrawn areas, such as Wilderness, and 

islands less than 1,000 acres in size. Complete removal of the forested stands in 

the beach fringe would likely reduce all functions of marine and estuarine riparian 

area at least in the short term. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would allow commercial thinning (up to 33 percent of the 

basal area) but Alternative 3 would allow it to occur both within and outside of 

development LUDs and in roadless areas affecting more areas. Harvest in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) is inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

If an alternative were selected with harvest in IRAs, harvest would be deferred 

Fish 3-126 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

until the Roadless Rule changes or the Tongass Roadless Rule Exemption is 

reinstated. Commercial thinning would allow much of the function of riparian 

forest to remain at a reduced level, as some loss of organic and LWD input would 

occur, some reduction of shading and less buffering upslope sediment input and 

reduced bank stability. 

Alternative 5 would likely have little effect on the nearshore marine fish resources 

due to relatively low harvest area and the retention of the 200-foot no harvest 

buffer. Although the specific harvest opening areas (up to 10 acres maximum) 

would carry higher risk for soil disturbance effects downslope than comparable 

commercial thinning areas. Brennan et al. (2009) assessed what size marine 

riparian buffers were needed to adequately protect their functional contributions 

of Puget Sound in Washington State. They determined buffer widths that would 

provide greater than 80 percent effectiveness protection for the functions of fine 

sediment control, shade, LWD input, and organic input to the marine environment 

ranging from 79 to 190 feet (depending on the function) of marine riparian 

forests. Thus, while most riparian functions would be retained with a 200-foot 

buffer area, some reductions could occur with Alternative 5. 

RMA Harvest Outside of TTRA Buffers

Restrictions on timber removal from Riparian Management Area (RMA) buffers 

are in place to protect both water quality and fish habitat. Details of existing 

riparian area conditions, how these relate to RMAs, and effects of alternatives on 

water quality and important watershed components that affect fish resources are 

described in the Water section. 

RMA buffers reduce sediment input to streams and also with certain channel 

types (primarily floodplain and alluvial fan) and conditions supply LWD to streams 

which is an important habitat component to fish streams. Removal of trees from 

these areas may reduce future LWD inputs to streams, reduce successful 

regrowth of future LWD, and cause adverse sediment effects to streams (see 

Water section). The LWD supply, which is critical to floodplain habitat formation 

and maintenance, would thus be reduced if supply was restricted to the current 

Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA) area and harvest occurs in RMA buffers 

along some stream systems outside of TTRA buffers. For example, while 

commercial thinning would grow larger diameter trees faster, it is considered to 

reduce future LWD abundance in areas harvested (USDA Forest Service 2014d).

Overall harvest in RMAs would reduce large key LWD, probably decrease the 

stability and longevity of LWD accumulations, and thus diminish the beneficial 

functions of LWD in the stream ecosystem (Heimann 1988; Murphy and Koski 

1989). Furthermore, abundance of juvenile salmonids in a stream often is 

directly related to the amount of LWD (Murphy et al. 1986; Bisson et al. 1987). 

Additionally, harvest in RMA along Class III channels, such as high gradient 

contained channels, may add sediment to streams that could be transported to 

fish streams, impacting rearing and spawning habitat. RMA harvest along 

lakeshores could also contribute to sediment increases, potentially reducing lake 

fish production.

As discussed in the Water section, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would generally 

prevent harvest in RMAs. Alternatives 2 and 5 both have harvest along 

important channel types outside of TTRA buffers (see Water section and Table 

3.4-9). As noted in the Water section, much of the projected harvest in RMA

areas would be in areas not directly adjacent to streams or lake (see “Other” 

category harvest in Table 3.4-9). Alternative 2 would have a substantial area of 

harvest (Table 3.4-4 in the Water section) but would be limited to commercial 

thinning, which would reduce site-specific effects. However, commercial thinning 

Final EIS 3-127 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

under this alternative would occur over a majority of all the available secondgrowth RMA areas. About 86 percent of past harvested RMA, outside of TTRA 

buffers, would be harvested by commercial thinning under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 5 would have a greatly limited RMA harvest area based on model 

assessment but this alternative would have less restrictive harvest methods 

(some open areas up to 10 acres maximum in first 15 years only, up to 1,100

RMA acres total), which could have more local, site-specific effects to fish

streams than Alternative 2 methods. Overall estimates of RMA area to be 

affected under Alternative 5 are small, greatly limiting potential adverse effects to 

fish habitat. See the Water section for complete alternative comparison on 

effects related to water and watershed conditions that have direct and indirect 

effects to fish.

The Tongass 77 Watersheds and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority 

Areas

As noted in the Affected Environment section, there are a number of watersheds 

and VCUs, including the TNC/Audubon conservation priority areas, that have 

been evaluated by public, private, and agency groups and considered of 

importance for fish habitat quality and production. The 2008 Forest Plan 

(Alternative 1) or Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 do not provide any special management 

practices for any suitable timber harvest in the Tongass 77 Watersheds or the 

TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas. Alternative 5 would, however,

exclude future old-growth timber harvest in these watersheds. Additionally,

based on internal scientific review in collaboration with others, 16 of these VCUs 

are considered high value watersheds that should be monitored to determine the 

likely impact to fish and wildlife habitat from young-growth timber projects. 

Overall, Alternative 5 would afford additional protections, reducing risks 

associated with old-growth timber harvest actions, to some of the more important 

watersheds for fish resources in the Tongass.

Fish Habitat Enhancement 

Fish enhancement projects, such as fishways and falls modifications, stream and 

lake stocking, and lake fertilization, would not be affected by any of the 

considered alternatives. Project enhancement funding and selection of projects 

is primarily independent of amount or location of timber harvest; therefore, all 

alternatives would have similar effects on enhancement activities.

Log Transfer Facilities

Timber (logs) are often transported from the harvest areas by barge or log rafts 

through log transfer facilities (LTFs). The details of the number of LTF sites and 

the Memorandum of Understanding concerning agreements on use of LTFs by 

the Forest Service are discussed in the Transportation section. As noted in that 

section, while there are over 100 LTF sites in the Tongass, only 55 LTFs have

active permits. The Forest Service currently has state-granted rights to marine 

access up to a potential of 126 sites, 66 of which have been implemented. 

The number of additional log storage and transfer sites that would be developed 

has not been determined at this time as locations where transport would occur 

cannot be determined until a Logging System and Transportation Analysis is 

completed for suitable lands or actual timber sales are proposed. However,

considering that past log transport, which was much more intensive than

proposed in any future alternative, was handled with the existing LTF sites; it is 

not anticipated that a substantial number of new LTF facilities would be 

developed under any alternative and that current sites would primarily be used. 

LTF construction and operations in the past have been found to affect benthic 

resources and some fish-rearing habitat primarily through the accumulation of 

Fish 3-128 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

bark from dumping, storage, and rafting of logs. Some shoreline disturbance can 

occur from the development of these sites, including modification or loss of 

habitat through the addition of rock or other structures on the shoreline. There is 

potential for runoff of sediment and oils from the landing area as well. But the 

major risk of these sites is the addition of bark to the marine system (Faris and 

Vaughan 1985). Historically, LTFs have affected approximately 2 acres of 

marine benthic habitat for the average site, mostly due to bark accumulation

(Faris and Vaughan 1985). Bark and other wood fragments that sinks to the 

bottom, if abundant, can have varied adverse effects to marine areas by reducing 

organism diversity, burying benthic organisms, and reducing organism 

abundance (Sedell et al. 1991). If bark accumulations are high enough, specific 

benthic areas may become anoxic or locally toxic. This could result in adverse 

effects to organisms such as crabs, shrimp, and nearshore rearing marine and 

anadromous fish. The bark can remain for extended periods (decades) but, 

based on dive survey results for LTF sites of concern, the bottom area covered 

with bark (based on bottom area with continuous coverage) can be greatly 

reduced within a few years (e.g., 1 to 10) after operations cease (ADEC 2008). 

Additionally, after deposition has stopped, over time these areas can become 

biologically similar to areas unaffected by even large accumulations of bark and 

wood debris (Germano and Browning 2005). Log rafts also have the potential to 

cause adverse effects to habitat primarily from grounding of the rafts, which can

damage intertidal habitats and organisms that are present. 

ADEC regulates the permitting of LTF sites in Alaska. While many sites 

historically were found to violate the state standards for water quality (residue 

standards), all evaluated sites have improved. The past state standard for 

residue accumulation was for LTF sites to have less than 1.5 acres of continuous 

bark coverage. ADEC (2008) reported the results of evaluating 15 sites of 

concern and found that none of the sites exceeded this standard and did not 

warrant 303(d) listing. Current requirements for any permitted site are more 

stringent, requiring less than 1.0 acre of continuous bark coverage at an LTF site. 

The Forest Service also has detailed requirements that future LTF sites must 

meet to be developed (Appendix G of the Forest Plan). Several factors in the 

guidelines would reduce potential adverse effects to marine fish and shellfish 

resources. Sites would need to be located where strong currents could disperse 

bark, be sited in relatively unproductive tidal and subtidal waters, not be sited 

adjacent to extensive tide flats, kelp or eelgrass beds, or harvest areas of marine 

organisms. Additionally, log rafts or bundles, should be stored in water over 40 

feet deep to prevent grounding. These and other parameters in the guidelines 

will reduce adverse effects to fish and shellfish resources of any future LTF 

facilities developed or used. 

However, some benthic organisms and rearing fish may be injured, killed, or 

displaced during the operations of these facilities. Some local habitat reduction in 

quality would also occur from the bark accumulation, although this would be 

limited due to the above guidelines and state requirements. Intermittently, some

additional bottom disturbance would also occur from barge vessels at specific 

sites (e.g., anchors and propeller wash). 

Generally, effects to marine aquatic resources would be proportional to the 

amount of timber harvest, as the harvest amount would typically indicate amount 

of logs transferred through LTFs. This would result in small areas of mostly 

shallow nearshore habitat covered with wood debris (primarily bark) (most less 

than 60 feet deep, although some deeper areas), affecting primarily benthic 

marine organisms in areas of tidal and subtidal habitat, as no more than 1.0 acre 

of continuous bark coverage would be allowed. Each active or intermittently 

Final EIS 3-129 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

active sites also would be monitored for extent, distribution, density of 

accumulation, and thickness of bark layer. These results would be reported to 

the state to ensure compliance with state criteria. Other monitoring (e.g., oil 

sheen, site runoff) would occur, depending on site specific characteristics (see 

Appendix G of the Forest Plan). With the current state regulations, Forest 

Service guidelines, limited marine area affected, and required monitoring, the 

level of effects to marine fish and shellfish would be slight for any alternative. In 

addition, effects of specific LTF use would be evaluated in detail during any 

future proposed timber sale where LTFs would be used. At this planning-level 

evaluation, the effects from LTF operations on marine organisms would be 

greatest in descending order for Alternatives 2, 3, 5, 4, and 1 based primarily on 

the amount of projected total harvest acres (see Table 3.4-3 in the Water

section).

Renewable Energy Development

Current and alternative Forest Plan requirements for energy development are

provided in the Renewable Energy section and Appendix F of this EIS. All 

renewable energy development projects in Southeast Alaska have to meet 

detailed local, state, and, in most cases, federal laws, regulations, and 

requirements to be developed and operated. Additionally, the Tongass National 

Forest currently applies Transportation and Utility Systems standards and 

guidelines to this type of development (see Renewable Energy and 

Transportation Systems Corridors section and the current 2008 Forest Plan). 

These standards and guidelines apply to Alternative 1. The other Alternatives (2 

through 5) would eliminate the Transportation and Utility Systems direction and 

replace it with the Renewable Energy plan components found in the Forest Plan 

Chapter 5. Under all alternatives, renewable energy projects could be developed 

on any NFS lands, and the proposed new direction under Alternatives 2 through 

5 would eliminate “avoidance areas” which could increase the efficiency and 

likelihood of developing these projects. The type and number of renewable

energy projects currently in or planned in the Tongass are described in the 

Renewable Energy section, with the majority being hydroelectric projects.

Potential effects to fish resources from the construction and operation of 

renewable energy projects are many. Hydroelectric projects can have a host of 

potential effects to fish resources. Construction can include the development of 

additional roads, some permanent and some temporary. As noted above, roads

can increase sediment to fish streams affecting fish spawning and rearing 

conditions, increase basin water runoff adding to peak flow and bed scour. Other 

construction associated with these projects also could increase potential for 

landslides, as they often are located in steep areas. The issue of fish passage at 

road crossings is of further concern. Hydroelectric projects modify stream flow 

possibly in fish streams, which also could affect habitat quantity and suitability for 

fish. Rapidly changing rate of flow in streams can result in fish strandings. 

Natural lakes may be used or reservoirs formed to enhance and control flows. 

This again could affect habitat in a lake including potential dewatering of 

shoreline areas that could affect benthic food production and in some cases 

spawning areas of shoreline spawning fish (e.g., sockeye salmon and kokanee). 

The formation of a reservoir would result in loss of flowing stream habitat. Dam 

formation could also block movement of fish, resident or anadromous from 

accessing streams above the dam, as well as downstream passage of fish and 

juvenile salmon smolts. The presence of turbines could result in fish mortality for 

those fish that pass through turbines, and can be mitigated using downstream 

bypass screens. Other water quality conditions could be affected from flow 

modifications, or lake and reservoir use such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, 

and nutrients. 

Fish 3-130 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Associated transmission lines also have sets of impacts to fish resources. The 

construction on land involves clearing of forest, and often road construction. The 

clearing of forest over streams normally involves removing all trees from the 

TTRA and RMA buffers on streams crossed. This clearing would result in loss of 

some of the riparian function on short reaches of streams crossed. Since routes 

are linear, rarely is any one stream directly affected more than once, although 

some slight cumulative effects could occur in basins as multiple tributaries to 

some streams would be cleared. This would include loss of LWD input and

reduction of direct organic input from large trees, although lower brush would

remain contributing organic input. Loss of shade potentially affecting 

temperature would occur, although this would again be slight due to the small 

area and remaining low brush adding shade. The associated roads would have 

similar effects as those noted for timber management, although they may be 

rarely used after construction, reducing long-term sediment effects. Marine 

cables are also a potential transmission route of energy from projects. Their 

construction would displace and likely kill some benthic resources in small areas

along the route and cause possibly greater disturbance and short-term loss of 

shallow water benthic resources where cables may be buried near entry and exit 

locations. There would be no long-term effects in the marine system from 

cables.

Of the 11 known currently proposed renewable energy projects (see Table 3.12b3), 6 are hydroelectric sites. Nearly all would have some operational effect on

anadromous fish resources but, through proper site selection, design, and 

mitigative actions, impacts to important anadromous fish resources would be 

greatly reduced or eliminated. All of these proposed sites have water intake, or a 

proposed dam, upstream of natural anadromous fish resources. The most

common types of effect on anadromous fish resources by these projects are

changes in downstream flow, downstream substrate supply, or stream 

temperature, or some combination of these. In most cases, anadromous 

segments of streams that are downstream of a project are small, with most less 

than a few hundred feet in length. The proper amount of flow that would need to 

be maintained in streams to protect fish resources. The amount of instream flow 

needed, as well as the effects of substrate transport on fish resources, would be 

determined by the agencies that manage fish resources before the projects could 

be permitted. In some cases, nearshore marine issues with project siting and 

construction or sediment movement could have potential effects on early marine 

rearing habitat for juvenile anadromous fish. 

All of these potential impacts for currently proposed or future projects to fish

resources would be addressed during the permitting and licensing of these 

projects. However, even with detailed regulations, some impacts from almost 

any project would remain that would be compounded with other basin impacts. In

basins most heavily developed through other federal, state, and private actions,

the development of these projects may be of concern. While under current 

direction (Alternative 1), renewable energy projects could be developed 

throughout the forest, the change in Forest Plan direction for renewable energy 

projects (Alternatives 2 through 5) would, in effect, make it simpler to site projects 

in what are currently considered “avoidance areas.” The result would be more 

consideration given to renewable energy site proposals and not necessarily an 

increase in the number of sites developed. Also, the current number of projects

in place and planned are widely distributed across the Forest. This would likely 

reduce cumulative effects of these actions on any specific basin area. Overall,

Alternatives 2 through 5 would likely have little additional adverse effects to fish 

resources relative to current conditions (Alternative 1).

Final EIS 3-131 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

Alternative Summary

Generally, the alternatives with more roads, greater removal of riparian areas

especially including developing small open areas (up to 10-acre maximum)

harvest in these areas, and excursions into beach and estuary fringe have the 

highest potential for adverse effects to fish and watershed resources in the 

Tongass. The effects to the water conditions, which ultimately affect aquatic 

habitat, are presented in the Water section and contribute to the overall 

evaluation of alternative effects to fish. Development of the 1997 Forest Plan 

included an expert panel of physical scientists and fish biologists to evaluate a 

range of alternatives (Dunlap 1996, 1997). Generally, their assessments are still 

relevant to the type of timber harvest-related actions that can affect fish 

resources in the Tongass. These experts stated that as the number of road 

miles and harvest increased, the likelihood of meeting riparian management 

objectives and maintaining anadromous and resident fish stocks in the Tongass 

would be reduced. Also, the greater the riparian protections, the greater the 

chance riparian objectives would be met in the future. They also stated that a 

100-foot buffer on estuarine areas was likely inadequate for protection of 

salmonids. Of major concern was removal of timber from floodplains, riparian

vegetation, and certain wetlands associated with riparian systems. Locating 

roads in estuarine areas was also of concern for fish resources. These factors 

were considered in the above metrics presented and summarized below by 

alternative. 

It should be noted that all of the currently considered future alternatives would

have considerably less harvest acres and road miles than were being evaluated 

in the 1997 Forest Plan. The 1997 Forest Plan considered effects of harvest on

about 1 million acres of old-growth forest, whereas current alternatives consider 

up to 370,000 acres of harvest, with a maximum harvest in old-growth forest of 

about 63,000 acres. Although there has been substantial harvest since 1997, the 

amount of area potentially affected is still much less than that considered in 1997

under any alternative. Additionally, while there are differences among the 

alternatives, the overall risk to fish resources and watersheds is unlikely to be 

large. 

Alternative 1: This alternative would have the lowest future harvest, second 

lowest new road construction, and lowest portion of reconstructed roads of any of 

the alternatives. This alternative would also have the second lowest number of 

new stream crossings and lowest potential number of reconstructed crossings of 

any alternative. All crossings increase risks to fish passage, and new crossings

have a greater risk of sediment effects. Given the lower number of new and 

reconstructed stream crossings under this alternative, there would be an overall 

lower risk of sediment addition and passage issues than under most other 

alternatives. Also, riparian (e.g., RMA) and beach/estuary protection would be 

high because the alternative’s Riparian and Beach/Estuary Standards and 

Guidelines are essentially the same as the 2008 Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, while all other alternatives have some reduction in these. 

Overall, this alternative has RMA and beach/estuary protections that are equal to 

or greater than other alternatives with low harvest, low amount of new roads

construction and lower number of new stream crossing among the alternatives. 

Although differences among alternatives are low, considering the importance of 

the parameters and the relative magnitude of the differences from a fish and 

watershed status, Alternative 1 likely has the lowest risk level of the alternatives

for these resources.

Alternative 2: Because of this alternative’s emphasis on young-growth harvest

including entry outside of the development LUDs and reduced restrictions on

Fish 3-132 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

beach fringe and RMAs harvest, it has the highest amount of new and 

reconstructed roads and total acres harvested. The result would be the greatest

number of new and potential reconstructed stream crossings. It would have 

some of the highest amount of harvest and roads in beach/estuary fringe. Much 

of this road development and reconstruction and harvest would occur in the first 

15-year period when even-age management in beach fringe would be allowed. 

This alternative would also have the highest harvest of RMAs of any alternative

although as commercial thinning (e.g., less than 33 percent of stand basal area),

which would minimize LWD supply loss (most pronounced in effects to floodplain 

and alluvial fan channels). This alternative’s high RMA harvest acreage and 

substantial beach fringe amount and methods all add to the risk to aquatic 

habitat. Nearshore marine fish effects could occur from marine access harvest 

methods and log transport, which would be second highest of all alternatives in 

acres. While the differences among alternatives are not large, this alternative

likely has the highest overall risk to fish and watershed conditions. 

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 is similar to Alternative 2 in road miles, number of

stream crossings, and acres harvested. It has the second highest new and 

reconstructed road miles, and similar ranking for new and reconstructed road 

stream crossings. It has a similar but somewhat less amount of harvest than 

Alternative 2. Unlike Alternative 2, riparian protection would remain high for the 

same reasons as for Alternative 1 with no harvest in RMAs. However, this 

alternative would have highest number of road miles and harvest in the 

beach/estuary fringe over the 100-year period. Since only commercial thinning 

(e.g., less than 33 percent of stand basal area) would be used in these habitats,

potential adverse effects to fish resources would be moderated. Nearshore 

marine fish effects could occur from this alternative’s marine access harvest 

methods and log transport, which would be the highest of the alternatives. 

Considering the relatively high amount of roads and stream crossing, good 

protections for RMA, and lower beach/estuary fringe protections, this alternative 

would rank low among the alternatives in maintaining fish and watershed 

resources. 

Alternative 4: This alternative has the second lowest and lowest number of both 

new and reconstructed roads, and new and reconstructed road crossings, 

respectively. Additionally, it has the second lowest amount of harvest.

Beach/estuary fringe protections are reduced from the 2008 Forest Plan, with 

commercial thinning (e.g., less than 33 percent of stand basal area) allowed but 

only in development LUDs, resulting in third highest harvest and reconstructed 

road miles in these habitats. Nearshore marine fish effects could occur from this 

alternative’s marine access harvest methods and log transport, which are lower 

than most of the alternatives. Riparian areas retain current protections with no 

additional effects in RMAs ensuring stable LWD supply to all channel types. With 

a lower amount of new road miles and harvest, full protection of riparian areas,

but some reduction in protection of beach/estuary fringes, this alternative would 

rank in the lower risk range of alternatives to fish resources. 

Alternative 5 (Preferred): This alternative falls in about the middle of the 

alternatives for risks to fish resources and watershed conditions. Total harvest, 

new and reconstructed road miles, and new and reconstructed road stream 

crossings fall midway in rank among alternatives. Although RMA and 

beach/estuary fringe protections are reduced from current conditions, the total 

amount of these habitats that would be affected is small. Relative to other 

alternatives, there would be relatively few miles of constructed roads in the RMA 

habitat over a 100-year period, with most in the first 15 years. It would have the 

least road miles and harvest acres in the beach fringe of the four action 

alternatives that would allow harvest there. Also, less than 4,000 acres of 

Final EIS 3-133 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

beach/estuary fringe would be affected, including optional maximum 10-acre

open area cuts. No harvest could occur within 200 feet of the beach, greatly 

limiting effects to the nearshore marine habitat from the limited open area harvest

management. Nearshore marine fish effects are unlikely to occur from harvest 

access methods as marine access harvest is unlikely. While open area harvest

up to 10 acres maximum plus commercial thinning up to 35 percent of existing 

stands would be allowed in RMAs, these would only occur in development LUDs

and the Old-growth Habitat LUD. These alternative characteristics, and other 

Forest Plan restrictions and levels of harvest, would result in few acres (less than 

1,100) of young-growth timber being harvested in RMAs over the first 15 years, 

and none after. While some RMA and beach/fringe protections would be 

reduced from current plans, the overall effects of this change Forest-wide would 

be low. Additionally, there are 73 VCUs and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority 

Areas considered important to fish resources that would be excluded from future 

old-growth timber harvest, eliminating risk to fish resources in these watersheds 

from old-growth timber harvest. The overall effects from this alternative’s actions 

would be in the middle range of effects to fish resources among alternatives 

considered. 

Special Status and Invasive Species Assessments

Threatened and Endangered Species

Consultation requirements for the Forest Plan Revision under Section 7 of the 

ESA, as amended, were completed with the USFWS and NMFS for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS. Both USFWS and NMFS reviewed the biological assessments 

for threatened and endangered species under their regulatory jurisdiction and 

concluded that the Tongass Forest Plan Revision was “not likely to adversely 

affect” threatened or endangered species occurring on the Tongass for the 1997 

Plan. These findings were made subject to the programmatic scope of the 

Forest Plan Revision and following the associated Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines (see Chapter 4 of the 1997 Forest Plan).

Formal and informal consultation procedures (as directed by the ESA, as 

amended in 50 CFR 17.7, and Forest Service Manual 2670) are used with NMFS 

and USFWS on all projects that implement the 1997 Forest Plan and subsequent 

amendments. Forest-wide standards and guidelines (see Chapter 4 of the 

Forest Plan) for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species direct that all 

projects would comply with requirements of the ESA, as amended, and Forest 

Service policy (Forest Service Manual 2670).

The Selected Alternative (Alternative 6) of the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment

FEIS was deemed through the consultation process to not likely adversely affect 

any of the threatened or endangered fish species occurring on the Tongass. The 

action alternatives being examined in this EIS would also likely fall in this 

category because the considered actions have the same or similar protective 

measures as Alternative 6 from the 2008 FEIS with a few potential exceptions, as 

discussed below. Additionally, future considered alternative plans have much 

lower harvest levels and therefore less use of LTF facilities and associated 

developments, further reducing potential adverse effects to listed fish.

As stated in the Affected Environment section, there are six Chinook salmon, one 

sockeye salmon, one coho salmon, one chum, five steelhead, and one green 

sturgeon evolutionarily significant units (ESUs)/DPSs that are federally ESA 

listed that may be present in waters potentially affected by project alternatives. 

Consultation with NMFS concerning potential project actions and their effects on 

these listed ESU/DPSs was initiated with the development of a BA (included in 

Fish 3-134 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

the planning record) and will be finalized with the completion of the FEIS and 

Record of Decision.

No ESA-listed stocks of salmon or steelhead originate (spawn) in Alaska 

streams. Listed species and stocks originate in freshwater habitats in 

Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. Some of these listed species migrate into 

marine waters off the coast of Alaska. While distribution of these stocks is 

primarily in outer coastal waters, some are occasionally present in the inner 

waters of Southeast Alaska and they may feed on prey resources originating 

within marine and estuarine waters of the Tongass National Forest. 

The southern DPS of the green sturgeon is rarely present in Southeast Alaska

waters. Most are believed to stay south, but some could be present in the inside 

waters of Southeast Alaska, particularly during the fall and winter. They migrate 

south again in spring (Lindley et al. 2008). The adults live in nearshore waters 

typically less than 100 meters deep (Lindley et al. 2008). Based on their regional 

and seasonal distribution, they would be uncommon in nearshore areas where 

potential project actions may have some effect.

Beach and estuarine fringe harvest of Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 have a greater 

chance of affecting nearshore habitat that may supply prey resources to listed 

salmon, steelhead, or green sturgeon than actions evaluated in the 2008 Forest 

Plan Amendment. Currently, there are about 17,000 miles of shoreline in the 

Tongass National Forest lands, and about 500 miles have past harvest. A 

subset of these areas, depending on the alternative, would be harvested over a 

100+-year period. Nearshore marine bottom disturbance to intertidal and 

subtidal habitats could be caused by nearshore log yarding, vehicle travel on 

beaches, log rafting, and log loading and yarding vessel anchorage and 

associated activities. Effects on marine bottom disturbance could cause some 

short-term local reduction in some prey resources that could be utilized by 

rearing salmon, steelhead, or green sturgeon. Marine access to harvest these 

beach fringes would be limited for all of the alternatives, because much of the 

harvest would occur by road and helicopter, which would reduce the potential for 

nearshore disturbance. Runoff from the logging areas could also contribute 

sediment to the nearshore areas, which may smother benthic and epibenthic 

organisms, some of which are prey resources for juvenile salmonids and green 

sturgeon. These effects would be short term and local, primarily restricted to 

central landing areas along the beach, although some may occur near any 

skidder trails that may be accessed by the beach. Anchorage of barge log 

loading, log rafting, and possible A-frame yarding barges would have limited 

bottom disturbance either from grounding and/or anchor location. In most 

nearshore locations, the dynamic nature of beach and intertidal areas would be 

accustomed to moderate, natural disturbance and therefore somewhat resistant 

to additional disturbance that may be caused by shoreline harvest-related 

actions. As discussed in the Beach Fringe Harvest section above, there could be

some reduction in terrestrial food sources with removal of trees from these area. 

These sources of food have been found to be of use by some salmonid rearing 

stages. These reductions, however, would be very small relative to other 

sources of food in the marine system. Overall, some indirect effects could occur 

to food sources for the listed species. For any of the listed fish species, however,

the area of effects would be limited and use of any of these areas would be 

remote considering their limited distribution in Southeast Alaska marine 

nearshore waters.

Site-specific nearshore marine habitat-disturbing actions, or any other ground 

disturbing action, are not, however, directly authorized under the considered 

alternatives of the Forest Plan. Thus, the considered actions of the alternatives 

Final EIS 3-135 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

will not have any direct adverse effects to any of the listed species addressed in 

this section from potential nearshore marine disturbance. Any proposed actions 

indirectly resulting from the considered alternatives will be evaluated on a casespecific basis as to their effects to listed species. This may include formal or 

informal consultation with NMFS at the time of project-specific evaluations.

Because of the listed fish species’ very limited distribution relative to the project 

area and lack of direct project-authorized action effects to the marine 

environment, it is not anticipated that adverse effects would occur to any 

endangered or threatened salmon, steelhead, or green sturgeon ESU/DPS listed 

species from any of the alternatives. The details of potential effects to listed 

species are presented in the BA, which is included in the planning record.

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires all federal agencies to 

consult with the Secretary on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded,

or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. This consultation is 

completed for site-specific projects with ground-disturbing activity. The 

application of Forest-wide standards and guidelines and best management 

practices (BMPs) developed to meet soil protection, water quality standards, and 

fish habitat protection will help protect EFH on the Tongass National Forest and 

adjacent estuarine and marine waters. Adoption of the Forest Plan does not 

specifically result in any actions that could affect EFH, and any action that would 

be taken following adoption of the Plan that could affect EFH would have a 

formal EFH developed. No formal EFH will be developed for the considered 

actions in this EIS.

Sensitive Species

There are no aquatic sensitive species on the Tongass National Forest.

Invasive Aquatic Species

ADF&G lists four species of fish that are non-native to Alaska found in Alaskan 

waters (Fay 2002). Only two, the Eastern Brook trout and Atlantic salmon, have 

been found in the aquatic habitats of the Tongass National Forest. Additionally,

northern pike, which has only been found in apparently native waters in the 

Yakutat area in the Tongass, is of greatest concern because of its potential to 

directly impact native salmon species. Other aquatic species, including the 

Chinese mitten crab and New Zealand mudsnail, both of which can inhabit 

freshwater, are a major concern for impacts they would cause if they invaded 

these aquatic habitats (Schrader and Hennon 2005; Fay 2002). Also, the green 

crab, while not in Alaskan marine waters, has been reported to be in British 

Columbia coastal waters (ADF&G 2015a). While no alternative would have 

substantial effects on invasion or establishment of non-native aquatic species, 

some actions could have indirect effects. One of the biggest concerns for 

invasive fish is active stocking of waters primarily with species often considered 

game fish in other areas. This would apply primarily to northern pike, which can 

inhabit lakes and rivers. In general then, alternatives that increase human access 

to fresh waters within the Forest would have the greatest risk of increasing 

invasive aquatic species in aquatic habitat of the Forest. The major form of 

increased access to aquatic habitats of the Forest would be through increased 

roads where people may travel with invasive species either intentionally, such as 

northern pike, or by accident, such as in the case of some aquatic species, like 

the New Zealand mudsnail. Based on this criterion, the relative risk would be 

proportional to road miles (Table 3.4-5), with Alternative 1 having the least and 

Alternative 5 the most risk. Additionally, increased use of marine vessels for log 

transport or shoreline harvest of beach fringe areas (primarily Alternatives 2, 3,

Fish 3-136 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

and 4) would increase risk of inadvertent entry of marine invasives like the green 

crab. 

Conclusions – Direct and Indirect Effects

Much of this EIS evaluation has been based on the conclusions, derived from

scientific literature, monitoring reports, and expert evaluations, that 2008 Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines, practices, and related BMPs are adequate to 

ensure minimal or no harm to fish resources, at least for most of the alternatives 

considered. However, there is a degree of scientific uncertainty associated with 

these conclusions. The current Plan has only been in place for 20 years, 

although many of the practices have been in place longer. The active monitoring 

that has been occurring does not suggest marked problems with water quality or 

fish resources as a result of these actions (USDA Forest Service 2004a, 2007,

2014a). While active monitoring has been occurring, the full effect of these types 

of actions has not had an extensive period of evaluation. Even though relevant 

information indicates protections would be adequate under most of the 

alternatives, there is some risk to fisheries resources in implementing any of the 

considered alternatives because all would result in increased road construction, 

reconstruction, stream crossings, and increased harvest. Also, some have less 

protection for important fish-related habitat than the 2008 Forest Plan.

Based on best available science, it can be concluded that there is a relatively low 

long-term risk to fish habitat from any alternative because of low levels of timber 

harvest and road construction and reconstruction, and the relatively high riparian 

protections offered by Forest Plan standards and guidelines for most alternatives. 

However, the allowance of harvest in previously protected beach/estuarine fringe 

and or RMA areas increase risk to resources where the harvest in these areas 

occur under Alternatives 2 through 5. Each of these four alternatives includes

actions to reduce adverse effects to beach fringe and RMA conditions. For RMA 

areas, no harvest would be allowed in the TTRA buffers that supply most of the 

functions to most fish stream habitat in the Tongass National Forest. Also, none 

of alternatives would allow more than 33 to 35 percent of existing RMA stand to 

be removed, and, for Alternative 5, maximum open area harvest would be limited 

to 10 acres. Selection of these areas for harvest would only occur when other 

young-growth areas are not available, all of which would moderate but not 

eliminate adverse effects. Any designated commercial harvest in RMAs may 

reduce the objective of advancing the seral stages toward old-growth conditions

in RMA habitat (USDA Forest Service 2015c). Beach fringe harvest effects 

would be moderated by allowing only commercial thinning (less than 33 percent 

of the stand) (Alternatives 3 and 4), restrictions on when harvest could occur (first 

15 years only for Alternative 2), and a 200-foot beach buffer (Alternative 5). 

Among alternatives with commercial harvest allowed in beach and estuary fringe 

or RMA, Alternative 2 would have the most risk because it has some of the 

highest harvest rates, includes even aged management in the beach fringe, and

has a higher number of new and reconstructed road miles.

General

The effects of the alternatives on fish resources may be influenced by other 

actions occurring in the project area. Appendix C provides a complete list of 

past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions considered for cumulative 

effects and indicates which of these interact with aquatic resources affected by 

the Forest Plan alternatives. The main factors affecting fish are related to land 

development actions that occur regionally. This primarily includes other timber 

harvest-related actions on non-NFS lands, especially associated roads. The total 

Cumulative 

Effects

Final EIS 3-137 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

lands within the Tongass National Forest boundary, which includes all NFS lands 

and other non-NFS lands, is about 17.8 million acres. Of this, only about 6 

percent (1.1 million acres) are non-NFS lands. However, development actions 

on these non-NFS lands, which include most cities and towns in Southeast 

Alaska, are moderately intense. 

Cumulative effects to fish resources include those actions that affect water and 

watershed resources, such as the development of roads. These cumulative 

effects are detailed in the Water section. Generally, overall average road 

density, which is an indicator of potential adverse sediment effects to streams, 

would increase markedly on non-NFS lands, but across the region (NFS and 

non-NFS combined) would only increase slightly in the future 100 years (Table 

3.4-12) for all alternatives. The number of watersheds that would be considered 

to be either “fair” or “poor” (implying likely reduced fish production potential),

based on road density greater than 1 mile per square mile (USDA Forest Service 

2011a), would increase in the future (Table 3.4-13). However, few watersheds

would change to these lower function categories and that number varies little 

among alternatives (range 19.6 to 20.0 percent of all watershed in these

categories for all alternatives). 

Effects on fish resources are less directly tied to the amount of timber harvest 

than to roads, but harvest may affect fish through effects to water quality, riparian 

condition, and where the harvest occurs, as discussed under Direct and Indirect 

Effects. The cumulative effects of timber harvest on water quality were 

discussed in the Water section for all lands (including non-NFS lands) within the 

Forest boundary and relate to potential effects to fish resources. Existing 

conditions include retention of 86 percent of the original productive old-growth 

forest inside the Forest boundary and 95 percent of the land area remaining 

undisturbed from direct timber harvest (Table 3.4-10 of the Water section). 

Overall, the cumulative effects to fish relating directly to quantity of timber harvest 

would be similar under all alternatives; about 82 percent of the original productive 

old growth on all lands within the Forest boundary would be retained for each 

alternative. Total cumulative effects to fish resources, based on relative amount 

of area disturbed, and would be slightly lower than existing conditions at 94 

percent. However, some local regions may have fish resources affected where 

watershed harvest levels and road density are high. Additionally, with less 

protection for riparian areas on state and private land (e.g., no required buffers 

on non-fish-bearing streams and resident fish-bearing streams), a greater risk to 

fish resources would occur in watersheds that have a high portion of non-NFS 

harvest occurring. Again, effects of harvest activities on fish resources would 

ultimately be considered at the project-specific levels, ensuring minimal adverse 

cumulative effects.

Climate Change

Climate change is one factor that has some unquantifiable potential to affect 

fishery resources on the Tongass. Several models used in recent literature 

agree that temperatures and precipitation in Southeast Alaska and the Tongass 

National Forest will increase this century (Shanley et al. 2015; EcoAdapt 2014). 

One set of models specifically for Southeast Alaska projects annual air 

temperature increase of 0.5 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (°C) by 2050 and 2 to 6°C by 

2100. Annual precipitation increases are projected to be 5 to 15 percent by 2050 

and 15 to 35 percent by 2100 (summary from EcoAdapt 2014). These value 

estimates vary substantially between locations in Southeast Alaska. Higher 

temperature increases are expected in the winter months, with greatest 

precipitation increases expected in winter and fall (EcoAdapt 2014). With 

warmer temperatures, much of the precipitation that currently is snow will fall as 

Fish 3-138 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

rain. The result will include greater melting of glaciers, higher peak flows in the 

winter and fall in most streams other than glacial-fed streams, and, even with 

increased precipitation, lower summer flows primarily in snowmelt- and rain-fed 

dominated basins, which would include the majority of major fish-producing 

systems in Southeast Alaska (Shanley and Albert 2014; Shanley et al. 2015). 

The effects to fish resources in the Tongass National Forest from these changes 

would be both positive and negative and will vary by species, life stage, and 

location. Reduced stream flow in summer months and high water temperatures 

during this same period have been a common concern for salmonid populations 

in much of their native range. 

One of the main factors affecting fish resources would be changes in stream 

temperature. Higher temperatures would result in faster egg development and 

emergence of fry. In the case of pink and chum salmon, which migrate directly to 

the marine environment after emergence, this may be a negative conditions as 

the historical planktonic food sources may not be as abundant in the marine 

system earlier in the late winter and early spring (Heard 1991; Salo 1991). 

Increased temperature could result in faster growth of rearing fish as long as food 

supply is adequate and temperatures do not become stressful. Unlike streams in 

the lower Pacific Northwest (e.g., Washington, Oregon), summer temperatures in 

most locations in the Tongass are well below upper levels of concern for rearing 

fish so some temperature increase would not be an issue in many areas. 

Although some areas, especially where nutrients are limited, production may not 

be enhanced with elevated temperatures. In the case of coho salmon, side 

channels may have lower flows and increased temperatures, which could reduce 

their usability. Coho salmon in Southeast Alaska typically rear for 2 years before 

smolting, likely because low production is related to low stream temperature. 

Should growth increase, some may smolt after one year’s growth. This could be 

an advantage because they would not suffer an extra year of overwinter

freshwater mortality, which can be high. This may be complicated if they are 

relatively small after one year’s growth while entering the ocean, because the 

small size would be a disadvantage for marine survival. Elevated temperatures 

in lakes may also be of benefit for lake-rearing species because growth may 

increase in these systems, if available food supply is adequate, perhaps most 

noticeable in sockeye salmon, which generally need lake systems for rearing.

Elevated lake temperatures may also benefit coho salmon and resident trout and 

char in those lake systems. Increased growth of coho and sockeye salmon has 

been observed in a lake system in Southeast Alaska during a period of higher 

water temperatures (Shanley et al. 2015). However, elevated temperature would 

likely increase rate of predation on juvenile fish by other fish species (e.g.,

cutthroat trout and Dolly Varden). 

Life history of some species may be affected by temperature changes. Increasing 

water temperatures may affect whether Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow 

trout/steelhead) are anadromous or resident. While anadromous behavior is 

influenced by genetics, it is also influenced by environmental factors (Kendall et 

al. 2015; Pearse et al. 2009). Some studies have found that warmer waters 

increase the rate of anadromous smolt formation in O. mykiss stream populations 

(Sloat and Reeves 2014). Also in some similar natural stream systems studied by 

Kendall et al. (2009), those with higher temperatures, among other factors, 

tended to be dominated by anadromous and not resident forms of O. mykiss. 

Elevated stream temperatures in the late summer may also be detrimental to 

returning spawning fish, primarily pink and chum salmon, that enter in late 

summer during low flows, and may hold in pools. These pools may have 

elevated temperatures and related low dissolved oxygen that could affect timing 

Final EIS 3-139 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

of entry or survival for fish that do hold in these pools (Bryant 2009). The 

upstream migration of sockeye salmon also occurs in the late summer and may 

be adversely affected by warmer waters. Prior to spawning, however, these 

salmon usually hold in lakes, which would be buffered from the streams’ 

potentially higher temperatures and lower oxygen conditions.

Increasing precipitation in the winter likely increases the risk of landslides and 

debris flows that may enter streams (Bryant 2009). Areas that historically 

received precipitation as snow may get more as rain as estimated for climate 

change. Saturated soil and intense rainfall increases the risk of slides (Bryant 

2009), which could affect streams by adding sediment and scouring stream beds, 

while also adding wood. Heavy sedimentation and bed scour is detrimental to 

rearing and spawning habitat, while the addition of large woody debris may be 

beneficial because it aids in habitat formation and retention within streams.

Change in flow regime also would have positive and negative effects. Increased 

winter and fall flow may supply increased overwinter habitat including access to 

and formation of off-channel habitat areas for some species (e.g., coho salmon, 

Dolly Varden, cutthroat trout, and steelhead). However, if flows are high with 

elevated peaking in fall and winter, egg scour could occur, which would be 

detrimental for many fall spawning species (e.g., all salmon species) (Shanley 

and Albert 2014; Bryant 2009). Sloat et al. (in press) modeled the likely effects of 

future flow changes from climate change on spawning conditions in Southeast 

Alaska. They noted that median annual average flood flows would increase by 

28 percent by 2080. The estimated effects on habitat varied by watershed and 

stream morphology–specific conditions. Many species of Pacific salmon have 

adapted to high flows by selecting coarser spawning substrate (depending on 

species size) and locations away from the channel center (May et al. 2009).

Low summer flows would be detrimental to over-summer rearing fish, which 

could include coho and Chinook salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and Dolly 

Varden, by reducing rearing habitat area and possibly food supply. However,

reductions in summer flow may need to be substantial to affect overall juvenile 

salmonid survival and growth (Harvey et al. 2006; Grantham et al. 2012). If 

summer mortality rates increase because of higher temperatures, later life-stage 

survival rates may increase to compensate for this increased seasonal mortality 

(i.e., density dependence). The diversity of the local fish stocks and their life 

stages will contribute to resiliency of regional species to moderate effects of both 

temperature and flow changes. 

Climate change could also result in sea-level change. This sea-level rise could 

inundate estuarine rearing areas for fish. Stream mouth areas of some lowgradient small streams, which are used by some rearing fish including coho 

salmon, could also be inundated with salt water if sea-level rises were 

substantial. Pink and chum salmon in some areas spawn in intertidal regions,

which could be affected with sea level rise. Current predictions are for a sea-level 

rise of 1.3 to 2.1 feet by 2081-2100 (Shanley et al. 2014). However, the 

Southeast Alaska land mass is rising in many areas; due to isostatic rebound 

from past glaciers, sea level in Southeast Alaska is decreasing by as much as 

about 3 cm/year (1.2 inches/year) (Larsen et al. 2005). Some areas, particularly 

in northern Southeast Alaska, may rise 1 to 4 feet over the next century (Kelly et 

al. 2007). This rate of land rebound increase would likely offset sea level rises

over most of the Tongass shorelines. Thus, overall effects on estuarine areas,

coastal stream mouths, and fish stocks would vary considerably and changes are 

difficult to predict and may even be difficult to detect. 

Fish 3-140 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

In summary, there is general agreement that the climate is warming, precipitation

will increase, and flows will increase in the fall and winter but decrease in 

summer in snow- and rain-dominated watersheds. However, there is uncertainty 

surrounding specific predictions and even more uncertainty regarding the effect 

of these changes on resources including fish.

Conclusions – Cumulative Effects

Overall, the cumulative effects of the Forest Plan alternatives, in conjunction with 

other actions described in Appendix C, primarily roads and timber harvests, 

would increase the regions of greatest risk for fish resources. While all 

alternatives would increase high road density areas, overall the number of 

watersheds with increased risks to fish remain relatively small. There is little 

difference among the alternatives on risk of road density increasing into 

undesirable conditions at the watershed level because the overall amount of new 

roads remains low on a forest level, with higher road density areas (e.g., greater 

than 1 mile/square mile) ranging from about 19.6 to 20.2 percent among the 

alternatives for all lands combined. Cumulative effects of actual timber harvest 

would follow a similar trend among the alternatives; however, the potential 

cumulative effects of harvest, road building, and other actions would be 

evaluated on a project-specific basis so that the potential for adverse cumulative 

effects to fish resources within a given watershed could be reduced or

eliminated. The cumulative effects of climate change are not clear but some of 

the changes could be detrimental to fish resources.

Final EIS 3-141 Fish
3 Environment and Effects

This page intentionally left blank.

Fish 3-142 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-143 Plants

Plants

Affected Environment...............................................................................3-143

Plant Communities................................................................................3-143

Vegetation Classification ......................................................................3-144

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Rare Plants .........................3-146

Invasive Plants......................................................................................3-149

Environmental Consequences ................................................................3-154

Direct and Indirect Effects.....................................................................3-154

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-169

Affected Environment 

This section describes the affected environment for plants on the Tongass 

National Forest. It is divided into the following areas of focus: Plant 

Communities, Threatened and Endangered Species, Region 10 Sensitive Plants, 

Rare Plants, and Invasive Plants. The Plant Communities and Vegetation 

Classification subsections provide an overview of vegetation and describes the 

process and status of vegetation classification and vegetation mapping on the 

Tongass. The Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, and Rare Plants and 

Invasive Plants subsections include an overview of current conditions. The 

detailed description and effects analysis to vegetation on a habitat/landscape 

scale are in the Biodiversity section of this chapter.

The composition, age, and structure of the plant communities on the Tongass are 

the result of interactions between biological and physical environments, natural 

disturbances, and land use history. This subsection introduces the ecological 

context for the common forested and non-forested plant communities. 

The coastal forest of Southeast Alaska is within the cool, temperate rainforest 

that extends along the Pacific coast from northern California to Cook Inlet in 

Alaska. The forest is dominated by conifers, primarily western hemlock (Tsuga 

heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), and western redcedar (Thuja 

plicata) (south of Frederick Sound). Mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana)

grows throughout the forest and is the dominant tree just below and at treeline. 

Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) and Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis) grow at the 

extreme southern end of the Tongass. Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. 

latifolia and P.contorta subsp. contorta) and yellow-cedar (Callitropsis 

[Chamaecyparis] nootkatensis) are scattered throughout the forest. Populations 

of subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) grow from upper Lynn Canal south along the 

mainland to the Hyder area and west to Prince of Wales Island. Red alder (Alnus 

rubra) is common along streams, beach fringes, and on soils recently disturbed 

by management activities. Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera subsp. 

trichocarpa) grows on the floodplains of major rivers and recently deglaciated 

areas. 

Blueberry and huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.), rusty menziesia (Menziesia 

ferruginea), devil’s club (Oplopanax horridus), and salal (Gaultheria shallon) in 

the south, are common shrubs in forested communities. The forest floor 

supports a variety plants, including false lily-of-the-valley (Maianthemum 

dilatatum), bunchberry (Cornus canadensis), five-leaf bramble (Rubus pedatus), 

and oak fern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris). Because of the high amount of rainfall 

and high humidity, a wide variety of mosses and liverworts grow in great 

profusion on the ground, fallen logs, the trunks and branches of trees and 

Plant 

Communities
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-144 Final EIS

shrubs, as well as in forest openings. Hundreds of lichen species grow on tree 

trunks, branches, and on the ground, especially in old-growth forests, riparian 

areas, and maritime beach fringe forests. 

Upper beaches, estuaries, lake margins, and muskeg edges support grass and 

sedge meadows. Thickets dominated by willow (Salix spp.) and Sitka alder 

(Alnus viridis subsp. sinuata) occur in recently deglaciated areas, river channels, 

avalanche chutes, sub-alpine communities and beach/forest ecotones. Muskeg 

(peatland) communities, which occur in poorly drained areas throughout the 

forest, are dominated by peat moss (Spaghnum spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), low 

shrubs and scattered shore pine (Pinus contorta subsp. contorta). These nonforest vegetation types are also described in the Wetlands and Biodiversity

sections of this chapter.

Above the treeline, a mosaic of plant communities blanket the subalpine 

meadows and alpine tundra. Subalpine meadows support an array of taller 

herbs and grasses. Plants of the more exposed alpine tundra are mat-forming,

grow close to the ground and include plants from the heath and rose families, 

willows, clubmosses and lichens. Cushion-forming plants and non-vascular 

plants (lichens, mosses, and liverworts) occupy exposed rock outcrops, crevices, 

and talus slopes.

Integrating vegetation information in analysis, planning, and decision making 

requires the development of vegetation classifications, which in turn are applied 

to vegetation maps, some of which are developed from remotely sensed imagery

or ecological models. Classification of vegetation types is an established tool 

designed to group similar entities into named types or classes based on shared 

characteristics that facilitate our study, understanding, and communication of 

ecological information. Vegetation classifications are the basis for development 

of vegetation types at various spatial scales which have been widely used in 

forest planning, project planning, wildlife management, and silviculture in the 

National Forests. Vegetation classifications can be used to identify realistic 

objectives and management opportunities, determine capability and suitability, 

and evaluate forest health (USDA Forest Service 2011b). They can also be used 

to streamline monitoring design and facilitate extrapolation of monitoring 

interpretations; determine effects of disturbance or management actions; assess 

risks for the introduction of invasive species, fire, insects, and disease; and 

describe current habitats for plant and animal species based on current 

vegetation composition, structure, and function (USDA Forest Service 2011a). 

On the Tongass National Forest, fine-scale vegetation communities known as 

plant associations have historically been used for analysis of silvicultural 

treatments. Work on describing forested plant communities on the Tongass 

began in the early 1980s. Three guides, one each for the former Ketchikan, 

Stikine, and the Chatham Areas, were developed to identify and describe 

forested plant associations (DeMeo et al. 1992; Pawuk and Kissinger 1989;

Martin et al. 1995). Additionally, a fourth guide described plant communities of 

all lifeforms (herbaceous, shrub and forest types) in the Yakutat Foreland 

(Shephard 1995). Non-forested plant communities have also been described for 

the Stikine and Taku River ecological subsections, as part of the Key Coastal 

Wetland Initiative (Turner 2010). These guides provide a key for identifying the 

plant associations based on dominant and diagnostic species in the tree, shrub, 

and herb layers of the Forest. Forested plant association names consist of the 

dominant tree species that occurs in the overstory canopy, along with dominant 

or diagnostic species found in the shrub and/or herb strata (layers). Plant 

association descriptions include species cover and constancy (how often a 

species occurs in a particular association), productivity estimates, and 

Vegetation 

Classification
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-145 Plants

management considerations to guide the interpretation of site productivity on an 

area with a specific plant association. 

In the Tongass plant association guides, forested plant associations are grouped 

into the following series (also known as alliances) based on the dominant tree 

species in the overstory canopy:

• Black Cottonwood Series

• Mixed-Conifer Series

• Mountain Hemlock Series

• Shore Pine (Lodgepole Pine) Series

• Sitka Spruce Series

• Sitka Spruce – Black Cottonwood Series

• Western Hemlock Series

• Western Hemlock-Western Red Cedar Series

• Western Hemlock-Yellow Cedar Series

Vegetation Mapping

Forest-wide overstory vegetation has been mapped using “CoverType”, a 

Geographic Information System–based data set that is a photo-interpreted 

delineation of the Forest by land type and timber cover type. CoverType 

delineates the Forest according to broad forest canopy cover types. CoverType 

also tracks vegetation changes through time (as modified by natural events or 

management activities) in addition to its natural condition. Information for 

forested stands includes forest cover type (dominant overstory tree species), size 

class (e.g., seedling, sapling, young growth, or old growth), productivity class, 

and volume class. Generalized non-forested conditions are also mapped (e.g., 

rock, ice and snowfields, alder, brush, muskeg-meadow, uplifted beach, alpine, 

sand dune, etc.).

Additionally, a model for classifying commercially productive forests of the 

Tongass has been developed that organizes forested stands into seven 

structural classes, using tree size (quadratic mean diameter) and tree density

(trees per acre) categories (Caouette and DeGayner 2005). This map product, 

referred to as Size-Density, is described in the Biodiversity section of this 

chapter, and has been used to describe forest structural diversity and wildlife 

habitats.

Mapping vegetation communities at the plant-association level has not occurred 

on the Forest. Producing plant-association maps requires large amounts of field 

data and high-resolution imagery combined with modeling; therefore, plantassociation maps are not now possible at the Forest scale. It is possible that in 

the future plant associations map products, which meet national standards for 

vegetation maps, may be developed on a project-specific basis. New and 

updated mid-level (alliance and/or dominance type) maps of vegetation types 

sufficient for Forest- or watershed-scale analysis may also be developed in the 

near future.
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-146 Final EIS

Threatened and Endangered Plants

There are no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plants under 

the Endangered Species Act known to occur on the Tongass National Forest. 

The only federally listed or proposed plant in Alaska is the Aleutian hollyfern 

(Polystichum aleuticum), which is listed as endangered. It is only known to occur 

on Adak Island and is not expected to occur on the Tongass National Forest. A 

petition to list yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis) was filed with the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on June 24, 2014. The 90-day finding of this 

petition, published on April 10, 2015 (80 Federal Register 19263), determined 

that the petition to list yellow-cedar presented “substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that the petitioned action [to list the species 

under the Endangered Species Act] may be warranted”. A 12-month status 

review will be conducted by the USFWS to determine whether this petitioned 

action is in fact warranted. Yellow-cedar is broadly distributed across the Forest, 

although it is absent or rare over large portions of the Forest that appear to be 

suitable habitat (Hennon et al. in review).

Alaska Region Sensitive Plants

Sensitive plants are those plants identified by the Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern on National Forest System (NFS) lands within 

the region. A viability concern is identified by either a significant existing or 

predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or a significant 

existing or predicted downward trend in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution. The objective of the Forest Service Sensitive 

Species Program (Forest Service Manual 2600 [USDA Forest Service 1991]) is 

to ensure that species numbers and population distributions are adequate so that 

no federal listing will be required and no extirpation will occur on NFS lands. 

Revisions to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Plant Species list are periodically 

completed based on new information derived from recent publications, field work, 

and laboratory analysis. The Alaska Region Sensitive Species list was updated 

in 2009 (Goldstein et al. 2009). Eighteen plants are designated as sensitive; 14 

of these are known to occur on the Tongass National Forest, with an additional 

two that are not known but are suspected to occur. The 16 sensitive plants 

known or suspected to occur in the Tongass National Forest are listed in Table 

3.7-1. This table includes a general range and habitat description for each 

species.

Sensitive plant surveys are conducted as part of project planning to identify 

populations or habitats of sensitive species within planning areas. Our 

understanding of sensitive and rare plant distribution across the Tongass is 

limited because most botanical surveys are focused on specific project areas. 

Rare Plants

The Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) maintains a list of plants that are rare 

in Alaska. The ANHP Rare Vascular Plant List was most recently updated in 2012. 

This list contains 126 plants documented to occur on the Tongass National Forest. 

The 2008 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) defines 

rare plants as:

“...those with potential conservation concerns on the Tongass National 

Forest. They may be common elsewhere; however, the edge of their range 

is known or suspected to be on the Tongass National Forest, or disjunct 

populations of the plant species occur on the Tongass National Forest.” 

Threatened, 

Endangered, 

Sensitive, and 

Rare Plants
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-147 Plants

Table 3.7-1

2009 Alaska Region Sensitive Plants Known or Suspected to Occur on the Tongass 

National Forest1

Common Name

(Scientific Name) Range and Habitat2

Eschscholtz’s little nightmare 

(Aphragmus eschscholtzianus)

This plant grows in southern Alaska and adjacent Canada in a band extending 

from the Aleutians through the southwest Yukon. There are also disjunct 

populations on the Seward Peninsula and in the Brooks Range. It is suspected 

to occur in mountainous areas on the northern mainland of the Tongass. It 

grows in moist mossy areas, seeps, heaths, and scree slopes in subalpine and 

alpine areas. Because the plant is so small, it is easily overlooked. This plant 

is suspected on, but has not been documented on the Tongass. 

Spatulate moonwort

(Botrychium spathulatum)

This plant is distributed from the upper Great Lakes east to southeastern 

Quebec, as well as in the mountains of northern Montana and Idaho to the 

Wrangell-St. Elias Range in Alaska. In southeastern Alaska, populations are 

known from Kruzof Island (on lands managed by the state of Alaska, which is 

surrounded by the Tongass) and a small population on Chicagof Island on the 

Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2015e). Habitat includes coastal forests, 

stabilized coastal dunes, upper beach meadows, well-drained open areas, 

alpine habitats, and riparian forests.

Moosewort fern, no common 

name 

(Botrychium tunux)

Moosewort fern grows on upper beach meadows, coastal dunes, stream 

terraces, river bars and subalpine and alpine slopes. There are nine known 

occurrences of this species on the Tongass; seven on the Yakutat Ranger 

District, one on the Wrangell Ranger District and one in the Admiralty National 

Monument.

Moonwort fern, no common 

name 

(Botrychium yaaxudakeit)

Wrangell St. Elias Range to Glacier bay, southwest across Canada to Alberta, 

with disjunct alpine populations in Montana, Oregon and California. Across its 

range, this fern grows on upper beach meadows, beach dunes, coastal 

outwash plains, abandoned fields and roadsides. There are 11 known 

occurrences in Alaska (ANHP 2015), including five occurrences in beach 

meadows on the Yakutat Ranger District.

Macoun’s thistle

(Cirsium edule var. macounii)

This plant ranges from southern Southeast Alaska, disjunct to southern British 

Columbia, to the North Cascades and Olympics of Washington and northern 

Oregon. It grows in moist to dry open meadows, open forests in the upper 

montane to lower alpine zone, on scree slopes and talus slopes, and along 

glacial streams and lakeshores. There are 2 known occurrences of Macoun’s 

thistle on the Tongass, both on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. 

Mountain lady’s slipper 

(Cypripedium montanum)

This orchid ranges from California north to British Columbia and east to the 

Rockies of Alberta, Idaho, and Montana. In Alaska it is known from Glacier 

Bay, the Haines area and Etolin Island. Habitat includes upper beach 

meadows, areas along the beach-forest ecotone, open forests, muskegs, and 

wet meadows. It is often found on calcareous substrates. There is one known 

population on the Tongass; on the Wrangell Ranger District.

Large yellow lady’s slipper

(Cypripedium parviflorum var. 

pubescens)

This plant’s range is discontinuous and extends across boreal North America 

and south to Montana. On the Tongass, this orchid grows in peatlands on 

calcareous substrates (USDA Forest Service 2015e). There are two known 

occurrences of large yellow lady’s slipper on the Tongass, both on northern 

Prince of Wales Island.

Calder’s lovage 

(Ligusticum calderi)

This plant is endemic to coastal British Columbia and Southeast Alaska and is 

known from Vancouver Island north through the southern part of the Tongass 

(Dall and Prince of Wales Islands). Habitat includes alpine and subalpine 

meadows, boggy slopes, open mixed conifer forests, and rocky areas. There 

are 24 known occurrences on the Tongass; 23 on the Craig Ranger District and 

one on the Thorne Bay Ranger District. 

Lichen, no common name

(Lobaria amplissima)

In North America, this lichen is known primarily from Alaska, although one 

occurrence has been documented from California.There are 30 known 

occurrences on the Tongass. This lichen grows on trunks and main branches of 

Sitka spruce, Pacific crab apple (Malus fusca), and western hemlock in oldgrowth beach fringe forest (Dillman 2004 as cited in Goldstein et al. 2009). 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-148 Final EIS

Table 3.7-1 (continued)

2009 Alaska Region Sensitive Plants Known or Suspected to Occur on the Tongass 

National Forest1 

Common Name

(Scientific Name) Range and Habitat2

Pale poppy 

(Papaver alboroseum)

Pale poppy is distributed from Kamchatka and northern Kurile Islands; across 

the Aleutians to south central Alaska and the east side of the Juneau Icefields 

in north central British Columbia. This plant grows in open, well-drained areas, 

in rocky tundra of ridges and mountain summits, ash and cinder slopes, and in 

sand and gravel of glacial outwash and river floodplains (FNA 2014). 

Occasional disturbance can create or maintain habitat; infrequent (versus 

continuous) disturbances (e.g., stabilized road sides, railroad trackbeds) by 

humans can create habitat (Goldstein et al. 2009). Although suspected to 

occur on the Tongass, there are no known occurrences on the Tongass. This 

plant is no longer listed on the ANHP rare plant list. 

Alaska rein orchid

(Piperia unalascensis)

The range extends disjunctly from Unalaska east to southeastern Alaska, south 

into northern California, along the Sierra Nevadas into Mexico, and south along 

the Rocky Mountains into Utah. There are also disjunct populations in 

Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota and Newfoundland. This plant 

is known from 18 occurrences on the Tongass. Habitat includes dry open sites, 

under tall shrubs in riparian areas, mesic meadows, drier areas in coniferous 

and mixed evergreen forests, and bogs and heath habitat from low to subalpine 

elevations. On the Tongass, this plant generally grows in low-productivity 

forests at lower elevations in poorly drained soils (Dillman 2011a). 

Lesser round-leaved orchid 

(Platanthera orbiculata)

This plant is widely distributed across North America from southeastern Alaska 

disjunctly across boreal and north temperate North America to Tennessee and 

South Carolina. Throughout its range it occurs in a variety of habitats including 

temperate, boreal, deciduous, and wetland forests (Dillman 2008). In Alaska, it 

grows in low elevation forested wetlands, medium to high volume old-growth 

hemlock forests with high bryophyte cover and a red cedar component, forest 

edges or near gaps in shady forests, and near muskegs, open water, or boggy 

areas (Dillman 2008). There are 291 known occurrences, comprising 61 distinct 

populations known on the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2015e).

Kruckeberg’s swordfern

(Polystichum kruckebergii)

This fern's range includes disjunct populations in Southeast Alaska, the 

Cascades and Coast Range of British Columbia, mountains of northern 

California, and the Rockies (centered on Idaho). There are nine known 

occurrences comprising three distinct populations in Southeast Alaska; one 

within a development LUD (Timber Production) on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 

Ranger District, one within a non-development (Wilderness) LUD on the Sitka

Ranger District, and one on non-National Forest lands. Habitat includes 

ultramafic rock outcrops. 

Unalaska mist-maid 

(Romanzoffia unalaschcensis)

This plant ranges from the Aleutian Islands through Prince William Sound, 

disjunct to the Tongass. It grows on ledges and crevices in rock outcrops and

in gravelly areas along stream banks, often along coasts. There are two known

occurrences on the Tongass; both on the Thorne Bay Ranger District. 

Henderson’s checkermallow

(Sidalcea hendersonii)

Endemic to the Pacific Northwest from Oregon to British Columbia with a 

disjunct population in Alaska. This plant’s habitat includes wet meadows, 

estuaries, and tidal flats (Douglas et al. 1999). On the Tongass, the one known 

population grows at the upper edge of an upper beach meadow near the edge 

of a hemlock and spruce forest (USDA Forest Service 2015e). This population 

was located on the Juneau Ranger District; however, during surveys of the site 

conducted in 2013, the occurrence was not located (USDA Forest Service

2015e). 

Dune tansy

(Tanacetum bipinnatum subsp. 

huronense)

This species is distributed disjunctly across boreal and arctic North America 

and disjunctly south along the Pacific coast to California. Habitat for this 

species includes upper beaches, sand dunes, and well drained and calcareous 

soils. There is one known occurrence of this species on the Tongass, on a 

sandy beach of Kruzof Island on the Sitka Ranger District. 1 Sensitive Plant list updated February 2009. 2 Range, habitat, and occurrence information, unless otherwise noted, based on: Goldstein et al. 2009; Nawrocki et al. 2013;

USDA Forest Service 2012; and USDA Forest Service 2014e
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-149 Plants

Under the 2008 Forest Plan rare plants have similar protection in the Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines as sensitive plants. The ANHP Rare Vascular Plant List, 

with global and state rankings, is used as guidance for determining which rare 

plants may be evaluated in the project-level analysis. This list with state and global 

rankings is available online at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plantsspecies-lists/rare-vascular-hulten/#content. Generally, plants with a state ranking of 

S1 (critically imperiled in state) or S2 (imperiled in state) are given consideration 

during project analysis. Plants with a state ranking of S3-5 are sometimes given 

consideration if they are known to be rare in a specific location on the Forest. 

Invasive plants can adversely affect an area either when invasive plants become 

established or when an existing invasive plants spread to occupy a larger area. 

Invasive plants can negatively affect habitat by competing with native plants for 

resources such as water and light, establishing and changing the community 

composition, eliminating or reducing native plants, or by changing the vegetation 

structure. The changes in community composition or vegetation structure can 

reduce native plant populations as well as negatively affect habitat for wildlife and 

fish. Highly invasive plants often have aggressive reproductive methods and can 

successfully compete for resources (Schrader and Hennon 2005). 

In the past, Alaska’s remoteness, cold climates, and relatively low level of human 

disturbance have provided some protection from infestations of invasive plants

(Carlson and Shephard 2007). Compared to the other states, Alaska has a low 

amount of invasive plant infestations, but the amount of invasive plant 

infestations within the state are increasing (Carlson and Shephard 2007; 

Nawrocki et al. 2011; Schrader and Hennon 2005). Not all non-native plants are 

invasive. Executive Order 13112 (1999) defines an “invasive species” as a 

species that is 1) non-native (or alien) to the habitat under consideration, and 2) 

whose purposeful or accidental introduction causes or is likely to cause economic 

or environmental harm or harm to human health. This Executive Order directs all 

federal agencies to address invasive species concerns and refrain from actions 

likely to increase invasive species problems. A considerable body of law and 

policy provide direction for managing invasive plants. 

Policy and guidance for managing invasive plants are provided by the Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. The Invasive Species Management Policy 

(Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2900) lists and details the law, regulations, and 

executive orders relating to managing invasive species. It also lays out 

objectives, policy, details responsibilities and lists definitions for managing 

invasive species. In concert with Forest Service policy, the National Strategic 

Framework for Invasive Species Management (USDA Forest Service 2013e) 

provides broad strategic direction for Forest Service’s programs and guides and 

prioritizes invasive species management. The Alaska Region Invasive Plant 

Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2005) (under revision) and the Tongass National 

Forest Invasive Plant Management Plan (Lerum and Krosse 2005) provide 

Regional and Forest guidance. All alternatives would follow Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines regarding invasive species. FSM 2900 and these 

standards and guidelines include direction to review proposed projects to 

determine the risk of introduction or spread of invasive plants and implement 

appropriate mitigation measures. They also include direction to control existing 

invasions and rehabilitate habitats impacted by invasive species.

Although the term invasive plants is used in this document, invasive plants can 

also be referred to as non-native, exotic, noxious, weeds, alien, or invasive alien; 

depending on the context of the term’s use.

Occurrences of invasive plants throughout Alaska are tracked by the Alaska

Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC). The AKEPIC is a 

Invasive Plants
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-150 Final EIS

cooperative project between the Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, the 

National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, University of Alaska, and other 

federal, state, and local agencies. The AKEPIC database maintains a 

georeferenced inventory of Alaska’s invasive plants (AKEPIC 2015). 

Additionally, all invasive plant surveys, invasive plant finds, and treatments are 

entered into the Forest Service’s Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) 

georeferenced invasive species database (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

The invasiveness of non-native plants has been ranked to better assess what 

species could be most problematic in Alaskan ecosystems. Of the 124 (Table 

3.7-2) species of invasive plants on the Tongass, 94 have been given an 

invasiveness ranking (some plants have not yet been ranked). The invasiveness 

ranking is based on analysis of the following four parameters for each species:

• Ecological impact: impact on processes, community structure and 

composition, and other trophic levels. 

• Biological characteristics and dispersal ability: mode of reproduction, 

methods of dispersal, potential to be spread by human activities, competitive 

abilities, and habitat. 

• Ecological amplitude and distribution: United States and global distribution, 

and level of impact in other locations. 

• Feasibility of control: seed bank viability, other methods of reproduction, and 

effort known to be required for control. 

Invasiveness rankings range from 1 to 100 (100 representing the highest 

invasiveness rating) (Carlson et al. 2008). The invasiveness rankings of nonnative plants in Alaska are available online through the ANHP at: 

http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/non-native-plant-species-list/#content

During the past decade, surveys have been conducted for invasive plants along 

most forest highway roads, as well as many trails, trailheads, and other sites of 

recent human activity in Southeast Alaska. Recently, systematic surveys of all 

invasive plants have been initiated in areas of heavier use that are more 

susceptible to invasive plant invasion. The areas of greatest invasive plant 

diversity and extent of invasion have been found around towns and the most 

heavily traveled areas. The areas with the lowest number of species were further 

from population centers or paved roads (Arhangelsky 2005). Schrader and 

Hennon (2005) cited references suggesting that the greatest invasive plant 

diversity and density are in areas of human activity, such as roads, recreational 

areas, industrial, commercial, and industrial development. 

Surveys conducted between 2005 and 2010 documented species occurrences 

but did not accurately map invasive plant infestations. After 2010, this 

information was used to generate an invasive plant map which resulted in on 

overall under-representation of acres infested. Therefore, the current Forest 

Service database (NRIS-INVP) and associated map provides an estimate of the 

extent of infestation, as well as the locations of species observed. Table 3.7-2 

lists the number of invasive plant species known on the Tongass.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-151 Plants

Table 3.7-2

Number of Invasive Plant Species on the Tongass National Forest by 

District

Ranger District Number of Invasive Plant Species

Admiralty National Monument 17

Craig Ranger District 51

Hoonah Ranger District 40

Juneau Ranger District 52

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District 53

Petersburg Ranger District 54

Sitka Ranger District 47

Thorne Bay Ranger District 80

Wrangell Ranger District 45

Yakutat Ranger District 19

Total 124

Source: USDA Forest Service 2016a

Table 3.7-3 is a list of all invasive plants known on the Tongass National Forest 

and their invasiveness ranking. 

Table 3.7-3

Invasive Plants on the Tongass: Number of Occurrences and Invasiveness 

Ranking

Common Name Scientific Name

Number of 

Occurences1

Invasiveness

Ranking2

alfalfa Medicago sativa 1 59

alsike clover Trifolium hybridum 609 57

annual bluegrass Poa annua 956 46

annual canarygrass Phalaris canariensis 1 not ranked

big chickweed; common 

mouse-ear chickweed

Cerastium fontanum

subsp. vulgare; 

Cerastium fontanum

1,560 36

big trefoil Lotus pedunculatus 1 not on list3

bigleaf lupine Lupinus polyphyllus ssp. 

polyphyllus

101 71

birdeye pearlwort Sagina procumbens 29 39

bird's foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus 16 65

Bishop’s goutweed Aegopodium podagraria 2 57

bitter dock Rumex obtusifolius 9 48

black bindweed Polygonum (Fallopia) 

convolvulus

3 50

black medic, hop clover Medicago lupulina 64 48

bladder campion Silene latifolia 1 42

Bohemian knotweed Polygonum (Fallopia) 

bohemicum

3 87

brittlestem hempnettle Galeopsis tetrahit 20 50

bull thistle Cirsium vulgare 45 61

burr medic Medicago minima 2 not ranked

butter and eggs Linaria vulgaris 2 69

Canada bluegrass Poa compressa 73 39

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense 23 76

Canadian horseweed Conyza canadensis 1 not ranked

colonial bentgrass Agrostis capillaris (A. 

tenuis)

59 not ranked

common brassbuttons Cotula coronopifolia 2 42

common chickweed Stellaria media 50 42

common comfrey Symphytum officinale 1 48

common dandelion Taraxacum officinale 1,727 58

common dogmustard Erucastrum gallicum 2 not ranked
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-152 Final EIS

Table 3.7-3 (continued)

Invasive Plants on the Tongass: Number of Occurrences and Invasiveness 

Ranking

Common Name Scientific Name

Number of 

Occurrences1

Invasiveness

Ranking2

common eyebright Euphrasia nemorosa 17 42

common groundsel; old 

man-in-the-spring Senecio vulgaris 9 36

common gypsyweed Veronica officinalis 1 not ranked

common hawkweed Hieracium lachenalii 3 57

common nipplewort Lapsana communis 25 33

common plantain Plantago major var. 

major

2,663 44

common sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella 93 51

common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum 27 52

common tansy Tanacetum vulgare 24 60

common velvetgrass Holcus lanatus 128 56

common wheat Triticum aestivum 1 not ranked

common yarrow

Achillea millefolium

var. millefolium

99 not on list3

creeping bentgrass Agrostis stolonifera 50 not ranked

creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens 738 54

crested wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 1 not ranked

curly dock Rumex crispus 16 48

curlytop knotweed Polygonum lapathifolium 

(Persicaria lapathifolia)

1 47

disc mayweed; 

pineappleweed Matricaria discoidea 104 32

dooryard dock; garden dock Rumex longifolius 4 48

European mountain ash Sorbus aucuparia 5 59

fall dandelion Leontodon autumnalis 3 51

field mustard Brassica rapa 

Brassica rapa var. rapa

45 50

field sowthistle Sonchus arvensis 24 73

fowl bluegrass Poa palustris 720 not on list3

foxtail barley Hordeum jubatum 9 63

garden strawberry Fragaria ananassa 9 not on list3

garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata 2 70

Gerrman chamomile Matricaria recutita 1 not on list3

germander speedwell Veronica chamaedrys 2 not ranked

green bristlegrass Setaria viridis 1 not ranked

hairy cat's ear Hypochoeris radicata 142 44

horseradish Armoracia rusticana 1 not ranked

Italian ryegrass Lolium perenne ssp. 

multiflorum 

21 41

Japanese knotweed Polygonum cuspidatum 

(Fallopia japonica)

14 87

Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis 670 52

lady’s mantle Alchemilla mollis 1 56

lambsquarters Chenopodium album 1 37

lesser burdock Arctium minus 1 49

lesser hawkbit Leontodon taraxacoides 

ssp. taraxacoides (L. hirtus)

1 not ranked

marsh cudweed Gnaphalium palustre 11 not ranked

max chrysanthemum Leucanthemum maximum 5 not ranked

mayweed, stinking chamomile Anthemis cotula 2 41

meadow fescue Schedonorus pratensis 

(Lolium pratense)

9 not ranked

meadow foxtail Alopecurus pratensis 18 52

meadow hawkweed Hieracium caespitosum 10 79

narrowleaf hawksbeard Crepis tectorum 27 56

narrowleaf hawkweed Hieracium umbellatum 9 51

orange hawkweed Hieracium aurantiacum 355 79
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-153 Plants

Table 3.7-3 (continued)

Invasive Plants on the Tongass: Number of Occurrences and Invasiveness 

Ranking

Common Name Scientific Name

Number of 

Occurrences1

Invasiveness

Ranking2

orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata 593 53

oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare 663 61

paleyellow iris Iris pseudacorus 1 66

perennial cornflower Centaurea montana 3 46

perennial rye grass Lolium perenne ssp. 

perenne

141 52

prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola 5 not ranked

prostrate knotweed Polygonum aviculare 1 45

purple foxglove, foxglove Digitalis purpurea 65 51

quackgrass Elymus repens 1 59

Queen Anne's lace Daucus carota 1 not ranked

rampion bellflower Campanula 

rapunculooides

1 64

red clover Trifolium pratense 147 53

red fescue Festuca rubra 2 not on list3

red sandspurry Spergularia rubra 1 34

redtop Agrostis gigantea 338 not ranked

reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 4,138 83

Robert geranium Geranium robertianum 3 67

rough bluegrass Poa trivialis 43 52

rugose rose Rosa rugosa 1 72

scentless mayweed

Tripleurospermum 

perforatum

(T. inodorum)

9 48

scotch broom Cytisis scoparius 2 69

shepherd's purse Capsella bursa-pastoris 5 40

Siberian wildrye Elymus sibiricus 1 53

slender hairgrass Deschampsia elongata 300 35

smooth brome Bromus inermis ssp. 

inermis 5 62

sneezeweed Achillea ptarmica 2 46

spearmint Mentha spicata 2 43

spiny sowthistle Sonchus asper 14 46

splitlip hempnettle Galeopsis bifida 4 50

spotted knapweed

Centaurea stoebe ssp. 

micranthos

(C. biebersteinii)

6 86

sticky chickweed Cerastium glomeratum 1 36

suckling clover Trifolium dubium 3 50

sweet vernalgrass Anthoxanthum odoratum 13 not ranked

tall buttercup Ranunculus acris 14 54

tall fescue

Schedonorus phoenix 

(S. arundinaceus; 

Festuca arundinacea)

620 63

tall oatgrass Arrhenatherum elatius 3 not ranked

tansy ragwort, stinky willie Senecio jacobea 13 63

thyme-leaf speedwell Veronica serpyllifolia 

ssp. serpyllifolia 205 36

timothy Phleum pratense 1,769 54

true forget-me-not Myosotis scorpioides 41 54

wall hawkweed Hieracium murorum 35 not ranked

wall lettuce Mycelis muralis 45 31

water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus 2 49

western dock Rumex aquaticus var. 

fenestratus 4 not on list3
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-154 Final EIS

Table 3.7-3 (continued)

Invasive Plants on the Tongass: Number of Occurrences and Invasiveness 

Ranking

Common Name Scientific Name

Number of 

Occurrences1

Invasiveness

Ranking2

white clover Trifolium repens 2,612 59

wormseed mustard, 

wormseed wallflower

Erysimum 

cheiranthoides 3 not on list3

yellow salsify, goatsbeard Tragopogon dubius 1 50

yellow sweet clover Melilotus officinalis 18 69 1 USDA Forest Service 2016: http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetParent=InvasiveSpecies 2 AKEPIC 2016: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/non-native-plant-species-list/#content 3 Plant not listed on the AKEPIC non-native species list

Environmental Consequences

The alternatives described in Chapter 2 differ in the locations, type, and extent of 

timber harvest. Effects from the proposed alternatives would mainly apply to 

productive old-growth (POG) and young-growth forests. Although there would be 

effects on unproductive forest, non-forest or other vegetation types, these effects 

would be limited since these vegetation types would not be the focus of any 

proposed action. Renewable energy projects and road construction activities 

(construction, reconstruction and maintenance), however, would impact 

unproductive forest, non-forest, and other vegetation types. Impacts to POG and 

young growth are described in the Biodiversity section, and thus will not be 

further discussed, except as relevant to this section.

This section compares effects of the five alternatives on sensitive, rare, and

invasive plants. There would be no effects to threatened or endangered plants 

because none are known on the Tongass.

Sensitive and Rare Plants

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Direct effects of the proposed alternatives on sensitive or rare plants during 

timber harvest would include physical damage by cutting, trampling, or crushing 

them with vehicles, other machinery, foot traffic, or felled trees. Severe impacts 

may cause mortality, or inhibit the vigor and reproductive capability of the plants. 

Construction of new roads and construction of renewable energy projects and 

associated utility lines would also involve temporary and permanent removal of 

vegetation within the path of the road or construction footprint. Additionally, if a 

hydroelectric power project involves creation of a reservoir, inundation would 

result in the removal of vegetation within the inundation zone. These activities

could affect rare and sensitive plants that inhabit the specific habitat found within 

the location of a new road, renewable energy project facility or utility line corridor. 

Roads and utility lines can be constructed in many types of habitat, depending on 

the need for access for forestry activities or energy transmission.

Road reconstruction maintains the original investment and makes the road 

suitable and safe for the intended use and typically involves the rehabilitation of 

the original roadbed. It can include cleaning ditches, replacing drainage 

structures, re-installing bridges, and grading and shaping. The roadbed had 

been created and used (compacted) in the past and, in general, no longer 

supports sensitive or rare plants; however, newly exposed bedrock in unique 

geological areas could create new habitat for some rare and sensitive plants. 

Road maintenance can include reconditioning the original road template, grading 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-155 Plants

the road surface, cleaning roadside ditches, and removing vegetation that may 

encroach upon the road or block vision. Because the maintenance activities 

remain in the existing road prism, these activities would be unlikely to have an 

effect on sensitive or rare plants or their habitat.

Indirect effects to sensitive or rare plants from timber harvest, road construction, 

and construction of renewable energy projects and associated utility lines 

involves alteration of habitat, such as changes in sunlight and moisture 

availability, herbivore or pollinator behavior, soil structure and fertility, vegetation 

structure, fragmentation of habitat, and competition from other native plants as

well as invasive plants. Some indirect effects, such as changes in sunlight or 

moisture, can be beneficial or harmful depending on the effect and the species’

life history. For example, if a plant has habitat requirements of partial sun, then 

increasing the size of a forest opening may benefit that species; however, that 

same opening may be harmful to a plant that requires shade. Activities likely to 

cause indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants include removal or reduction of 

tree canopy, road construction, changes in hydrology associated with road 

construction, reservoir creation or flow diversion, increased competition from 

invasive plants, increased off-road vehicle use, increased access, and increased 

use and associated trampling by recreationists. 

Under all alternatives, a biological evaluation (BE) was conducted for sensitive 

plants for the planning area (Krosse 2016). A BE is also conducted as part of the 

site-specific environmental analysis for individual project proposals. This type of 

sensitive plant review is required to include sufficient detail to determine how any

proposed action may affect each sensitive species. The intensity and scope of 

inventories selected to provide information for effects analysis is required to be 

commensurate with the potential risk of a proposed project to sensitive plant 

species. The review is used to evaluate project-level impacts to sensitive plants 

in order to ensure that proposed project activities do not contribute to population 

or habitat declines that could lead to federal listing or loss of viability in the plan 

area (the Tongass National Forest). In addition, existing Forest-wide standards 

and guidelines would be applied to avoid or minimize impacts to those sensitive 

plants and their habitat.

The Forest-wide standards and guidelines include a provision for reviewing the 

implementation and effectiveness of conservation actions for sensitive plants. 

This review provides information to improve conservation efforts and reduce the 

likelihood of negative effects to sensitive plant species due to management 

actions.

As a part of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, an effects 

analysis may also be conducted for rare plants; however, a formal BE is not 

required. All alternatives would continue to follow the current Forest-wide

standards and guidelines for rare plants.

Effects Specific to Each Alternative

Impacts to sensitive and rare plant species from timber harvest, road 

construction, and renewable energy development, as well as species specific 

impacts to the 16 sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur on the 

Tongass under each alternative are discussed in the sections below. 

Approximately 126 plants listed on the ANHP Rare Vascular Plant List have been 

documented on the Tongass; because of the large number of rare plants, 

species specific impacts to rare plants are not discussed in this document, but if, 

during project planning, they are known or suspected within the project area, they 

would be evaluated. 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-156 Final EIS

Timber Harvest and Road Construction

In general, alternatives with fewer acres of timber harvest and miles of road 

construction would have less risk of direct and indirect adverse effects to 

sensitive and rare plants. Alternatives with more acres proposed for harvest and 

miles of road construction would have more risk of adverse effects. Other 

activities related to timber harvest, such as log transfer facility (LTF) construction, 

would increase with elevated timber harvests. 

Table 3.7-4 displays the maximum acres of timber harvest and miles of road 

construction that would occur under each alternative after 100 years. Based on 

the proposed maximum acres of timber harvest and miles of road construction for 

each alternative (Table 3.7-4), Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a higher risk of 

direct and indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants due to harvest and road 

work than the other alternatives. Alternative 1 would result in the least amount of 

timber harvest (maximum harvest of 272,733 acres over 100 years), but would 

result in the greatest acreage of old-growth timber harvest (Table 3.7-4). 

Alternatives 4 and 5 propose fewer acres of harvest than Alternatives 2 and 3; 

however, Alternatives 4 and 5 would harvest more acres of old growth than either 

Alternatives 2 or 3. 

Alternative 2 would result in the greatest amount of total road construction (new 

and reconstructed roads) and the greatest amount of new road construction, 

followed by Alternatives 3, 5, 1, and 4 (Table 3.7-4). As stated above, new road 

construction has a greater risk of adverse effects to sensitive and rare plants 

than road reconstruction. Increased harvest of POG and new road construction 

could increase the risk of adverse effects to sensitive and rare plant species as 

compared to harvest of young-growth and road reconstruction activities. A 

species distribution is limited to areas that can meet the species-specific physical 

and biological needs. Due to the limited scope of surveys conducted within the 

Tongass, exact distributions of plants and their habitat are unknown. Although it 

is not possible to predict the exact distribution of each species, knowing the 

preferred habitats for sensitive and rare plants can aid in assessing the potential 

risk for each species from timber harvest, road construction, and other activities 

under the proposed alternatives. Therefore, in addition to the number of acres of 

timber harvest and miles of road construction, the locations of these activities 

may increase or decrease the potential risk of adverse effects to sensitive and 

rare plant species.

Table 3.7-4

Maximum Acres of Harvest and Maximum Miles of Road Construction 

by Alternative 

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested after 100 years

Productive Old Growth 62,851 32,609 35,568 42,597 42,479

Young Growth 209,882 335,344 313,216 234,885 284,144

Total Acres 272,733 367,953 348,784 277,482 326,623

Maximum Miles of Road Likely to be Constructed after 100

New Road Construction 944 1,056 1,020 871 994

Road Reconstruction

 Decom. Roadbeds and 

 Road Reconstruction

1,315 1,790 1,696 1,344 1,585

Total Road Work 

(includes reconstruction)

2,259 2,846 2,716 2,216 2,579

Source: Tongass National Forest GIS database
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-157 Plants

Table 3.7-5 below (and Table 3.9-13 in the Biodiversity section) displays the 

acres of projected young-growth and old-growth timber harvest in beach buffer, 

Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), old-growth reserves (OGRs), other nondevelopment land use designations (LUDs), and 2001 Roadless Areas under 

each alternative. Harvest of young growth and old growth would not occur in any 

of these areas under Alternative 1. This represents the current condition from 

the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment. Old-growth harvest would not occur in beach 

buffers, RMAs, OGRs, or other non-development LUDs under any of the other 

alternatives and would only occur in 2001 Roadless Areas under Alternatives 2 

and 3 (Table 3.7-5). Projected harvest of young-growth would be greatest in 

RMAs, OGRs, and other non-development LUDs under Alternative 2. Projected 

harvest of young growth would be greatest in beach buffers and 2001 Roadless 

Areas and second greatest in OGRs and other non-development LUDs under 

Alternative 3. Under Alternative 4, young-growth harvest is only projected to 

occur in beach buffers. Under Alternative 5, young-growth harvest would occur 

in beach buffers, RMAs, and OGRs. Alternative 1 would have the lowest risk of 

potential direct and indirect effects to sensitive and rare plant species found in 

beach buffers, RMAs, OGRs, other non-development LUDs, and 2001 Roadless 

Areas compared to the other alternatives. Alternative 2, followed by Alternative 3,

would have the highest risk of potential direct and indirect effects to sensitive and 

rare plant species found in these habitats compared the other alternatives.

Table 3.7-5 

Projected Harvest of Young Growth1 and Old Growth in Beach Buffers, RMAs, Old-Growth 

Reserves, other Non-Development LUDs, and 2001 Roadless Areas by Alternative

Conservation Strategy 

Component

Estimated Acres of Harvest over 100 Years

Alt 1 Alt 21 Alt 32 Alt 43 Alt 54

YG OG YG OG YG OG YG OG YG OG

Harvest in Beach Buffer 0 0 21,871 0 30,769 0 11,114 0 3,903 0

Harvest in RMA 0 0 26,030 0 0 0 0 0 1,089 0

Harvest In OGRs 0 0 31,640 0 26,186 0 0 0 1,811 0

Harvest in other NonDevelopment LUD 0 0 11,641 0 10,593 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Harvest in 

2001 Roadless Areas 0 0 9,104 2,171 11,809 17,037 0 0 0 0

1 Alt 2 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Clearcutting is permitted in Beach Buffer for first 15 years; thereafter, only Commercial Thinning 

is permitted. Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in RMAs. Clearcutting is permitted in OGRs, Non-Development LUDs, and 

Roadless Areas, unless otherwise restricted. Old Growth - Clearcutting is permitted in Roadless Areas. 2 Alt 3 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in Beach Buffers. Clearcutting is permitted in OGRs, 

Non-Development LUDs, and Roadless Areas, unless otherwise restricted. Old Growth - Clearcutting is permitted in Roadless Areas. 3 Alt 4 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in Beach Buffers. 4 Alt 5 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Group Selection and Commercial Thinning are permitted in Beach Buffers, OGRs, and RMAs for 

first 15 years; thereafter, No Harvest is permitted. 

Renewable Energy Site Development 

Development of renewable energy sites would occur under all alternatives; 

however, Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would include new management direction 

(i.e., plan components) in the Forest Plant that improves flexibility in renewable 

energy development. Alternative 1 would not facilitate the development of 

renewable energy sites to the extent that Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would.

Therefore, these alternatives could result in greater impacts to sensitive and rare 

plant species than Alternative 1 from development of renewable energy sites. 

Under all alternatives; however, renewable energy site development would be 

subject to site-specific environmental analysis under NEPA. 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-158 Final EIS

Species Specific Impacts to Sensitive Plants

Potential effects to the 16 sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur on 

the Tongass National Forest under each of the alternatives are discussed below.

In addition to assessing potential impacts to sensitive species based on locations 

and acres of timber harvest and miles of road construction, potential impacts to 

known occurrences of sensitive plant species can be estimated by looking at the

proportion of occurrences of each sensitive plant species in areas suitable for 

young-growth and old-growth harvest, and the percent of harvest expected in 

each of these suitable areas under each alternative. Table 3.7-6 below displays 

the proportion of known occurrences of the three sensitive species expected to 

be in old-growth or young-growth harvest units after 100 years.

Eschscholtz’s little nightmare (Aphragmus eschscholtzianus):

This species grows within moist mossy areas, seeps, heaths, and scree slopes in 

subalpine and alpine locations, areas where timber harvest and renewable 

energy development would likely not occur. Additionally, very little access to 

timber (i.e., road construction) through its preferred habitat (alpine or subalpine 

areas) would likely occur under any of the alternatives. Although suspected to 

occur on the Tongass, no populations of Eschscholtz’s little nightmare have been

documented; therefore, no known populations of this species would be impacted 

by timber harvest, road construction, or renewable energy development under 

any of the alternatives. If previously undocumented populations of this species 

are located during project surveys, Forest-wide standards and guidelines under 

all alternatives would consider protection to minimize impacts to this species on 

the Tongass. Because this species is not currently documented on the Tongass, 

because it may receive protection from existing Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines, and because there is a very low chance of impacting populations or 

habitat for Eschscholtz’s little nightmare, there is a very low risk that any 

alternative would impact this species.

Spatulate moonwort (Botrychium spathulatum):

Across its range, habitat for this species includes coastal forests, riparian forests, 

stabilized coastal dunes, maritime and upper beach meadows, well-drained open 

areas, limestone, alpine habitats and areas historically disturbed by humans such 

as roadsides. On the Tongass, this species is currently only known from one 

population located on a calcareous, subalpine ridge (USDA Forest Service 

2015e) which would likely not be impacted by timber harvest, road construction, 

or renewable energy and utility line projects under any of the alternatives. 

Additionally, no known occurrences of spatulate moonwort are expected in oldgrowth or young-growth harvest units under any of the alternatives. However, 

due to the small stature of this species and the difficulty of correct identification,

spatulate moonwort has likely been overlooked or misidentified; therefore, it is 

likely that additional populations of this species exist on the Tongass (USDA

Forest Service 2015e). 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-159 Plants

Table 3.7-6

Proportion of Known Occurrences of Sensitive Plant Species with the Potential to be in Old-Growth or Young-Growth Harvest Units 

after 100 Years

Species

Alternative

 1 2 3 4 5

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in OG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in YG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in OG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in YG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in OG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in YG 

Harvest 

Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in OG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in YG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in OG 

Harvest Units

Known 

Occurrences 

Estimated to 

be in YG 

Harvest Units

Lichen, no 

common name

(Lobaria 

amplissima)

0 0 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 0.9 0 0

Alaska rein-orchid 

(Piperia 

unalascensis)

0.6 0 0.3 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0.4 0

Lesser roundleaved orchid

(Plantathera 

orbiculata)

16.1 16.7 8.4 23.2 5.9 23.2 9.3 14.2 8.7 20.1
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-160 Final EIS

Under Alternative 1, timber harvest would not occur in the beach buffer and RMAs, 

two of the preferred habitats where this species may occur. Under Alternatives 2 

and 5, young-growth timber harvest would be allowed in the beach buffer and in 

RMAs suitable for timber production and, under Alternatives 3 and 4, timber harvest 

would be allowed in the beach fringe (Table 3.7-5). Alternatives 2 through 5, 

therefore, would result in increased risk of potential adverse effects to 

undocumented occurrences of spatulate moonwort compared to Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the greatest projected timber harvest in RMAs and 

beach buffers; therefore, they would have a greater risk of potential effects to 

undocumented occurrences of spatulate moonwort from timber harvest than all the 

other alternatives. Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of 

road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, 

these two alternatives would pose a greater risk of potential effects to spatulate 

moonwort from road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to this species if populations are located 

during pre-project surveys. Because spatulate moonwort may receive protection 

from existing Forest-wide standards and guidelines and because there is a very low 

chance of impacting the one known occurrence of this species, there is a low risk 

that any alternative would impact this species. 

Moosewort fern (Botrychium tunux):

Across its range, habitat for moosewort fern includes upper beaches, beach 

meadows, coastal dunes, riparian forests, stream terraces, and river bars. Habitat 

on the Tongass also includes subalpine and alpine rocky slopes (USDA Forest 

Service 2015e). Due to the small stature of this species, it has likely been 

overlooked and there are potentially additional populations on the Tongass National 

Forest (USDA Forest Service 2015e). On the Tongass, eight of the nine known 

occurrences of moosewort fern are found within non-development LUDs, including 

seven occurrences on beach meadows (within non-development LUDs) in the 

Yakutat area. One known occurrence of this species is located within a nonforested area Timber Production LUD on the Wrangell Ranger District. However, no 

known occurrences of moosewort fern are expected in old-growth or young-growth 

harvest units under any of the alternatives. 

Under Alternative 1, timber harvest would not occur in non-development LUDs, or in

beach buffer and RMAs, which are the preferred habitat for this species. While 

access to timber through beaches may be needed under Alternative 1 if new LTFs 

are required, it would be infrequent. Under Alternatives 2 and 5, young-growth 

timber harvest would occur in the beach buffer and RMAs and under Alternatives 3 

and 4 timber harvest would occur in the beach buffer (Table 3.7-5). Therefore, 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in increased risk of potential adverse effects to 

undocumented populations of moosewort fern and its habitat from timber harvest 

compared to Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the greatest projected 

timber harvest in RMAs and beach buffers and; therefore, they would have a greater 

risk of potential adverse effects to moosewort fern from timber harvest than the other 

alternatives. Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of road 

construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, these 

two alternatives would have a greater risk of potential adverse effects to moosewort 

fern from road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives. 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would also facilitate the development of renewable energy 

projects and would allow their development in the beach buffer and RMAs. 

Therefore, Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in increased risk of potential 

adverse effects to moosewort fern and its habitat from renewable energy 

development compared to Alternative 1.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-161 Plants

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to this species if populations are located 

during pre-project surveys. Because moosewort fern may receive protection from 

existing Forest-wide standards and guidelines and because no known occurrences 

of moosewort fern are expected in old-growth or young-growth harvest units under 

any of the alternatives, there is a low chance of impacting known occurrences of this 

species.

Moonwort fern (Botrychium yaaxudakeit)

Habitat for this species includes upper beach meadows, beach dunes, coastal 

outwash plains, and abandoned fields and roadsides. The five occurrences of 

moonwort fern on the Yakutat Ranger District are located in a non-development LUD

(Semi-Remote Recreation). No known occurrences of moonwort fern are expected 

in old-growth or young-growth harvest units under any of the alternatives. 

Under the Alternative 1, timber harvest would not occur in non-development LUDs or 

the beach buffer and RMAs which are the preferred habitat for this species. While 

access to timber through beaches may be needed under Alternative 1 if new LTFs 

are required, it would be infrequent. Therefore, under Alternative 1, there is 

essentially no risk of impact to this species from timber harvest and road 

construction. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, young-growth timber harvest would be 

allowed in the beach buffer which could potentially result in impacts to 

undocumented occurrences of moonwort fern. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the 

greatest projected timber harvest in RMAs and beach buffers (Table 3.7-5). 

Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, these two alternatives 

would result in a greater risk of potential adverse effects to moonwort fern from 

timber harvest and road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives.

Alternatives 2 through 5 would also facilitate the development of renewable energy 

projects and would allow their development in the beach buffer. Therefore, 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in increased risk of potential adverse effects to 

moonwort fern and its habitat from renewable energy development compared to 

Alternative 1.

If populations of this species are located during project surveys, Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider protection to 

minimize adverse impacts to this species. Because no known occurrences of 

moonwort fern would be impacted under any of the alternatives and because this 

species may receive protection from existing Forest-wide standards and guidelines,

there is a low risk that any alternative would impact this species. 

Macoun’s thistle (Cirsium edule var. macounii):

Two occurrences of Macoun’s thistle are known on the Tongass, both on the 

Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District. One occurs in a non-development LUD

(Nonwilderness National Monument) and one occurs in a Development LUD (Timber

Production). The likelihood of adverse effects to this species from timber harvest 

and associated road construction under all alternatives is low because habitat for

this plant includes open meadows, open forests in the upper montane to lower 

alpine zone, scree slopes, and along glacial streams and lakeshores where harvest

typically would not occur. However, access to timber through these types of habitat 

may be needed. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of road 

construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, these 

two alternatives would have a greater risk of potential adverse effects to Macoun’s 

thistle from road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives.

Alternatives 2 through 5 would facilitate the development of renewable energy 

projects; therefore, Alternatives 2 through 5 may result in a slightly increased risk of 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-162 Final EIS

potential adverse effects to Macoun’s thistle and its habitat compared to Alternative 

1. Because this species is not likely to be impacted by timber harvest and because 

protection from the Forest-wide standards and guidelines would consider protection 

to minimize adverse impacts to this species from road construction and 

reconstruction and renewable energy projects under all alternatives, there is a low 

risk that any alternative would impact this species.

Mountain lady’s slipper (Cypripedium montanum):

Within its range, this species is known from a variety of habitats including upper 

beach meadows, areas along the beach-forest ecotone, open forests, muskegs, and 

wet meadows. On the Tongass, this species is currently only known from one 

location on Etolin Island on the Wrangell Ranger District. This population is adjacent 

to an existing road, which is to be reconstructed (USDA Forest Service 2015e). 

Under Alternative 1, timber harvest would not occur in the beach buffer. While 

access to timber through beaches may be needed under Alternative 1 if new LTFs 

are required, this would be infrequent. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, younggrowth timber harvest would be allowed in the beach buffer (Table 3.7-5). Projected 

harvest in the beach buffer would be greatest under Alternatives 2 and 3, followed 

by Alternatives 4 and 5. Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a greater risk of 

potential adverse effects to mountain lady’s slipper than the other alternatives. 

Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, these two alternatives 

would result in a greater risk of potential adverse effects to mountain lady’s slipper

from road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives.

Alternatives 2 through 5 would facilitate the development of renewable energy 

projects and would allow their development in the beach buffer. Therefore, 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in increased risk of potential adverse effects to 

mountain lady’s slipper and its habitat from renewable energy development 

compared to Alternative 1.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to this species if it is located during preproject surveys. However, because only one occurrence of this species is known in 

the plan area, coupled with the potential for some level of impacts to this occurrence

from future timber harvest and road construction, an increased level of risk to this 

species exists under all alternatives.

Large yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens):

Across its range this species is known from scree slopes, rock outcrops, and river 

bluffs and is often associated with open spruce forest and aspen woodlands. On the 

Tongass, this orchid is known from peatlands on calcareous substrates. There are

two known occurrences of large yellow lady’s slipper on the Tongass, both within a 

Timber Production LUD on northern Prince of Wales Island. Although the habitats 

where this species is suspected to occur are not generally vulnerable to timber 

harvest, the known occurrences of this species are located near existing roads

(USDA Forest Service 2015e). 

Based on the limited number and small size of the occurrences on the Tongass and 

existing threats to known occurrences from proposed road construction, additional 

impacts to this species from road construction or renewable energy and utility line 

projects under all alternatives could impact the ability of this species to persist over 

time. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, these two alternatives 

would result in a greater risk of potential adverse effects to large yellow lady’s 

slipper from road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives.

Alternatives 2 through 5 would also facilitate the development of renewable energy 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-163 Plants

projects; therefore, Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in increased risk of 

potential adverse effects to large yellow lady’s slipper and its habitat from renewable 

energy development compared to Alternative 1. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to known occurrences of this species and 

new occurrences of this species located during pre-project surveys. However, due to 

the low numbers of known occurrences of this species in the plan area, coupled with 

the potential for some level of impacts to these occurrences from future road 

construction, an increased level of risk to this species exists under all alternatives. 

Calder’s lovage (Ligusticum calderi):

Habitat for this plant includes alpine and subalpine meadows, boggy slopes, open 

mixed conifer forest, and rocky areas. Twenty-four occurrences of this species have 

been documented on the Tongass, 11 within development LUDs and 13 within nondevelopment LUDs. However, no known occurrences of Calder’s lovage are 

expected in old-growth or young-growth harvest units under any of the alternatives. 

Although the habitats where this species is suspected to occur are not generally 

vulnerable to timber harvest, they may be impacted by road construction activities. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of road construction and reconstruction 

than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, these two alternatives would result in a 

greater risk of potential adverse effects to Calder’s lovage from road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives. Alternatives 2 through 5 would also

facilitate development of renewable energy projects and would allow their 

development in the beach buffer and RMAs. Therefore, Alternatives 2 through 5 

would result in increased risk of potential adverse effects to Calder’s lovage and its 

habitat from renewable energy development compared to Alternative 1. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to the known occurrences of this species

and new occurrences of this species located during pre-project surveys. Because 

habitat for this species is generally not vulnerable to timber harvest and because of 

the relatively low projected impacts from future road construction to the 24 known 

occurrences of this species on the Tongass, a low level of risk to this species exists 

under all alternatives. 

Lichen, no common name (Lobaria amplissima):

In Southeast Alaska, this lichen is only known as an epiphyte on tree trunks and 

branches of the forest/beach ecotone (Dillman 2011b). Forested habitat where this 

species is found tends to be well drained, with old growth Sitka spruce and/or 

western hemlock trees. Known sites of this species are also exposed to the open 

ocean or other large bodies of marine water (e.g., ocean entrances to bays and 

inlets) (Dillman 2011b).

There are 30 documented occurrences of Lobaria amplissima on the Tongass, 5 of 

which are located in development LUDs and 25 of which are located within nondevelopment LUDs. Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, timber harvest would occur in 

OGRs, and under Alternatives 2 and 3 harvest would occur in other nondevelopment LUDs, which would increase the risk of potential adverse effects to 

Lobaria amplissima in these areas as compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. No known

occurrences of this species are expected within old-growth or young-growth harvest

units under Alternative 1 or Alternative 5 (Table 3.7-6). Approximately 0.9 of the 

known occurrences are expected to be within young-growth harvest units under 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 (Table 3.7-6). 

Under Alternative 1, young-growth timber harvest would not occur in the beach 

buffer. While access to timber through beaches may be needed under Alternative 1 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-164 Final EIS

if new LTFs are required, it would be infrequent. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, 

young-growth timber harvest would occur in the beach buffer (Table 3.7-5). 

Alternative 3 would have the greatest projected harvest in the beach buffer, followed 

by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more 

miles of road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-

4); thus, these two alternatives would result in a greater risk of potential adverse 

effects to Lobaria amplissima from timber harvest and road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives. Alternatives 2 through 5 would also 

facilitate the development of renewable energy projects and would allow their 

development in the beach buffer. Therefore, Alternatives 2 through 5 would result in 

increased risk of potential adverse effects to Lobaria amplissima and its habitat from 

renewable energy development compared to Alternative 1. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to known occurrences of this species and 

new occurrences of this species located during pre-project surveys. Because only 

about one of the 30 known occurrences is expected to be within young-growth 

harvest units, there would be a relatively low level of risk to this species under all 

alternatives. 

Pale poppy (Papaver alboroseum):

Although suspected to occur on the Tongass, no populations of pale poppy have 

been documented; therefore, no known populations of this species would be 

impacted under any of the alternatives. This plant occurs in open, well-drained 

areas, recently deglaciated areas, rock outcrops, rocky tundra of ridges and 

mountain summits, sand and gravel of glacial outwash and river floodplains; areas

where timber harvest would not typically occur. While road construction for access 

to timber through this type of habitat may be needed, it is not likely. Alternatives 2 

through 5 would facilitate the development of renewable energy projects, which 

could impact habitat for this species. Therefore Alternatives 2 through 5 would have 

a slightly increased risk of potential adverse effects to pale poppy and its habitat 

from renewable energy development compared to Alternative 1. 

If previously undocumented occurrences of this species are located during project 

surveys, Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider

protection to minimize impacts to this species. Because pale poppy is not currently 

documented on the Tongass, because it may receive protection from the Forestwide standards and guidelines, and because of the very low chance of impacting 

potential habitat, there is a very low risk that any alternative would adversely impact 

this species.

Alaska rein orchid (Piperia unalascensis):

Habitat for Alaska rein orchid includes dry open sites, under tall shrubs in riparian 

zones, mesic meadows, drier areas in coniferous and mixed evergreen forests, and 

bogs and heath habitat from low to subalpine elevations. On the Tongass, this 

species often grows at the ecotone between forested and muskeg habitats and is 

generally found in low productivity forests at lower elevations in poorly drained soils 

(Dillman 2011a). However, some of the forest stands where the species is found 

are managed for timber production (USDA Forest Service 2015e). A few 

occurrences are located in the rights-of-way of forest roads; it is not known if they 

are remnants that have survived the disturbance, or if they have colonized the areas 

due to modification of habitat (USDA Forest Service 2015e). 

There are 18 known occurrences of Alaska rein orchid on the Tongass, 8 of which 

occur in development LUDs and 10 of which occur in non-development LUDs. 

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, timber harvest would occur in OGRs, and under 

Alternatives 2 and 3 harvest would occur in other non-development LUDs, which 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-165 Plants

would increase the risk of potential adverse effects to Alaska rein orchid in these 

areas as compared to Alternatives 1 and 4. Approximately 0.6 of the known 

occurrences of Alaska rein orchid are expected to be within old-growth harvest units 

under Alternative 1, 0.3 occurrences under Alternatives 2 and 4, 0.1 occurrences 

under Alternative 3, and 0.4 occurrences under Alternative 5 (Table 3.7-6). 

Under Alternative 1, young-growth timber harvest would not occur in RMAs, habitat 

preferred by Alaska rein orchid. Under Alternatives 2 and 5, approximately 36,092 

and 882 acres of young-growth timber harvest would occur in RMAs, respectively

(Table 3.7-5). Timber harvest in RMAs would not occur under Alternatives 3 and 4. 

Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 5 would result in greater potential risk to Alaska rein 

orchid from young-growth timber harvest in RMAs than the other alternatives. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more miles of road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4); thus, these two alternatives 

would result in a greater risk of potential adverse effects to Alaska rein orchid from 

and road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives. 

Development of renewable energy projects would be facilitated under Alternatives 2 

through 5 and these alternatives would allow their development in RMAs; resulting in 

an increased risk of potential adverse effects to Alaska rein orchid and its habitat 

under these alternatives compared to Alternative 1. Considering all factors, 

Alternative 2 would have the greatest potential risk of adverse effects to Alake rein 

orchid.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to known occurrences of this species and 

new occurrences of this species located during pre-project surveys. Because only a

portion of one of the 18 known occurrences of this species is expected to be within 

old-growth harvest units, there would be a relatively low level of risk to this species 

under all alternatives. 

Lesser round-leaved orchid (Platanthera orbiculata):

Habitat for lesser round-leaved orchid on the Tongass includes mesic areas of 

coniferous forests, forested wetlands, old-growth hemlock forests with high 

bryophyte cover and a red cedar component, and along the edges of forest near 

muskegs, open water, or boggy areas. There are 291 known occurrences of this 

species currently located at least partially on NFS land. Of these occurrences, 205 

are located within development LUDs. These occurrences have recently been 

condensed into 61 distinct populations by the Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

(Fulkerson 2015 in progress). Of the total area occupied by the 61 known 

populations, 44 percent is located within non-development LUDs and 56 percent is 

located within development LUDs (USDA Forest Service 2015e). A recent pilot 

monitoring study of population trends for lesser round-leaved orchid on Prince of 

Wales Island suggested a potential 57 percent decrease in population density of 

observed plants over the two-year monitoring period (USDA Forest Service 2015e), 

indicating a possible concern about the long-term persistence of this species on this 

portion of the Tongass. However, the sample size of the pilot study was small 

resulting in high variation among sample plots and the monitoring was focused on 

known locations in only a portion of the Forest. Therefore, inferences regarding 

downward trends may only apply to populations on the portion of Prince of Wales 

Island where monitoring has occurred and should not be used to make accurate 

inferences to this species’ viability across the Tongass. Additionally, factors related 

to a potential downward trend are uncertain and may include a number of variables, 

such as this species’ inherent periodic dormancy, requirement for specific 

mycorrhizal symbiont, and herbivory, in addition to management actions such as 

timber harvest and road construction. Additional details on the pilot monitoring and 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-166 Final EIS

the status of lesser round-leaved orchid can be found in the Plants BE (Krosse 

2016). 

The proportion of known occurrences expected to be within old-growth harvest units 

under each alternative includes 16.1 occurrences under Alternative 1, 8.4 

occurrences under Alternative 2, 5.9 occurrences under Alternative 3, 9.3

occurrences under Alternative 4, and 8.7 occurrences under Alternative 5 (Table

3.7-6). The number of occurrences expected to be within young-growth harvest

units under each alternative includes 16.7 occurrences under Alternative 1, 23.2

occurrences under Alternatives 2 and 3, 14.2 occurrences under Alternative 4, and 

20.1 occurrences under Alternative 5 (Table 3.7-6). Therefore, Alternative 2 has the 

potential to impact a greater proportion of the known occurrences of lesser roundleaved orchid than the other alternatives.

Under Alternatives 1 and 4, young-growth harvest would be restricted in nondevelopment LUDs (Table 3.7-5). Additionally, fewer acres of timber and fewer 

miles of road are expected to be harvested and constructed under Alternatives 1

and 4 than under the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4). Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 would 

allow young-growth timber harvest in old-growth reserves and Alternatives 2 and 3 

would also allow young-growth timber harvest in other non-development LUDs

(Table 3.7-5). Additionally, acres of timber harvest and miles of road construction 

would be greatest under Alternative 2, followed by Alternative 3; therefore, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in greater risk of potential adverse effects to lesser 

round-leaved orchid from timber harvest and road construction than the other 

alternatives.

Alternatives 2 through 5 would facilitate the development of renewable energy 

projects to a greater extent than Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternatives 2 through 5 

would have a greater risk of potential adverse effects to lesser round-leaved orchid

and its habitat from renewable energy development compared to Alternative 1. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to known occurrences of this species and 

new occurrences of this species located during project surveys. Because, at the 

most, out of the 291 distinct occurrences on the Tongass approximately 16 known 

occurrences are expected to be within old-growth harvest units, and another 23 

known occurrences are expected to be within young-growth harvest units, there 

would be a relatively low level of risk to this species under all alternatives. 

Additional details on the assessment of impacts to lesser round-leaved orchid is 

provided in the Plants BE (Krosse 2016).

Kruckeberg’s swordfern (Polystichum kruckebergii):

There are nine known occurrences of Kruckeberg’s swordfern comprising three 

distinct populations in Southeast Alaska, one within a development LUD (Timber

Production) on the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, one within a nondevelopment (Wilderness) LUD on the Sitka Ranger District, and one on non-NFS

land. On the Tongass, habitat for this species includes talus slopes and ultramafic 

rock outcrops, areas where timber harvest, road construction, and renewable energy 

development would not likely occur. While access to timber through this species’ 

habitat may occur, it is not likely. No known occurrences of Kruckeberg’s swordfern 

are expected in old-growth or young-growth harvest units under any of the 

alternatives.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to known occurrences of this species and 

new occurrences of this species located during project surveys. Because 

Kruckeberg’s swordfern may receive protection from existing Forest-wide standards 

and guidelines and because there is a very low chance of impacting occurrences or 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-167 Plants

habitat for this species, there is a low risk of adverse impacts to this species under 

all alternatives.

Unalaska mist-maid (Romanzoffia unalaschcensis):

The plant grows on ledges and crevices within rock outcrops, in gravelly areas along 

stream banks, often along the coast; areas where timber harvest would likely not 

occur. Neither of the known occurrences of this species are expected in old-growth 

or young-growth harvest units under any of the alternatives. Habitat for this species; 

however, could potentially be impacted by road construction and renewable energy 

projects. 

Both of the two known occurrences of Unalaska mist-maid on the Tongass occur 

within non-development (Special Interest Area) LUDs on the Thorne Bay Ranger 

District. Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5, young-growth timber harvest would not 

occur in non-development LUDs (Table 3.7-5) whereas, under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

young-growth timber harvest would be allowed in non-development LUDs.

Timber harvest would not occur in RMAs (preferred habitat for this species) under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4; whereas, Alternatives 2 and 5 would allow approximately 

36,092 and 882 acres of young-growth harvest in RMAs, respectively (Table 3.7-5). 

Alternatives 2 would also result in more miles of road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-4). Alternative 2, therefore, 

would result in a greater risk of adverse impacts to this species compared to the 

other alternatives

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to known occurrences of this species and 

new occurrences of this species located during project surveys. Because Unalaska 

mist-maid may receive protection from existing Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines and because there is a low chance that any of the known occurrences will 

be associated with old-growth or young-growth timber harvest or other proposed 

activities in the future, there is a low risk that any alternative would adversely affect 

this species. 

Henderson’s checkermallow (Sidalcea hendersonii):

Potential habitat for this species includes wet meadows, estuaries, and tidal flats in 

the lowland zone (Douglas et al. 1999). There is one known occurrence of 

Henderson’s checkermallow on the Tongass; within a non-development (Semiremote Recreation) LUD on the Juneau Ranger District. This occurrence, which is

located in an upper beach meadow at the edge of hemlock and spruce forest on 

Howard Bay, could not be relocated during surveys in 2012 (USDA Forest Service

2015e). This occurrence is not expected to be located in old-growth or younggrowth harvest units under any of the alternatives.

Under Alternative 1, timber harvest would be restricted in the beach buffer, which is 

the preferred habitat for this species. While access to timber through beaches may 

be needed under Alternative 1 if new LTFs are required, this would be infrequent. 

Therefore, under Alternative 1, there is essentially no risk of adverse impacts to 

Henderson’s checkermallow. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, young-growth timber 

harvest would occur in the beach buffer which could potentially result in impacts to 

undocumented occurrences of Henderson’s checkermallow or its habitat. Projected 

timber harvest in beach buffers would be highest under Alternatives 2 and 3; 

therefore, these two alternatives would result in a greater risk of potential adverse 

impacts to undocumented occurrences of this species and its habitat than the other 

alternatives (Table 3.7-5). Additionally, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more 

miles of road construction and reconstruction than the other alternatives (Table 3.7-

4); thus, these two alternatives would result in a greater risk of potential adverse 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-168 Final EIS

effects to Henderson’s checkermallow from and road construction and 

reconstruction than the other alternatives.

Alternatives 2 through 5 would facilitate the development of renewable energy

projects and would allow development of renewable energy projects in the beach 

buffer. Therefore, Alternatives 2 through 5 would have a greater risk of potential 

adverse effects to Henderson’s checkermallow and its habitat from renewable 

energy development compared to Alternative 1. 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to the known occurrence and new 

occurrences of this species located during project surveys. Because Henderson’s 

checkermallow may receive protection from existing Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines and because no known occurrences of this species would be impacted 

under any of the alternatives, there is a low risk that any alternative would adversely 

impact this species.

Dune tansy (Tanacetum bipinnatum ssp. huronense):

There is only one known occurrence of this species on the Tongass, located within a 

Development LUD (Modified Landscape) on the Sitka Ranger District. This 

population has been declining due to habitat loss from beach erosion (USDA Forest 

Service 2015e). Habitat for dune tansy includes upper beaches and sand dunes on 

well-drained and calcareous soils, areas where timber harvest activities would not 

likely occur; and the one known occurrence of dune tansy is not expected in oldgrowth or young-growth harvest units under any of the alternatives. Access to 

timber harvest units through beaches or sand dunes may be needed for new LTFs; 

however, this need would be infrequent. If dune tansy is located during project 

surveys, Forest-wide standards and guidelines under all alternatives would consider 

protection to minimize adverse impacts to this species. Because of the possible 

protection from the Forest-wide standards and guidelines, and the very low chance 

of impacting the one known occurrence or unknown occurrences of this species or 

its habitat, there is a low risk that any alternative would adversely affect this species.

Invasive Plants

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Ground disturbance associated with timber harvest, road construction, renewable 

energy development, and other management activities on the Forest provides an 

opportunity for invasive plant introduction or expansion. Introduction and spread of 

invasive plants are potential direct effects of timber harvest, road construction, or 

renewable energy project development and operation, because these activities 

disturb soil and/or remove existing vegetation, providing openings for invasive plants 

to establish or spread. Additionally, movement of equipment and personnel can also 

provide opportunities for transport of invasive plant seeds or propagules into new 

areas. Indirect effects can include the establishment or spread of invasive plants 

through the use of roads after harvest for recreation or during road maintenance. 

Similarly, construction and maintenance of energy and utility line projects and 

associated road construction, maintenance, and use increases the risk of invasive 

species spread and colonization. The impacts of invasive plant spread and 

colonization can often spread beyond the area of disturbance.

Effects Specific to Each Alternative

All of the alternatives include timber harvest and road construction activities, which

could directly and indirectly increase the number and spread of invasive plants. 

Increased disturbance increases the risk of establishment or spread of invasive 

plants. The effects would vary between alternatives depending on the level of 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-169 Plants

disturbance due to timber harvest, new roads construction and development of 

renewable energy projects. 

Because of the difficulty in estimating the amount of disturbance that will be caused 

by each alternative, a relative estimate of total acres of timber harvest and miles of 

road construction is used to compare each alternative’s potential for establishment 

and spread of invasive plants. However, it should be noted that the acres of timber 

harvest in either old-growth or young-growth harvest units is many times greater 

than the soil disturbance that would a result from these activities. Contrary to timber 

harvest, road construction is a direct source of soil disturbance; therefore, total miles 

of road construction may be interpreted as a relatively accurate account of the level 

of soil disturbance created as a result of this activity.

The acres of harvest and miles of road included in each alternative are shown in 

Table 3.7-4. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have a higher risk of introduction and 

spread of invasive plants due to the greater maximum acres of timber harvest and 

miles of road construction that would occur under these alternatives as compared to 

the other alternatives. Alternative 1 would result in the lowest risk of introduction 

and spread of invasive plants from timber harvest and road construction and 

Alternatives 4 and 5 would be intermediate; their risk would likely fall in the midrange when compared to the other alternatives. 

The proposed Renewable Energy plan components, under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 

5, would facilitate development of renewable energy projects, which would result in 

an increased risk of introduction and spread of invasive plants compared to 

Alternative 1. However, procedures to prevent and control the spread of invasive 

would be included in each of the projects (described in more detail below under 

Cumulative Effects).

Sensitive and Rare Plants

When considering effects to sensitive and rare plants, it is important to look at the 

cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities on 

all land ownerships within the geographic area. Each land ownership has 

differences in vegetation patterns primarily as a result of differences in management 

activities. The significance of any direct or indirect effect in contributing to the 

cumulative effects on sensitive and rare plants from management activities depend 

on the amount and type of disturbance in the cumulative effects analysis area and 

how that disturbance may affect known locations of sensitive and rare plants.

Appendix C provides a full list of all the projects considered in the cumulative effects 

analysis. 

Assessing cumulative effects to sensitive and rare plants will be done for individual 

projects as part of the NEPA process for the relevant analysis area. For this 

analysis past plus expected harvest and road construction for forestry and other 

uses and development of renewable energy projects and associated utility lines on 

all land ownerships within the Forest boundary can be used to compare the risk that

each alternative would add to cumulative effects on both sensitive and rare plants.

Timber harvesting on state, municipal, and private land is governed by the Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Act (AS 41.17). Alaska Forest Resources and 

Practices Regulations (ADNR 2013) do not address threatened, endangered, or rare 

plants; however, they do recommend minimizing road construction and limiting

disturbance in marshes and muskegs, which would provide some protection for 

some of the sensitive and rare plants. 

There are no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered plants that are 

known to occur or are likely to occur on the Tongass National Forest; therefore, 

Cumulative 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-170 Final EIS

there would be no contribution to cumulative effects to threatened or endangered 

plants under any of the alternatives. 

To compare the potential cumulative effects of harvest under the five alternatives on 

sensitive or rare plants, harvest on lands of all ownerships in Southeast Alaska was 

analyzed. Therefore, all lands in Southeast Alaska constitute the cumulative effects 

analysis area for sensitive and rare plants. 

There are approximately 21.6 million acres of land in Southeast Alaska. Non-NFS

lands comprise about 4.8 million acres or 22 percent of the 21.6 million acres in 

Southeast Alaska; Glacier Bay National Park consists of about 2.5 million acres. 

Approximately 30 percent of the lands in Southeast Alaska were originally POG. 

Approximately 14 percent of the POG on all ownerships had been harvested by 

2015. Thus, approximately 86 percent of the original POG on all ownerships was 

remaining in 2015 (Table 3.7-7). Looking at all ownerships of land in the Forest, the 

POG forest remaining in 100 years under full implementation of the Forest Plan 

would be the same for all alternatives at 83 percent (Table 3.7-7). Therefore, the 

risk of cumulative effects to sensitive or rare plants due to harvest would be similar 

for all alternatives. Table 3.9-16 in the Biodiversity section shows a similar relative 

risk among the alternatives for cumulative effects by Biogeographic Province.

Table 3.7-7

Cumulative Percent of Original POG Remaining on All Ownerships in 

2015 and Estimated Minimum Percent Remaining after 100+ Years1 for 

All Lands within the Tongass Forest Boundary2

Remaining POG on All 

Ownerships in 2015 as a 

Percent of all Original POG

Remaining POG after 100+ Years as a Percent of 

Original POG3

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

86% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan for project timber sale quantity levels plus future nonNFS harvest. 2 Annette Island is included because it is surrounded by areas within the Forest boundary. 3 Note that 3⁄4 of the POG reduction is on private and state lands. 

 Source: Tongass National Forest GIS database.

Existing road density is greater on the non-NFS lands within the Tongass National 

Forest boundaries than on the NFS lands due to concentrated harvest and more 

populated areas. It averages 0.20 mile per square mile on NFS lands and 2.32

miles per square mile for the non-NFS lands. The average for lands of all 

ownerships is 0.34 mile per square mile; however, those are averages over a very 

large area and there is great variability. The range of road density by subwatershed

shows large variability across the Tongass as seen in Table 3.4-5 in the Water

section (percentage of subwatersheds by road density category for the Tongass). 

All subwatersheds have road densities of less than 4 miles per square mile under 

existing conditions.

Table 3.7-8 shows the average future road density for each alternative. It includes 

existing roads and forestry as well as other roads proposed for construction on NFS 

lands and reasonably foreseeable on non-NFS lands. All the alternatives would 

have similar maximum road densities. Therefore, all alternatives have similar risks

that management actions would add to cumulative effects to sensitive or rare plants. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-171 Plants

Table 3.7-8

Existing and Estimated Future Maximum Road Density (miles per square 

mile) for NFS Lands and for All Ownerships within the Forest Boundary 

by Alternative after 100+ Years1

Alternative

Land Ownership Existing 1 2 3 4 5

National Forest Land 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23

All Ownerships 0.34 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 1 Assumes 100+ years of Forest Plan implementation plus future non-NFS harvest. 

 Source: Tongass National Forest GIS database

There are other activities that have occurred in the past and are reasonably 

foreseeable to occur in the future that have the potential to add to cumulative effects

to rare and sensitive plants in regional and local areas. They include mineral 

extraction, energy and utility line projects, hydroelectric projects, transportation 

developments, and urban and recreational site development. Existing mining is at 

Greens Creek on Admiralty Island, Kensington Gold Mine north of Juneau, as well 

as other existing locations. Potential future mining sites include the Bokan Mountain 

and Niblack sites on the southern end of Prince Wales Island. There are also 

several regional transportation projects and regional energy and utility line projects 

planned for construction, including the Kake to Petersburg Transmission Line Intertie 

Project, regional transportation development defined in the Southeast Alaska 

Transportation Plan and Forest Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation 

Plan, road paving on Prince of Wales Island, and construction of the Angoon Airport. 

Urban and recreational site development includes the growth in the cruise ship and 

guiding industries, development of fishing lodges, other lodges, recreational cabins, 

and expansion of cities. Existing and foreseeable renewable energy projects within 

the Tongass National Forest boundary include the potential geothermal 

development at Bell Island, potential hydroelectric development at Angoon, 

Sweetheart Lake, and Soule River, and expansion of the Swan Lake hydroelectric 

project. 

Each of the activities described above could include clearing vegetation and 

disturbing habitat for construction and maintenance; therefore, they have the 

potential to affect sensitive and rare plants and their habitat. These impacts would 

be considered in project analysis.

Changes in Alaska’s climate (discussed in the Climate and Air section of this 

chapter) could affect the hydrology and other habitat conditions where sensitive and 

rare plants occur. While the models do not fully agree on the climate change 

predictions for Southeast Alaska, they generally predict warmer weather with 

increased rainfall, and a decrease of snowfall. Recent research by Shanley et al. 

(2015) predicted an increase in mean annual temperature of approximately 3 to 10 

degrees Fahrenheit, a 3 to 18 percent increase in mean annual precipitation, and a 

22 to 58 percent decrease in snowfall by the 2080s (Shanley et al. 2014). These 

changes would likely result in lower soil moisture due to increased evaporation 

during warmer summer months. Also, a precipitation shift from snow to rain could 

lead to more water running off the landscape rather than being stored as snow and 

feeding streams and wetlands in the late spring and summer, thus increasing

evaporation and reducing water storage. These factors could lead to drier streams, 

meadows, and wetlands. 

Changes in temperature and hydrologic conditions would likely favor some plants 

and stress others. There has been little research into the effects of changes in 

environmental conditions for each of the sensitive and rare species; consequently, 
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-172 Final EIS

there is uncertainty as to the effect of changes in the climate on sensitive and rare 

plant species known or suspected to occur on the Tongass.

Invasive Plants

Invasive plants on any land ownership in Southeast Alaska can affect establishment 

or spread of invasive plants on NFS lands and vice versa. Also, activities on land of 

any ownership can result in establishment or spread of invasive plants that affect 

other lands. As mentioned in the direct and indirect effects, activities can have wider 

effects on invasive plant spread than the specific area of land disturbance due to the 

interconnectedness of land. 

As discussed above, differences in vegetation patterns primarily as a result of 

differences in harvest intensity are expected to vary between public and private land 

ownerships. The cumulative effects of invasive plants from management activities 

of all land ownerships across the Tongass National Forest would depend on factors 

such as the following:

• Amount of harvest and road building;

• Location and size of renewable energy projects and associated facilities);

• Existence and extent of invasive plants at the time of project implementation;

• Overall habitat alteration due to invasive plants expected as a result of past, 

present, and foreseeable projects; and

• Anticipated response of invasive plants to the proposed actions and any 

management considerations or mitigation and monitoring that will be applied to 

each project. 

Past, present, and future harvest and road construction for harvest and other 

purposes on both private and public lands can be used to compare the risk of 

cumulative effects of the five alternatives on invasive plant introduction or spread. 

Table 3.7-8 shows the existing road density and maximum future road density for 

each alternative for all land ownerships and for NFS lands. The maximum future 

road density for all alternatives is similar, with Alternative 2 having just slightly less 

maximum road density after 100 years than the other alternatives.

As discussed under cumulative effects for sensitive and rare plants, there are fewer 

restrictions on timber activities on non-NFS lands than on NFS lands. Timber

activities on non-NFS lands that can contribute to the introduction or spread of 

invasive plants are not specifically regulated by the State of Alaska. To compare the 

risk of effects of harvest under the five alternatives on invasive plants, POG 

remaining on land of all ownerships was analyzed. Looking at all ownerships of land 

in the Forest, the POG (unharvested) forest remaining in 100 years under full 

implementation of the Forest Plan would be greatest for Alternative 4 and 5 (83 

percent). Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have slightly less POG forest remaining (82 

percent) in 100 years under full implementation (Table 3.7-7). Therefore, the risk of 

cumulative effects on the introduction and spread of invasive plants would be slightly 

higher for Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 than Alternatives 4 and 5. 

There are other activities that have occurred and are reasonably foreseeable to 

occur in the future that have the potential to add to cumulative effects of invasive 

plants. They include mineral activities, renewable energy and utility line projects, 

hydroelectric projects, transportation developments, and urban and recreational site 

development (see above for list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

projects). Each of these activities can include clearing vegetation, construction, 

transportation for construction and ongoing activities, and maintenance. Therefore, 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-173 Plants

they have the potential to introduce or spread invasive plants in an area and would 

need to be considered in the project analysis.

Changes in Southeast Alaska’s climate (discussed in the Climate and Air section of 

this chapter) could also create the conditions that encourage the spread of invasive 

plants by altering opportunities for invasive plants to colonize new areas, where

could be compounded by climate change. Changing climate may also result in 

range extensions for some species that are native at more southerly latitudes, and 

they may become established or become more widespread on the Tongass, as a 

result. Changes in growing conditions would likely favor some plant species and 

stress others. There is uncertainty in the effect of changes in the climate to the 

invasive plants on the Tongass.

With any of the action alternatives, applying mitigation measures in the form of 

Forest-wide standards and guidelines as well as ongoing invasive plant control and 

management programs will contribute to lessening the cumulative effects of invasive 

plants across Southeast Alaska.

Currently, the Forest uses mitigation measures for invasive plant prevention during 

implementation of management actions. Examples of these types of mitigation 

measures include vehicle and equipment cleaning in certain locations; use of weedfree forage and gravel; minimizing the removal of overstory trees and shrubs to 

decrease sunlight and soil disturbance; revegetation practices using non-invasive 

seed and plant materials; and timing considerations for road maintenance schedules 

to avoid potential spread of invasive plants during seed emergence. These 

mitigation measures are considered through a risk assessment for all proposed 

activities from timber sale and transportation planning and maintenance programs, 

to renewable energy development, and recreation and wilderness management. 

Invasive plant control and management include multiple strategies depending on the 

invasiveness of the species, its location, and its aerial extent. Strategies such as 

eradication, containment, and control will be applied to existing and new infestations 

of invasive plants throughout the Forest for those areas where their presence 

threatens the ecological integrity or desired condition of the sites they occupy. A 

strategy of tolerance will equally be applied for other infestations which do not 

threaten the ecological integrity of habitats. A variety of control measures may be 

implemented for the eradication or control of infestations using a variety of treatment 

options, including manual, mechanical and chemical control (e.g., herbicides). All 

treatments will be evaluated through proper environmental analysis.

As stated above, FSM 2900 and Forest-wide standards and guidelines regarding 

invasive plant species include direction to review proposed projects to determine the 

risk of introduction or spread of invasive plants and implement appropriate projectspecific mitigation measures. They also include direction to control existing 

invasions and rehabilitate habitats impacted by invasive species. Specific policies 

and directions for invasive plant management outlined in FSM 2900 include: 

• Initiate, coordinate, and sustain actions to prevent, control, and eliminate priority 

infestations of invasive species using an integrated pest management 

approach1;

 1 Integrated pest management is an ecologically based holistic strategy that focuses on the long-term 

prevention of pests or their damage by managing the ecosystem. Integrated pest management 

techniques are defined within four broad categories: 1) biological, 2) cultural, 3) mechanical/physical, and 

4) chemical.
3 Environment and Effects

Plants 3-174 Final EIS

• Determine factors that favor establishment and spread of invasive species on 

NFS lands and design management practices to reduce or mitigate the risk of 

introduction or spread of invasive species;

• Determine the risk of introduction, establishment, or spread of invasive species 

associated with any proposed action and provide for alternatives or mitigation 

measures to reduce or eliminate that risk;

• Ensure that management activities are designed to minimize or eliminate the 

possibility or spread of invasive species on NFS lands or adjacent areas and 

ensure that invasive species are not used in any management activities on NFS 

lands such as site restoration or revegetation work or watershed rehabilitation 

projects.

• Establish and implement standards and requirements for vehicle and equipment 

cleaning to prevent spread of invasive species on NFS lands and adjacent lands

and make every effort to ensure that all materials used on NFS lands are free of 

invasive species and/or noxious weeds; 

• Monitor all management activities for the potential spread or establishment of 

invasive species.

• Develop and utilize site-based and species-based risk assessments to prioritize 

management of invasive species infestations;

Additional directives associated with integrated pest management are provided in 

FSM 2070 (Native Plant Material Policy) and FSM 2150 (Pesticide Use Management

and Coordination Policy). FSM 2070 promotes the use of native plant materials and 

restricts the use of non-native species for revegetation, rehabilitation, and 

restoration. FSM 2150 provides direction regarding the use of pesticides and 

herbicides, including direction to: prepare a site-specific or project-specific analysis 

prior to pesticide use which includes an assessment of chemicals to be used and 

evaluation of potential effects to target and non-target species. In addition, a

Pesticide-Use Proposal must be completed and reviewed prior to any pesticide 

application activity planned on NFS lands. FSM 2150 policy also includes directives 

to conduct all pesticide-use activities in full compliance with applicable U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency pesticide label restrictions and applicable federal 

and state laws and regulations, including regulations that apply to personnel training 

and licensing.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-175 Forest Health

Forest Health

Affected Environment......................................................................................3-175

Current Situation..........................................................................................3-175

Monitoring and Pest Management ..............................................................3-178

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................3-179

Direct and Indirect Effects ...........................................................................3-179

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-180

Affected Environment

Insects, diseases, related decay processes, and windthrow are an integral and 

natural part of forest ecosystems. Many of these appear to play key roles in gaplevel disturbance (see discussion of old-growth forests in the Biodiversity section 

of this chapter) and in providing wildlife habitat. The majority of the forests on the 

Tongass are old-growth forests. Losses to the timber resource caused by heart 

rot in live trees are considerable in old-growth forests. Approximately one-third of 

the volume of the old-growth hemlock-spruce forests in Southeast Alaska is 

decayed by heart rot fungi (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2014).

In addition to heart rot, some of the more common destructive insects, diseases,

and conditions within Southeast Alaska are listed below.

Black-Headed Budworm, Acleris gloverana (Walsingham), is one of the more 

destructive forest insects in coastal Southeast Alaska. In 1993, a peak year for 

budworm, approximately 258,000 acres of spruce-hemlock forests were affected. 

This was the largest outbreak in decades. In the 1950s, almost one-third of the 

net timber volume was lost on many hemlock sites due to budworm defoliation

(USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2000). In 2006, Black-headed budworm 

populations were at endemic levels, with less than 1,000 acres of mapped 

defoliation in the previous 3 years (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2007). The 

2014 aerial survey indicates little impact of this insect in Southeast Alaska

(USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2015). Larval feeding strips hemlock foliage 

and can cause growth reduction, top-kill, and, at times, tree mortality (USDA 

Forest Service and ADNR 2000). Juday et al. (1998) rated many potential 

impacts on the coastal forests of Southeast Alaska due to climate change. They 

concluded that there was a high risk of increased damage from black-headed 

budworm outbreaks. 

Hemlock Sawfly, Neodiprion tsugae (Middleton), is a serious defoliator of 

western hemlock throughout Southeast Alaska. Outbreaks tend to be of longer 

duration in southern Southeast Alaska where widespread damage is usually 

confined to the area south of Frederick Sound, especially along Clarence Strait. 

Larvae feed on mature (older) needles rather than current year (new) foliage. 

Most sawfly outbreaks do not cause tree mortality, but the tops are killed in some 

trees and tree growth may be reduced. Heavy defoliation by hemlock sawflies is 

known to reduce radial growth and cause top kill. In 2014, 3,940 acres of 

hemlock sawfly defoliation were detected (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 

2015). At two locations, Etolin and Revillagigedo Islands, damage was detected 

in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Consecutive infestations are notable because they 

may cause mortality in hemlock stands. 

Spruce Beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby), is the most destructive forest 

insect Alaska-wide, although outbreaks in Southeast Alaska are typically smaller 

and of shorter duration than those in south/central and interior Alaska. Most 

Current 

Situation
3 Environment and Effects

Forest Health 3-176 Final EIS

outbreaks originate in blowdown or in cull logs left in harvest units and spread to 

adjacent standing timber. Mortality in unmanaged Sitka spruce stands varies 

and can be as high as 75 percent. Weather conditions appear to play a role in 

the expansion or contraction of beetle populations, and warm winters increase 

the probability of a spruce beetle infestation in southeast Alaska (Bentz et al.

2010). Spruce beetle activity has been noted across the Tongass National 

Forest and adjacent lands from Yakutat Forelands to Dall Island (USDA Forest 

Service and ADNR 2000). Spruce beetle activity in 2014 was concentrated on 

Kupreanof Island, and northwest of Haines. These two areas account for 

approximately 1,680 acres of mapped spruce beetle outbreak, though other small 

patches of activity were mapped throughout Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest 

Service and ADNR 2015).

Spruce Needle Aphid, Elatobium abietinum (Walker), is an introduced species

that feeds on the needles of Sitka spruce, often causing reduced growth and 

increasing susceptibility to other mortality agents such as spruce beetle. As with 

other insect pests, populations have cycles, generally increasing following mild 

winters. More than 25,000 acres of spruce forest were defoliated in the winter of 

1991 to 1992 (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2000). An outbreak that began 

in 1998 lasted several years with the worst defoliation occurring in 2003 when 

more than 30,000 acres were affected. Defoliation by spruce aphids affected 

approximately 9,120 acres in 2006, mostly in small pockets within the beach 

fringe from Lynn Canal in the north to Dall Island in the south (USDA Forest 

Service and ADNR 2007). A large outbreak occurred in 2010, with 40,680 acres 

affected (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2011). The most recent aerial survey 

indicates limited spruce aphid activity, with 425 acres of damage detected near 

Haines (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2015). 

Hemlock Dwarf Mistletoe, Arceuthobium tsugense (Rosendhal, G. N. Jones), is 

a parasitic flowering plant that infects western hemlock throughout Southeast 

Alaska as far north as Haines. Infestation levels vary—dwarf mistletoe is absent 

in some stands, while almost every hemlock is infected in other stands. The 

upper elevational limit for Hemlock dwarf mistletoe is approximately 500 feet 

(Shaw and Hennon 1991). Basal area growth in western hemlock trees heavily 

infected with dwarf mistletoe can be reduced by 36 percent or more (Shaw et al.

2008). In addition to reduced stem growth, infestations cause increased growth 

and retention of lower branches and distortion and weakening of wood strength 

at and near swellings. The spread of dwarf-mistletoe in young hemlock stands 

can result from leaving standing infected hemlock in harvest units (Laurent

1974). Dwarf mistletoe responds to light with increased seed production. Rates 

of spread to adjacent and lower canopy trees may increase in partial cuts where

infected hemlocks remain. Trummer et al. (1998) developed a model for dwarf 

mistletoe infections in uneven-aged forests of Southeast Alaska that suggests 

infection rates are significantly correlated with levels of dwarf mistletoe infection 

in the residual trees. Deal (2001) reports partial cutting resulted in maintaining 

mistletoe levels at generally undamaging levels, with a trend towards less 

mistletoe in stands with higher harvest levels. A study of partial cut stands in 

British Columbia found that most young trees infected with mistletoe were 

advanced regeneration established before logging (Muir 2006). Barrett et al.

(2012) note that dwarf mistletoe is limited in several ways by cold temperatures, 

and habitat may increase over time under warming conditions. Climate models 

predict substantial increase in dwarf mistletoe habitat (374% to 757%) in the next 

century (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2015).

Alaska Yellow-Cedar. Decline and mortality of yellow-cedar continues to be 

one of the most widespread and important forest problems in Southeast Alaska. 

Aerial surveys have mapped over 585,000 acres of decline in a wide band from 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-177 Forest Health

western Chichagof and Baranof Islands to the Ketchikan area (USDA Forest 

Service and ADNR 2015). In 2014, approximately 20,000 acres of dying (i.e.,

active decline) yellow-cedar trees were mapped (USDA Forest Service and 

ADNR 2015). This decline is associated with wet, poorly drained sites, and 

recent research has demonstrated that no organism is the primary cause of the

decline (Hennon and Shaw 1997). Schaberg et al. (2011) assert that yellowcedars have roots that are both less cold tolerant and more concentrated near 

the soil surface than co-occurring species, making them especially susceptible to 

cold injury. Hennon and Shaw suggest that reduced snow pack in low-elevation 

areas associated with a warming trend that started in the 1800s has exposed fine 

surface roots to freezing, which in turn kills trees. As the climate continues to 

warm, cedar decline is likely to continue to spread, especially in the south and 

east. Conversely, yellow-cedar appears to be spreading northward as climate 

warms, into areas that retain snow longer into the spring.

Hemlock Fluting. Hemlocks with fluting have deeply incised grooves and ridges 

extending vertically along their trunks, a condition that reduces the value of 

hemlock logs because they yield less sawlog volume and some of the milled 

wood contains bark. Fluting is a common problem in Southeast Alaska, 

especially on mid- to high-quality sites at low elevations, on gradual slopes, and 

with western exposure (Julin et al. 1993). It is rarely found away from the coast. 

The cause of fluting is not completely understood, but it may be associated with 

increased wind firmness, especially on shallow soils, due to growth increases 

triggered by silvicultural treatments or natural disturbance (USDA Forest Service 

and ADNR 2014). Julin et al. (1993) found that the larger buttresses were 

generally aligned with the direction of the tree lean. They also concluded that 

western hemlock trees in Southeast Alaska may be genetically predisposed to 

form fluted trunks. Silvicultural treatments that favor other species and reduce 

branch size and retention period would greatly reduce fluting (Julin et al. 1993).

However, because fluting primarily occurs in the beach buffer, the effect on 

timber resources is limited.

Decays. Stem decays cause substantial loss in all tree species in unmanaged 

stands. Tree death and stem breakage resulting from decay contribute to the 

structural diversity in stands and may be a major factor in small-scale 

disturbance in Southeast Alaska (Hennon and McClellan 2003). Many decay 

fungi enter through tree wounds. The accidental wounding of trees during partial 

cuts and commercial thinnings can increase the impact from decay organisms in 

managed stands (USDA Forest Service 1997a, Appendix G). However, 

Christensen et al. (2002) found very low levels of disease-caused defects in both 

thinned and unthinned 90-year-old hemlock-Sitka spruce stands on the Tongass 

compared to old-growth forests. Juday et al. (1998) rated many potential impacts 

on the coastal forests of Southeast Alaska due to climate change. They 

concluded that there is a risk that new fungal tree diseases will appear in 

Southeast Alaska as the climate warms. 

Animal Damage. Significant animal damage to trees is apparent at various 

locations across the Tongass National Forest. Porcupine feeding on hemlock and 

spruce is common on Mitkof Island and many mainland areas. Young trees in 

managed and unmanaged stands are often top-killed or killed outright as 

porcupine feeding girdles the main bole. Bark beetles have been found infesting 

damaged trees. This damage becomes significant when groups of trees are killed 

or deformed. As trees grow larger (age 40 to 50 years), porcupine damage shifts 

from top kill to basal wounds, which serve as entry points for decay fungi. Brown 

bears cause basal wounds on Alaska yellow-cedar each spring on Baranof and 

Chichagof Islands. Bears rip off the bark in the spring to lick the sweet cambium. 
3 Environment and Effects

Forest Health 3-178 Final EIS

The majority of yellow-cedar in some stands have basal wounds from bear 

feeding (USDA Forest Service and ADNR 2015).

Fire. Fire has played a minor role in the forests of Southeast Alaska because of 

the abundant year-round precipitation. The average fire size on the Forest from

2006 to 2014 was 5.2 acres (Alaska Interagency Coordination Center 2015).

More active fire seasons do occur, 2005 for example, when 322 acres burned.

Recent General Circulation Model data indicate the area will see increased 

temperatures in coming decades. However, increased rainfall is predicted as 

well. These conditions will likely offset, and the impact of fire on resources on the 

Tongass National Forest is likely to remain low.

Windthrow. Windthrow is the dominant disturbance agent in Southeast Alaska. 

Two forms occur: small-scale events (gap disturbance) and large-scale events 

(catastrophic disturbance). Most of the Forest is subject to small-scale 

windthrow events. Individual trees or small groups of trees blow over during 

storm events, opening gaps in the canopy that allow young trees to grow to fill 

the openings. This results in complex, mixed-aged stands. Disease and decay 

agents also play a role in this process. Nowacki and Kramer (1998) state that 

diseased trees are more at risk to windthrow and stem-snap, while Hennon and 

McClellan (2003) report that many of the uprooted or broken-stemmed trees had 

died before falling. Small-scale events occur on a regular basis and result in 

openings from 6 to 13 percent on the canopy (Nowacki and Krammer 1998). 

Areas not protected by topographic barriers from the severe effects of infrequent, 

major storms are subject to large-scale windthrow events that cause catastrophic 

damage. Entire stands have been blown down in the past, resulting in the 

regeneration of more even-aged stands with more uniform canopies (Nowacki 

and Krammer 1998). Both forms of windthrow are a part of the natural forest 

generation, growth, and development. Juday et al. (1998) rated many potential 

impacts on the coastal forests of Southeast Alaska due to climate change. They 

concluded that there was a high risk of increased large-scale blowdown across 

Southeast Alaska as well as increased windthrow around harvest units.

Forest pest activity on the Tongass National Forest is typically detected during 

on-the-ground activities, or during annual aerial surveys conducted by the 

region’s Forest Pest Management group. The timing of surveys coincides with 

foliage and pest development. Pest activity noted during surveys is documented 

and reported to the appropriate land manager. In cooperation with land 

managers, Forest Pest Management people conduct on-site investigations to 

verify the pest, evaluate the pest and its host(s), and formulate future 

management alternatives. Often, pest and host monitoring is required to fully 

understand potential impacts prior to development of management alternatives.

Populations of historically significant defoliating insects are monitored through a 

sampling system that occurs in conjunction with the annual aerial survey. 

Defoliating larvae are collected, identified, and counted at designated sites. 

Gypsy moth pheromone traps have been placed throughout Southeast Alaska to 

provide an early warning that these insects are present. Data from larvae counts 

and pheromone traps, in conjunction with the collection of host and weather 

information, enhance forest pest managers’ ability to predict defoliator damage.

The impact of hemlock dwarf-mistletoe and methods of reducing damage from 

the disease in managed stands have been established by several research 

studies. In addition, Forest Pest Management has surveyed numerous evenaged stands from 10 to 100 years old to determine the incidence and impact of 

hemlock dwarf-mistletoe in managed stands.

Monitoring 

and Pest 

Management
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-179 Forest Health

Research studies have yielded information on the pathology and epidemiology of 

decline of yellow-cedar (cited above). In addition, information on the distribution 

of decline and acreage affected has been determined by mapping during aerial 

surveys. Porcupine damage in managed stands is currently being assessed. As 

more young-growth stands reach commercial thinning age, forest pest research 

is beginning to focus on pest activity within these stands. 

The Forest develops site-specific prescriptions, based on monitoring information, 

scientific information, and pest management projections, to prevent or limit insect 

and disease damage. The objective is to limit infestations of natural insects, 

disease-causing organisms, and parasites to normal background levels, and to 

prevent or reduce infestations of non-native organisms to the extent feasible. 

Similarly, the Forest objective is to limit windthrow to levels that would occur 

naturally through silvicultural prescriptions prepared for each timber sale.

Environmental Consequences

In general, alternatives that favor high amounts of old-growth harvest would likely 

reduce timber lost to insect and disease. Alternatives that favor a shift toward 

decreased old-growth harvest and increased harvest of young stands would tend 

to perpetuate current disease levels in old-growth forests, but ecological 

processes and wildlife habitat for old-growth associated species would be 

maximized. Higher amounts of timber harvest would generally yield young 

stands with lower levels of insect and disease activity. However, two-aged and 

uneven-aged management could maintain or even increase levels of hemlock 

dwarf mistletoe. Two-aged and uneven-aged management may also result in 

higher levels of stem and root disease caused by injuring residual trees during 

harvest operations; however, the degree of increase, if any, is uncertain. Twoaged treatments that clump leave trees are less likely to cause damage to 

residual trees. Similarly, thinning young, even-aged stands may also lead to 

stem and root disease due to wounding of leave trees during thinning, although a 

retrospective study did not find that thinning had increased defect levels in 

thinned stands on the Tongass compared to unmanaged stands (Deal et al. 

2002), and Christensen et al. (2002) did not find higher levels of decay in two 90-

year-old stands that had been commercially thinned 25 years earlier compared to 

unthinned stands. 

Alternative 1 has over 20,000 more acres of old growth likely to be harvested

over the next 100 years than Alternatives 4 and 5, and approximately 27,000 to 

30,000 more acres likely for old-growth harvest than Alternatives 2 and 3. 

Therefore, over time, Alternative 1 and, to a lesser extent, Alternatives 4 and 5

are likely to result in more acres with a lower risk of insect activity and somewhat 

less forest with high levels of heart rot and other disease organisms than the 

other alternatives. Conversely, Alternatives 2 and 3 would retain more acres of 

old-growth forest, which would likely result in somewhat higher levels of insect

and disease across the Tongass. There is some concern that two-aged and 

uneven-aged harvest could lead to higher levels of windthrow, dwarf mistletoe, 

and stem decay compared to even-aged harvest methods. Deal et al. (2002) 

report that the number of uprooted trees was somewhat higher in partially 

harvested stands, but overall tree mortality rates were similar. Bole wounds were

common on trees in partially harvested stands, but “natural tree injuries from 

falling trees and animal feeding were far more abundant at several sites” (USDA 

Forest Service and ADNR 2002). Alternatives with more two-aged and unevenaged management may favor shade-tolerant species (western hemlock, 

mountain hemlock, and yellow-cedar), while even-aged may result in stands with 

a higher proportion of Sitka spruce. However, retrospective studies indicate that 

Sitka spruce can be maintained in mixed hemlock-Sitka spruce stands over a 

Direct and 

Indirect 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Forest Health 3-180 Final EIS

wide range of cutting intensities if enough Sitka spruce trees are present in the 

stand after harvest (Deal et al. 2002). 

In general, endemic levels of insect and disease activity in mature and 

overmature forests would be allowed to run their course under all alternatives. 

Harvesting flexibility would be maintained to take advantage of timber salvage 

opportunities, particularly for dead and dying yellow-cedar stands. Insect and 

disease suppression may be justified in high-quality, mature to overmature 

stands that cannot be salvaged immediately, or that lie near recreation areas and 

communities where scenic values are high.

Animal damage, such as that from porcupines, is expected to continue and would 

likely be increasingly evident in precommercially thinned stands where 

porcupines are present. Winter feeding by porcupines is known to damage and 

sometimes kill young trees. The Forest has been alternating precommercial 

thinning prescriptions to reduce porcupine damage by favoring cedar and 

deferring thinning in some areas. Bear also damage young trees by removing 

bark to reach the sweet cambium tissue below the bark. Alternatives that result 

in creating more young stands, most notably Alternative 1, would lead to more 

acres of forest that would be vulnerable to animal damage.

Damage from wind would continue to occur; some increase is likely to occur 

along the edges of harvest units and along stream buffers and other legacy trees. 

Alternatives with more old-growth harvest and the associated road building (most 

notably Alternative 1) would tend to increase the risk of harvest- and road-related 

windthrow compared to those with less harvest and road building (Alternatives 2

and 3). If the current climate trend continues and more gale-force wind storms 

occur, blowdown may increase for all alternatives in proportion to the amount of 

harvest.

There may be a short-term increase in fire risk during harvest operations if 

activities are conducted during dry periods. Alternatives with higher levels of 

timber harvest may have a small increase in fire risk compared to alternatives 

with less harvest. Warmer winters are likely to increase insect damage because 

more insects will survive the winter. This could result in more dead and dying 

biomass that would contribute to the available fuels, but if the predicted increases 

in temperatures are paired with increases in precipitation there may be no 

significant increase in fire risk (refer to the Climate and Air sections of this 

chapter).

The greatest potential forest insect and disease problems are likely to be in 

mature and overmature stands where disease levels are high. Tree vigor tends 

to decrease with maturity, causing an increase in susceptibility to insects and 

diseases. Heart rot levels are directly proportional to both tree and stand ages. 

The spruce beetle has the potential to significantly alter the desired condition of 

stands in certain locations near the mainland where the insect has periodically 

become active. The spruce aphid was introduced approximately 80 years ago 

and appears to be causing more damage to spruce as the climate warms 

(Schrader and Hennon 2005). The recent assessment of invasive pathogens in 

Alaska and its national forests states that Alaskan forests are particularly 

vulnerable to invasive pathogens because of the relatively small number of native 

tree species and the narrow genetic base (Schrader and Hennon 2005). The 

Schrader and Hennon report concluded that the European scolytid bark beetle 

poses the greatest threat to the spruce forests throughout Alaska if introduced. 

Stem and root decay, and the incidence of hemlock dwarf-mistletoe, have 

historically increased with intensified land management activities, particularly 

under harvesting systems other than clearcutting (Trummer et al. 1998). If the 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-181 Forest Health

current warming trend continues, cedar decline and damage from insects are 

likely to increase, both from species currently present in Southeast Alaska and 

from those entering the area from other parts of North America or elsewhere. 

Invasive plants may also adversely affect forest health. Refer to the Plant

section of this chapter for a discussion of invasive plant species.

Shorter rotations and even-aged silvicultural prescriptions implemented on nonNational Forest System (NFS) lands are likely to contribute to decreasing 

mistletoe, insect, and disease levels in the forests of Southeast Alaska, 

especially the loss due to heart rot. Alternatives with more even-aged 

management, especially Alternative 1, would add to these changes. Conversely, 

increased use of commercial thinning in the may damage leave trees, increasing 

decay rates. Also, the younger stands established after harvest on all lands are 

likely to add to the loss of growth and tree mortality caused by animal damage in 

the region. Harvest-related windthrow may increase on NFS lands and adjacent 

areas that are harvested using even-aged silvicultural systems whether on NFS 

or non-NFS lands. 

Maintaining biotic and structural diversity provides an opportunity for limiting 

some insect and disease problems. Some insects and diseases are 

host-specific, depend upon plants that are under stress, or flourish under 

homogeneous conditions. In other cases, and particularly for heart rot, favoring 

younger-aged stands through even-aged management may be the most effective 

way of limiting insect and disease problems. Maintaining healthy young-growth 

stands through stand density control (thinning) may reduce insect damage 

(Neilson 2007). 

The careful use of alternatives to even-aged harvest methods can be a tool for 

maintaining natural but not excessive levels of diseases, such as heart rot and 

dwarf mistletoe, which have important ecological consequences. Integrated Pest 

Management provides the opportunity to evaluate these and more traditional 

clearcut practices. Through prescription processes, stands with unacceptable 

insect and disease-related losses, as well as those of high risk for future losses, 

would be identified for treatment. Detection methods such as aerial surveys, 

currently in use, would continue to be used for the early identification of epidemics.

The current warming trend increases the risk of increased insect and disease 

outbreaks, and catastrophic blowdown events. Juday et al. (1998) rated many 

potential impacts on the coastal forests of Southeast Alaska due to climate 

change. They concluded that there was a high risk of increased large-scale 

blowdown across Southeast Alaska and increased windthrow around harvest 

units; although, they also state that as of the date of their report, the increased 

frequency of storms in the last few decades has not corresponded to an increase 

in large-scale blowdown in Southeast Alaska. Also, the 2014 Forest Health

report noted very little blowdown in aerial and ground surveys (USDA Forest 

Service and ADNR 2015); however, this does not rule out the risk of increased 

windthrow in the future as additional warming occurs.

Warmer, drier weather may result in increased levels of insect and disease levels. 

For example, Juday et al. (1998) concluded that there was a high risk of increased 

damage from black-headed budworm outbreaks, and there is a risk that new fungal 

tree diseases will appear in Southeast Alaska as the climate warms. 

Appendix C of this EIS provides a full list of all the projects considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis.
3 Environment and Effects

Forest Health 3-182 Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-183 Biodiversity

Biodiversity

Affected Environment...............................................................................3-183

Ecosystem Classification ......................................................................3-183

Cover Types..........................................................................................3-187

Overview of Existing Levels of POG Forest on NFS Lands .................3-195

Landscape Connectivity and Fragmentation ........................................3-198

Tongass Forest Plan Conservation Strategy........................................3-200

Environmental Consequences ................................................................3-203

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Alternatives........................3-203

Direct and Indirect Effects Specific to Each Alternative........................3-208

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-216

Affected Environment

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, may be defined as “the variety of and 

variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes of 

which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and 

of ecosystems” (United Nations Environment Programme 1991). Biodiversity

encompasses the variety of genetic stocks, plant and animal species and 

subspecies, ecosystems, and the ecological processes through which individual 

organisms interact with one another and their environments. Under the National 

Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest must provide for diversity of plant 

and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of specific land 

areas. 

This section provides an overview of the Tongass Conservation Strategy, 

describes the ecosystems on the Tongass National Forest, and provides a

summary of past timber harvest. Landscape connectivity and fragmentation and 

invasive species are also discussed. Additional information on the background of 

the Conservation Strategy and its components is provided in Appendix D.

Southeast Alaska is divided into 23 biogeographic provinces, or ecosystembased landscape delineations characterized by 1) similarities in terrestrial wildlife 

species composition, 2) similarities in distributional patterns for many of these 

species, 3) geologic and water barriers stemming from past events, such as 

glaciation, and 4) generally similar climatic conditions and physiographic 

characteristics (USDA Forest Service 2003a). Biogeographic provinces in 

Southeast Alaska are described in Table 3.9-1 and show in Figure 3.9-1. 

Twenty-one biogeographic provinces coincide with the Tongass National Forest. 

Biogeographic provinces provide an appropriate scale for the analysis of impacts 

to biodiversity because they are ecosystem-based and vary in the level of 

resource development that has taken place and is allowed within them (see the 

Suitable Land maps in the Map Packet accompanying this EIS for the distribution 

of suitable POG and young-growth harvest across the Planning Area). .

Ecosystem 

Classification
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-184 Final EIS

Table 3.9-1

Biogeographic Provinces in Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest

No. Province Description

1. Yakutat

Forelands

A very young, nearly flat landscape with extensive flooding and active isostatic rebound (uplifting of 

the ground after glaciers recede). Most surfaces vary from 200 to 1,500 years old. Dune formation 

and succession are ongoing processes due to glacial rebound and wave action. Plant community 

patterns reflect a diverse mosaic of naturally occurring older and young forests, shrublands, bogs, 

and meadows. Sitka spruce, alder, and cottonwood are abundant on well drained, recently 

deglaciated, and active fluvial surfaces. Most of the province is inside the Tongass Forest boundary, 

but the southern lobe that extends into Glacier Bay National Park is not.

2.

Yakutat/

Glacier Bay 

Upland

The climate varies from very wet hyper-maritime along the coast to very wet maritime inland. 

Mountains abruptly rising more than 10,000 feet from sea level, extensive active glaciers, and fiords 

dominate this landscape. Sitka spruce, alder, and cottonwood are abundant at lower elevations; 

alpine and lichen over rock plant communities dominate the land from 2,000 to over 10,000 feet 

elevation.

3. East Chichagof 

Island

This province is drier and colder than the outer coast of Chichagof Island; the winter snow pack is 

generally greater. Chichagof Island is deeply dissected into three peninsulas, which may be 

functioning biologically more like separate islands. Vegetation in this province represents a modal 

condition similar to the Admiralty Island Province.

4. West Chichagof 

Island

This province is dominated by a very wet hyper-maritime climate and exposure to outer coastal 

storms. Hundreds of small islands dot the coast. Topography is gentle when compared to the 

mountains of Baranof Island and the coastline is highly irregular. The Sitka spruce/Pacific reedgrass 

plant association is abundant along the outermost coastal fringe; otherwise, vegetation is similar to 

the other northern islands.

5. East Baranof 

Island

This province is colder than West Baranof or East Chichagof Island. Mountain glaciers occur along 

the divide between east and west Baranof. Topography is rugged and steep to saltwater, with little 

flat land. Plant associations on East Baranof are similar to much of the mainland due to the steep 

topography and cold environment. Spruce, devil's club, salmonberry forest associations are common 

on avalanche and steep erosional slopes; alpine and rock/lichen plant communities are abundant.

6. West Baranof 

Island

This province is similar to the West Chichagof Island Province with the exception of southern 

Baranof, where precipitation exceeds 250 inches per year. Topographically, Baranof Island is the 

most rugged of all the islands in Southeast Alaska. The southern half of this province is highly 

dissected by steep-sided fiords; the outer coast is dotted with hundreds of small islands. All forest 

plant associations except those in the Western red-cedar series and those found around large 

mainland rivers occur in this province. Kruzof Island has some unique vegetation communities,

which have not been classified.

7. Admiralty 

Island

This province is represented by relatively gentle topography and moderate rainfall. Winter conditions 

are moderated by the surrounding marine environment. Winds from Chatham and Icy Straits, Lynn 

Canal, and off the mainland are often severe. All forest plant associations but those in the Western 

red-cedar series, those found around large mainland rivers, and those occurring only on outer coastal 

areas occur in this province. Forest productivity is high. Fresh and saltwater marshes in the 

numerous bays and inlets, and alpine and bog communities, are abundant.

8. Lynn Canal

Rain shadows and the dominating influence of the continental climate make this the driest and 

seasonally warmest province in Southeast Alaska. Precipitation is generally less than 60 inches per 

year. The topography is rugged and glaciated. The southern portion of the Chilkat Peninsula is more 

similar to the East Chichagof Island Province. Western and mountain hemlock and Sitka spruce 

plant associations are common. Alpine tundra and extensive rock/lichen communities dominate 

much of the land from 2,000 to over 8,000 feet elevation.

9. Northern Coast 

Range

This province has little maritime influence. Topography is rugged and glaciated. The Taku and 

Whiting Rivers extend into Canada. All forest plant associations except those in the Western redcedar series and those occurring only on outer coastal areas occur in this province.

10. Kupreanof/

Mitkof Islands

The climate is cooler and the winter snow pack greater than on the islands to the south. The eastern 

edge of this province is strongly influenced by wind-born loess (silt) coming from the Stikine River 

and the mainland. All forest plant associations except those in the Western red-cedar series and 

those occurring only on outer coastal areas occur in this province. This province contains the highest 

percentage of muskeg wetlands within the Tongass.

11. Kuiu Island

Kuiu Island is deeply dissected, creating several prominent peninsulas. The topography is gentle 

compared to neighboring Baranof Island or the mainland. The climate is cooler and winter snow pack 

greater than on islands to the south, yet milder than the mainland or islands nearer the mainland. 

The western portion of Kuiu Island is subject to severe windstorms from both the ocean and Chatham 

Strait. Most forested plant associations occur here, but those found in outer coastal environments 

dominate.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-185 Biodiversity

Table 3.9-1 (continued)

Biogeographic Provinces in Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest

No. Province Description

12. Central Coast 

Range

This province is warmer than the Northern Coast Range Province. The topography is similar, but overall 

less precipitous. The Stikine River system is located in the center of this province and has a major 

continental influence, providing a migration corridor for plant and animal species. Plant associations 

found along saltwater are similar to those occurring elsewhere in northern Southeast Alaska except for 

those near the mouth of the Stikine River. Here, unique plant associations subject to high loess-carrying 

winds can be found.

13. Etolin Island 

and Vicinity

Similar to the Kupreanof/Mitkof Islands Province, this province is also subject to continental influence 

from the mainland and the Stikine River. Glacial flour (very finely ground particles of rock, silt, or clay 

created by a glacier when its rock-filled ice scrapes over bedrock and which flow out from beneath a 

glacier in the meltwater) is present in the marine environment in the northern part of this province 

nearly year-round. All forest plant associations except those occurring only on outer coast areas are 

present.

14.

North Central 

Prince of Wales 

Island

Topography is relatively gentle, limestone is common, and precipitation is relatively low due to 

interception by lands to the south and southwest. All forest plant associations except those found 

around the mainland river systems occur in this province. Overall forest productivity is high. Karst

topography and numerous caves are present.

15.

Revilla Island/

Cleveland 

Peninsula

Climate is variable with warm and wet conditions predominating on land nearest the outer coast; much 

colder conditions occur near the mainland. Revilla, Gravina, and Annette Islands are influenced by 

human activities and populations, whereas the Cleveland Peninsula and Duke Island are generally in a 

natural condition. Revilla Island has many exceptional estuaries. Muskeg ponds are common on Duke 

Island, attracting many wintering and migratory birds.

16. Southern Outer 

Islands

These islands are isolated and are subject to strong oceanic influences. Temperatures are moderate 

year-round. The topography is low-lying and gentle. These islands are relatively rich in endemic 

vertebrate species, including dusky shrew, long-tailed vole, and ermine. Major coastal seabird colonies 

are present.

17. Dall Island and 

Vicinity

These islands are subject to strong oceanic influences. Temperatures are moderate year-around. The 

topography is rugged and dissected, with abundant limestone outcrops. Dall Island appears to be a 

glacial refugia but inventories of plants and animals are limited. Major coastal seabird colonies are 

present on Dall Island.

18. South Prince of 

Wales Island

The climate is warm and wet, and deep snow is rare or highly transient. The topography is steep and 

rugged and the coastline is highly dissected. The vegetation in this province is strongly influenced by 

southeasterly storms; mixed conifer and western hemlock-red-cedar plant associations dominate.

19. North Misty 

Fiords

Compared to South Misty Fiords, this province has considerable topographic relief and characterized as 

having a colder, mainland-type climate with many glaciers. Vegetation occurs in long, narrow strips 

along the valleys and lower slopes of fiords. Much of the vegetation is muskeg, with cottonwoods in 

some of the river bottoms and subalpine fir along the Canadian border.

20. South Misty 

Fiords

South Misty Fiords is typical of the other mainland provinces and is the warmest. Topographic relief is 

lower in comparison with North Misty. Forest plant associations are more diverse than the other coastal 

provinces, and the vegetation is less fragmented by rock and ice than in North Misty Fiords. The 

southwestern portion of this province is rolling, nearly continuous muskeg with conifer forests in the 

bottoms and flats. This province is the northern limit of Pacific silver fir, yew, and honeysuckle.

21. Ice Fields Permanent ice fields, active glaciers (some advancing and some receding), and nunataks (mountain 

peaks between glaciers) dominate this province.

22. Chilkat River 

Complex

The Chilkat River Complex lies at the northern end of the Inside Passage and is outside the Tongass 

Forest boundary. It consists of tall ridge systems, large glacial rivers, and includes glaciers and 

snowfields. Many of the rivers and drainage basins extend across the international boundary into 

Canada. Because of the overlap of coastal and interior floras and faunas, the province contains 

Alaska’s highest vascular plant species richness and the highest mammalian diversity in Southeast 

Alaska (Carstensen et al. 2007). 

23.

Glacier Bay/

Fairweather 

Range

This is the largest province in Southeast Alaska (2.5 million acres) and is located outside the Tongass 

Forest boundary. The vast majority is high mountains and glaciers and the majority is non-vegetated. 

The highest peaks are in the Fairweather Range along the western edge of the province, with Mt. 

Fairweather at over 15,000 feet. A large flat, foreland, the Gustavus Foreland, occurs in the area 

around Gustavus and to the north in the Bartlett River valley. Lowlands are also fairly extensive along 

the Dundee River and other smaller drainages on the southwest side of Glacier Bay. Glacier Bay 

National Park protects virtually the entire province (97 percent), except for about 75,000 acres in the 

vicinity of Gustavus. 
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-186 Final EIS

Figure 3.9-1

Map of Biogeographic Provinces of Southeast Alaska 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-187 Biodiversity

The vegetation of Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest is 

dominated by temperate coastal rain forests at lower elevations (less than about 

2,000 feet). Interspersed within the forest are muskegs, other wetlands, and 

other non-forest types. At higher elevations, alpine vegetation, rock, glaciers, 

and snowfields dominate. Table 3.9-2 summarizes the breakdown of cover types 

by biogeographic province. Each of these cover types is described in detail 

below.

Approximately 60 percent of the Tongass National Forest consists of forest land

(including harvested acres). Of this, approximately 5.5 million acres are 

considered “productive forest land,” defined as land capable of producing at least 

20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year or having greater than 8,000 board 

feet per acre of standing volume (see the Timber section for additional 

discussion). The remaining acres (about 4.4 million acres) are considered 

unproductive because they do not meet these criteria. Historically, old-growth 

timber harvest and management of young-growth (e.g., thinning) has occurred

only within the productive forest land base.

Productive forest land is then divided into productive old growth (POG) and 

young growth, comprising 30 percent (about 5 million acres) and 3 percent 

(about half million acres) of the Tongass National Forest, respectively. Young

growth includes that resulting from past timber harvest, as well as natural young 

growth (e.g., created by wind, fire, or glacial retreat). 

The remaining 40 percent of the Tongass National Forest (about 6.6 million

acres) is classified as non-forest land and includes shrub and herbaceous 

habitats (e.g., muskeg, alpine, estuaries), sparsely vegetated and non-vegetated 

areas (e.g., snow, rock, ice), and aquatic habitats (e.g., streams, ponds, and 

lakes). 

Cover Types
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-188 Final EIS

Table 3.9-2

Major Cover Types on the Tongass National Forest by Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only)

Biogeographic 

Province

Productive Forest (acres) Unproductive Forest (acres) Non-Forest (acres)

POG3

Younggrowth1,3

Total 

Productive 

Forest

Forested 

Muskeg3

Other 

Unproductive

Forest3

Total 

Unproductive 

Forest Land2,3 Water3

Total NonForest

1 Yakutat Forelands 95,063 40,262 135,325 101,827 25,703 127,530 34,339 7,255 41,595 

2 Yakutat Uplands 44,014 13,242 57,256 5,241 14,807 20,048 818,834 20,009 838,843 

3 East Chichagof 

Island 399,206 47,331 446,537 108,710 203,798 312,507 276,080 6,800 282,880 

4 West Chichagof 

Island 72,643 329 72,972 45,204 82,691 127,895 72,722 8,430 81,152 

5 East Baranof Island 88,668 14,283 102,951 12,198 90,057 102,255 177,699 6,323 184,022 

6 West Baranof 

Island 214,457 17,716 232,173 70,549 193,754 264,303 242,254 19,678 261,931 

7 Admiralty Island 595,432 14,103 609,535 85,110 190,234 275,345 148,513 13,267 161,780 

8 Lynn Canal 157,988 8,320 166,309 20,617 100,240 120,857 349,501 2,803 352,305 

9 North Coast Range 322,684 5,930 328,614 19,697 159,444 179,141 478,694 15,363 494,057 

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 307,752 39,036 346,788 176,592 212,256 388,848 15,478 3,822 19,300 

11 Kuiu Island 291,839 30,934 322,773 44,128 88,402 132,530 19,494 2,571 22,065 

12 Central Coast 

Range 246,153 9,269 255,422 27,199 152,597 179,796 268,001 10,612 278,612 

13 Etolin Island 221,055 41,419 262,474 71,848 130,102 201,950 22,106 4,836 26,941 

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 486,160 170,306 656,466 152,189 270,927 423,116 45,859 21,953 67,812 

15

Revilla 

Island/Cleveland 

Peninsula

 504,827 49,119 553,946 175,045 311,591 486,636 91,126 36,079 127,205 

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 112,035 18,114 130,149 27,148 44,386 71,535 4,926 909 5,835 

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 66,951 1,299 68,249 6,467 26,553 33,020 9,773 2,962 12,735 

18 South Prince of 

Wales 151,074 4,275 155,349 45,287 105,889 151,176 27,438 10,902 38,340 

19 North Misty Fiords 198,210 6,549 204,759 21,227 264,636 285,863 461,818 14,394 476,212 

20 South Misty Fiords 309,132 2,405 311,537 80,097 292,249 372,346 204,948 14,714 219,663 

21 Ice Fields 116,893 10,006 126,899 8,628 171,804 180,432 2,606,398 15,588 2,621,986 

Forest-wide 5,002,255 544,250 5,546,504 1,305,009 3,132,122 4,437,131 6,376,478 239,272 6,615,750 1 Includes 83,000 acres of natural young growth, 422,000 acres of even-aged harvested stands, and about 40,000 acres of partial harvested stands. 

2 Non-forest land classes primarily include alder brush, brush, alpine, ice and snow fields, muskeg meadow, recurrent slide, and rock.

3 Totals may not sum or match exactly to other tables in this section due to rounding.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-189 Biodiversity

Productive Old-Growth Forest

Old-growth forests support biodiversity due to their structural and ecological 

complexity. Franklin (1993) estimated that invertebrate biota, creatures essential 

to ecosystem function through such processes as nitrogen fixation and 

decomposition, may represent more than 90 percent of the species diversity of 

old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. In Southeast Alaska, old-growth 

forests are greater than 150 years old, and are characterized by multiple canopy 

layers; an interspersion of trees of multiple age classes; the presence of snags,

decadent trees, and fallen trees; presence of forbs; and variation in the amounts 

and distribution of live trees (USDA-FS R10-TP-28). These features create 

intricate habitat niches that support many plant and animal species (Spies 2004). 

In Southeast Alaska, old-growth forests have been the focus of past timber 

harvest making them the most susceptible ecosystem to changes caused by 

forest management activities. For these reasons, old-growth forest is described 

in detail below.

Old-Growth Forest Classification

The Size-Density Model (SDM), which uses a combination of tree sizes and tree 

densities to classify forest structure (Caouette and DeGayner 2005), is used by 

the Tongass to map POG and assess impacts to old-growth habitat. This 

classification system builds on the timber volume-based classification system 

(volume strata) for POG used developed prior to the 2008 Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) (low-, medium-, and high-volume strata), which 

used hydric soils and steep slopes as measures of productivity and growth. 

While timber volume may be a good indicator of the overall productivity of a 

forested stand, volume fails to recognize key differences in forest structures. 

Forest structure is important because it reflects the complex spatial and temporal 

interactions between plant growth (e.g., dispersal and competition), 

environmental gradients (e.g., geology, soils, slope, aspect, elevation, and 

climate), and disturbance (e.g., wind and logging) (Caouette and DeGayner 

2005). To move beyond the limitations of timber volume, the SDM was 

developed as a mean to produce a classification system based on forest 

structure. By modeling forest structure patterns using two measurable forest 

attributes: tree sizes and densities, the SDM is more applicable in assessing 

biodiversity, estimating timber values, and describing wildlife habitat than using 

timber volume alone (Caouette and DeGayner 2005). Seven POG types have 

been defined, which were used to develop a hierarchical mapping model for 

predicting tree sizes and densities on the Tongass National Forest. Figure 3.9-2 

presents a description of each of the categories and illustrates the most probable 

forest type based on land form and forest condition. 

POG forest can be further described in terms of two categories which have the 

highest importance from a biodiversity standpoint. High-volume POG is defined 

as the grouping of the three tree size and density classes that represent the 

highest volume strata—SD5S, SD5N, and SD67 types. Large-tree POG is 

defined as the SD67 class, representing the most productive of the POG types, 

and typically containing the highest density of large trees. The 2008 Forest Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) provides more information on the 

development and use of the SDM (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-190 Final EIS

Figure 3.9-2

Tree Size and Density Model used to Describe Forested Conditions across the Tongass National Forest

SD

Class

Land and Forest Condition

Most Probable Forest Type

Tree Sizes and Densities

Most Probable Forest Type 1

Illustration

Most Probable Forest Type

4H

Low productive older forests 

associated with wet, poorly drained 

land types (e.g., muskegs, fens, 

rolling hills, broken mountain 

slopes, plateaus, glacial outwash 

zones). Canopy closure is variable. 

Trees are small, old, and defective. 

Stand volume is low.

Low densities (SDI < 280) of smalldiameter trees (QMD < 17 inches). 

Tree size distribution and spacing is 

variable and patchy. Tree diameters 

greater than 40 inches are generally 

not present.

4N

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.

Low densities (SDI < 280) of medium 

diameter trees (17 < QMD < 21 

inches). Tree size distribution and 

spacing is variable and patchy. Tree 

diameters greater than 40 inches are 

rare.

4S

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.

High densities (SDI > 280) of 

medium-diameter trees (17 < QMD < 

21 inches). Tree size distribution 

and spacing tends to be more 

uniform. Tree diameters greater than 

40 inches are rare.

5H

Moderately productive older forests 

associated with wet, somewhat 

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.

Low densities (SDI < 280) of mediumdiameter trees (17 < QMD < 21 

inches). Tree diameters greater than 

40 inches are somewhat common, 

but not uniformly distributed 

throughout the stand.

5N

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.

Low densities (SDI < 280) of mediumto-large diameter trees (17< QMD < 

21 inches). Tree size distribution 

and spacing is variable and patchy. 

Tree diameters greater than 40 

inches are common, but not uniformly 

distributed throughout the stand.

5S

Highly productive upland forests. 

Stand volume is high. Canopy 

characteristics tend to be uniform, 

with moderate to high canopy 

closures.

High densities (SDI > 280) of 

medium-diameter trees (17 < QMD < 

21 inches). Tree size distribution 

and spacing tends to be uniform. 

Tree diameters greater than 40 

inches are somewhat common, but 

not uniformly distributed throughout 

the stand.

67

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.

Low densities (SDI < 280) of largediameter trees (QMD > 21 inches). 

Tree diameters greater than 40 

inches are common and uniformly 

distributed throughout the stand.

1 SDI=Stand Density Index; QMD=Quadratic Mean Diameter; >=greater than; <=less than
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-191 Biodiversity

Old-Growth Habitat

There are approximately 5 million acres of POG forest on the Tongass National 

Forest. Of this amount, approximately 16 percent is low-volume POG (SD 4H 

type), 42 percent is medium volume POG (SD 4N, 4S, and 5H types), and 42 

percent is high-volume POG (SD 5S, 5N, and 67 types), of which 25 percent is

large-tree POG (SD 67 type; Table 3.9-3). Table 3.9-3 provides the distribution 

of existing POG forest by biogeographic province. The greatest amounts of POG 

forest are located in the Admiralty Island, Revilla Island/Cleveland Peninsula, and 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic provinces. These biogeographic 

provinces also contain the most high-volume POG, but there are also six 

additional biogeographic provinces which each contain over 100,000 acres of 

high-volume POG (Table 3.9-3). Large-tree POG is not as well distributed 

across the Forest, with close to 40 percent concentrated in the North Central 

Prince of Wales and Admiralty Island biogeographic provinces.

Elevation is considered one of the most significant landscape variables 

influencing the distribution and availability of POG forest. Lower elevation stands 

(at or below 800 feet) hold the highest value for many wildlife species because 

they remain relatively accessible during winter (see the Wildlife section for 

additional discussion). Forest-wide, approximately 59 percent of POG forest 

occurs at low elevations (Table 3.9-4).

Table 3.9-3

Distribution of Productive Old-Growth Forest on the Tongass National Forest by 

Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only)

Biogeographic 

Province

POG Type

Total 

POG1

Low Volume Medium Volume High Volume

SD4H SD4N SD4S SD5H SD5N SD5S

SD67 

(Largetree)

1 Yakutat

Forelands 7,236 9,462 17,655 2,027 4,810 9,786 44,086 95,063 

2 Yakutat Uplands 2,818 6,338 19,613 940 2,928 7,955 3,422 44,014 

3 East Chichagof 

Island 62,554 53,403 102,274 22,113 45,303 79,309 34,249 399,206 

4 West Chichagof 

Island 14,370 12,889 24,961 1,942 6,255 10,205 2,021 72,643 

5 East Baranof 

Island 10,238 15,056 28,694 4,581 12,165 15,934 1,999 88,668 

6 West Baranof 

Island 32,287 38,900 80,413 7,190 19,561 32,010 4,095 214,457 

7 Admiralty Island 86,690 53,040 110,609 43,387 64,465 139,659 97,582 595,432 

8 Lynn Canal 21,197 20,584 46,114 9,059 13,009 36,072 11,952 157,988 

9 North Coast 

Range 35,539 38,193 88,207 23,434 42,808 72,156 22,346 322,684 

10 Kupreanof/Mitko

f Island 83,983 32,071 63,614 21,802 30,124 56,570 19,587 307,752 

11 Kuiu Island 42,752 19,502 41,743 24,830 44,565 83,920 34,527 291,839 

12 Central Coast 

Range 30,442 27,179 66,014 12,942 27,058 62,492 20,026 246,153 

13 Etolin Island 49,821 24,777 54,019 11,892 25,011 43,053 12,483 221,055 

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 105,415 26,834 63,175 69,451 42,078 77,283 101,923 486,160 
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-192 Final EIS

Table 3.9-3 (continued)

Distribution of Productive Old-growth Forest on the Tongass National Forest by 

Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only)

Biogeographic 

Province

POG Type

Total 

POG

Low Volume Medium Volume High Volume

SD4H SD4N SD4S SD5H SD5N SD5S

SD67 

(Largetree)

15

Revilla 

Island/Cleveland 

Peninsula

79,213 43,718 94,573 54,625 69,974 130,787 31,937 504,827 

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 17,397 10,290 26,735 9,203 15,613 20,346 12,450 112,035 

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 7,457 5,724 16,801 3,473 10,995 14,580 7,920 66,951 

18 South Prince of 

Wales 25,437 11,198 32,240 10,316 11,043 22,010 38,830 151,074 

19 North Misty 

Fiords 13,543 35,198 78,979 3,858 18,996 34,893 12,743 198,210 

20 South Misty 

Fiords 52,861 40,471 104,917 11,396 29,521 55,878 14,089 309,132 

21 Ice Fields 4,940 21,671 50,563 1,479 10,426 21,939 5,875 116,893 

Forest-wide 786,196 546,500 1,211,915 349,950 546,711 1,026,839 534,143 5,002,255

1 Totals may not sum or match exactly to other tables in this section due to rounding.

Table 3.9-4

Distribution of Old-Growth Forest on the Tongass National Forest by Elevation (NFS 

Lands Only)

Elevation Zone Description

Productive 

Old Growth

Unproductive 

Old Growth

Total Old 

Growth

Less than 800 feet All upland old growth below 800 

feet in elevation

2,931,865 1,975,371 4,907,236 

800 to 1,500 feet All upland old growth between 800 

and 1,500 feet in elevation

1,454,171 1,033,305 2,487,476 

Greater than 1,500 feet All upland old growth more than 

1,500 feet in elevation

616,219 1,428,456 2,044,674 

Total 5,002,255 4,437,131 9,439,386 

Source: Tongass GIS database 2015

Young-Growth Forest

There are approximately 544,000 acres of young-growth forest on the Tongass 

National Forest, of which approximately 84 percent is a result of past timber 

harvest and approximately 15 percent a result of natural processes (e.g., wind, 

fire, glacial retreat). Over 90 percent of the harvested young growth is from 

even-age harvest. Approximately 20 percent of young growth from even-age 

harvest is 25 years old or younger, in the stand initiation stage. Of this age class, 

stands up to about 10 years tend to have high species diversity, in particular their 

shrub layer, which expands as a result of the open canopy after harvest. The 

remaining approximately 80 percent of young growth is older and mostly in the 

stem exclusion stage. This type of stand condition has very low species 

diversity. Some of these older young-growth stands are considered suitable for 

timber harvest, and could help support the Tongass National Forest’s transition 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-193 Biodiversity

to young-growth harvest. See the Timber section for additional discussion on 

young-growth harvest and suitability. Table 3.9-5 shows the distribution of 

young-growth forest across the Tongass National Forest. Approximately 62,000

acres of previously harvested young-growth occur in the beach and estuary 

fringe and an additional 64,000 acres of previously harvested young-growth

occur in Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) (Table 3.9-5). There are also 

approximately 44,000 acres of previously harvested young growth within the Oldgrowth Habitat Land Use Designation (LUD). Management of young-growth 

stands through release, pre-commercial, and commercial thinning has the 

potential to increase biodiversity by concentrating growth in fewer, larger trees 

that, if allowed to grow over time, promote conditions that accelerate natural 

succession in order to achieve old-growth stand characteristics at a faster rate 

than would occur without treatment (Caouette et al. 2000; Carey 2003). Thinning 

also opens the canopy, which allows light needed for understory development to 

penetrate to the forest floor, and increases the amount of understory forage 

available for a variety of wildlife species. Most young-growth stands are precommercially thinned prior to 20 years of age. Commercial thinning may or may 

not occur.

Young-growth on the Tongass National Forest is not suitable under the 2008 

Forest Plan for commercial timber production within Non-Development LUDs or 

within other reserve areas such as the 1,000-foot-wide beach fringe and RMAs. 

While these stands are not managed for timber production, they can be thinned 

to improve habitat quality.

Unproductive Forest

Approximately 27 percent of the Tongass is classified as unproductive forest

(Table 3.9-2). Many unproductive forest stands meet the definition of old growth, 

but the trees are typically small and stunted (under 40 feet in height) and the 

canopy is open (10 to 40 percent canopy closure). Hemlock, cedar, and lodge 

pole pine are the most common trees; blueberry and rusty menzesia are the 

most common shrubs. Near wet bogs or muskegs, many plants in the heath 

family and graminoids (grasses, sedges, and rushes) assume increasing 

dominance. Past disturbance to this habitat type has occurred primarily as a 

result of road construction, which has resulted in some permanent reduction in 

total acres of these unproductive forest types, also classified as forested 

wetlands. This disturbance is discussed further in the Wetlands section. 

Non-Forest Lands

Non-forest ecosystems provide valuable habitat types that include wetland and 

other areas of shrub and herbaceous types (e.g., muskegs, alder and willow 

brush, alpine, estuaries), non-vegetated areas (e.g., snow, rock, ice), and aquatic 

sites (e.g., streams, ponds, and lakes). These habitats contribute greatly to the 

species diversity on the Tongass National Forest by providing a mosaic of habitat 

types throughout the otherwise forest-dominated landscape. They also provide 

unique microsites and openings that contain shrub and herbaceous vegetation 

within forested stands. Approximately 40 percent of the Tongass National Forest 

consists of non-forest lands (Table 3.9-2). A majority of the non-forest land area

consists of rock (30 percent), ice and snow fields (28 percent), and brush (16 

percent); the remaining types each comprise less than 10 percent of the nonforest land area.
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-194 Final EIS

Table 3.9-5

Forest-wide Distribution of Young Growth (NFS Lands Only) 1

Biogeographic Province

Natural 

Young

Growth 

(acres)

Harvested Young Growth (acres)2

Total 

Younggrowth3

(acres)

Harvested 

Young Growth 

in the Beach 

and Estuary 

Fringe4 (acres)

Harvested 

Young Growth 

in RMA4

(acres)

Harvested 

Young Growth 

in Old-growth 

Habitat LUD4

0-25 Years (acres)

26-50 

Years >50 Years

Total 

Harvested 

Younggrowth

1 Yakutat Forelands 36,670 1,213 2,363 24 40,262 40,314 13 116 10 

2 Yakutat Uplands 11,869 708 666 13,242 13,258 - 94 0 

3 East Chichagof 

Island 3,296 9,303 29,180 4,596 47,331 46,456 5,264 10,875 8,041 

4 West Chichagof 

Island 329 0 0 0 329 337 - - - 

5 East Baranof Island 868 2,192 4,799 6,214 14,283 14,117 2,988 2,932 1,667 

6 West Baranof Island 864 6 9,938 6,468 17,716 17,348 2,410 5,302 3,027 

7 Admiralty Island 5,280 457 2,094 3,179 14,103 11,088 3,707 1,065 - 

8 Lynn Canal 2,951 863 4,519 0 8,320 8,338 480 1,937 1,051 

9 North Coast Range 5,253 0 0 459 5,930 5,714 534 76 0 

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 1,652 7,714 23,153 4,329 39,036 36,888 5,735 2,523 3,533 

11 Kuiu Island 3,463 4,236 18,584 2,121 30,934 28,473 3,585 2,918 1,231 

12 Central Coast 

Range 2,750 589 2,324 3,388 9,269 9,054 1,306 1,382 95 

13 Etolin Island 3,403 7,504 23,451 5,352 41,419 39,843 6,874 2,205 3,496 

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 51 33,570 102,636 25,911 170,306 162,363 14,155 21,197 14,619 

15

Revilla 

Island/Cleveland 

Peninsula

555 13,969 15,619 14,067 49,119 44,346 9,336 4,905 3,999 

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 258 2,191 12,007 1,042 18,114 15,525 2,634 1,465 920 

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity - 0 0 285 1,299 285 762 75 4 

18 South Prince of 

Wales - 851 1,689 679 4,275 3,226 1,323 565 569 

19 North Misty Fiords 280 0 1,001 77 6,549 1,357 673 1,629 313 

20 South Misty Fiords - 0 0 0 2,405 0 353 355 - 

21 Ice Fields 3,333 5 4,007 51 10,006 7,395 - 2,457 1,759 

Forest-wide 83,125 85,372 258,029 78,216 421,616 544,250 62,133 64,073 44,333 1 Totals may not sum or match exactly to other tables in this section due to rounding

2 Includes 422,000 acres of stands from even-aged harvest. 3 Includes 83,000 acres of natural young growth, 422,000 acres of managed stands from even-aged harvest, and about 40,000 acres of partial harvested stands. 4 Includes all harvested acres from even-age and partial harvest. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-195 Biodiversity

This section provides a brief overview of past timber harvest on the Tongass 

National Forest. The amount of POG forest is compared to the amount present 

in 1954 prior to large-scale commercial timber harvest. Because management 

activities are most likely to affect productive forest, other habitat types are likely 

to be maintained and will contribute toward overall biodiversity. This analysis 

assumes that the biogeographic provinces with the greatest amounts of POG 

forest remaining will support the highest levels of OG associated species and 

help maintain the biodiversity associated with this habitat type. 

Of the 5.4 million acres of original (1954) POG that occurred on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands on the Tongass National Forest, approximately 92 percent 

remains (Table 3.9-6). Low elevation, larger-tree stands have been 

disproportionately harvested on the Tongass National Forest. These highly 

productive and economical sites (i.e., those easiest to access) were targeted in 

the early years of commercial timber harvest because they tended to be adjacent 

to the beach and within floodplain riparian areas where large Sitka spruce were 

available and abundant. Forest-wide, 84 percent of the original high-volume 

POG and 82 percent of the original large-tree POG remains (Table 3.9-7). The 

greatest amount of timber harvest has occurred in the North Central Prince of 

Wales biogeographic province (74 percent of the total original POG forest 

remaining), followed by Etolin Island, East Baranof, Southern Outer Islands, East 

Chichagof Island and Kupreanof/Mitkof Islands biogeographic provinces (85, 87, 

86, 90, and 89 percent of the original total POG forest remaining, respectively; 

Table 3.9-6). These biogeographic provinces, in addition to West Baranof Island 

biogeographic province, have also had the most harvest of high-volume and 

large-tree POG forest harvested. The Revilla Island/Cleveland Peninsula 

province also ranks among the highest when considering large-tree POG 

harvest. For additional discussion of past harvest on the Tongass, see the 

Timber section and Appendix C.

Overview of 

Existing Levels of 

POG Forest on 

NFS Lands
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-196 Final EIS

Table 3.9-6

Original and Percent Remaining Total POG, High-Volume POG (SD5S, SD5N, SD67) Total and Below 800 feet, and LargeTree POG (SD67) Total and Below 800 feet by Biogeographic Province (NFS Lands Only)

Acres Original POG1/, 2/ % Original POG remaining

Biogeographic Province Total POG

HighVolume 

POG

High-Vol. 

POG 

<800 ft

Largetree POG

Large-tree 

POG 

<800 ft Total POG

High-Vol. 

POG

High-Vol. 

POG 

<800 ft

Large-tree 

POG

Large-tree 

POG 

<800 ft

1 Yakutat Forelands 98,656 61,377 61,240 45,164 45,073 96% 96% 96% 98% 98%

2 Yakutat Uplands 45,387 15,335 14,825 3,834 3,595 97% 93% 93% 89% 89%

3 East Chichagof Island 443,241 191,888 121,364 47,460 35,953 90% 83% 77% 72% 69%

4 West Chichagof Island 72,643 18,480 14,532 2,021 1,916 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 East Baranof Island 102,083 40,159 30,513 6,023 5,492 87% 75% 70% 33% 33%

6 West Baranof Island 231,308 68,304 52,778 9,150 8,611 93% 81% 77% 45% 43%

7 Admiralty Island 604,254 308,323 175,317 100,229 63,447 99% 98% 96% 97% 96%

8 Lynn Canal 163,358 65,061 37,150 13,563 8,901 97% 94% 91% 88% 85%

9 North Coast Range 323,361 137,818 64,615 22,549 13,457 100% 100% 99% 99% 99%

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island

345,136 134,319 83,651 30,802 23,018 89% 79% 73% 64% 61%

11 Kuiu Island 319,310 183,616 127,805 42,768 27,964 91% 89% 86% 81% 74%

12 Central Coast Range 252,672 114,465 69,176 21,982 16,569 97% 96% 93% 91% 89%

13 Etolin Island 259,071 109,059 67,742 23,888 16,224 85% 74% 67% 52% 46%

14 North Central Prince of 

Wales

656,415 348,976 237,337 152,999 113,327 74% 63% 57% 67% 64%

15 Revilla Island/

Cleveland Peninsula

553,391 269,121 139,818 46,506 27,341 91% 86% 81% 69% 62%

16 Southern Outer Islands 129,891 61,801 44,041 17,807 12,997 86% 78% 74% 70% 65%

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 68,249 34,469 22,636 8,310 5,764 98% 97% 96% 95% 94%

18 South Prince of Wales 155,349 75,089 50,954 40,113 29,871 97% 96% 94% 97% 96%

19 North Misty Fiords 204,479 71,334 41,509 14,623 10,816 97% 93% 91% 87% 85%

20 South Misty Fiords 311,537 101,292 62,544 14,811 11,629 99% 98% 98% 95% 96%

21 Ice Fields 123,566 43,245 21,327 7,877 5,604 95% 88% 80% 75% 69%

Forest-wide

 

5,463,379 

 

2,453,537 1,540,877 

 

672,481 487,571 92% 86% 82% 79% 77%

1

Original total POG acreages based on Forest Service GIS layer. To determine amount of high-volume POG, assumed 75% of total past harvest consisted of high-volume POG. To 

determine amount of large-tree POG (SD67 type), assumed 30 percent of total past harvest consisted of large-tree POG. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-197 Biodiversity

An intact, undeveloped landscape is assumed to be fully functional, maintaining 

rare and sensitive species, vegetation communities, and/or systems and their 

supporting ecological processes within their natural ranges of variability (Poiani 

et al. 2000). Thus, the intactness of a landscape is another measure of the 

degree to which biodiversity has been affected by human actions. Intact 

watersheds are defined as those having less than 5 percent of their POG 

harvested, which is consistent with a similar analysis conducted by Audubon 

Alaska and The Nature Conservancy (Albert and Schoen 2007). Based on this 

definition, a Value Comparison Unit (VCU), roughly equivalent to a large 

watershed, with at least 95 percent of the original POG remaining would be 

considered to be intact. VCUs are distinct geographic areas that generally 

encompass a drainage basin containing one or more large stream systems with 

boundaries that typically follow drainage basin divides (USDA Forest Service 

2008a). Of the 947 VCUs on the Tongass National Forest 68 percent are 

considered intact (taking all landownerships into account) and are thus likely to 

maintain a high degree of biodiversity. Forest-wide approximately 12.7 million

acres occur within intact watersheds, or 71 percent of all acreage (Table 3.9-7). 

Although landscapes with higher amounts of past harvest likely remain 

functional, this index represents areas that are in relatively pristine conditions 

and thus have the highest ecological integrity. Two biogeographic provinces

have all VCUs intact (West Chichagoff Island and South Misty Fiords) and 

another two have 90 percent or more (Yakutat Uplands and North Misty Fiords). 

When acreage is considered, 16 of 21 biogeographic provinces have a majority 

(>50 percent) of the acreage within an intact watershed. Table 3.9-7 shows the 

distribution of intact VCUs by biogeographic province. 

Table 3.9-7

Number and Acreage of Existing Intact1 VCUs, Comparable to Large 

Watersheds, on the Tongass National Forest by Biogeographic Province (NFS 

and non-NFS lands)

Biogeographic 

Province

Total number of 

VCUs

Percent of 

Intact 

Watersheds 

(VCUs) 

Approximate 

Total Acreage 

in VCUs

Percent of 

Acreage in 

Intact Large 

Watersheds

1 Yakutat Forelands 24 88% 339,880 84%

2 Yakutat Uplands 26 96% 913,175 99%

3 East Chichagof 

Island 87 53% 1,134,726 49%

4 West Chichagof 

Island 31 100% 283,992 100%

5 East Baranof 

Island 22 55% 394,188 60%

6 West Baranof 

Island 43 65% 795,120 69%

7 Admiralty Island 60 87% 1,087,654 84%

8 Lynn Canal 50 76% 590,146 78%

9 North Coast 

Range 48 88% 911,106 92%

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 35 40% 845,611 42%

11 Kuiu Island 30 73% 465,555 57%

12 Central Coast 

Range 28 86% 550,466 85%

13 Etolin Island 28 32% 519,357 30%

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 117 22% 1,472,299 15%
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-198 Final EIS

Table 3.9-7 (continued)

Number and Acreage of Existing Intact1 VCUs on the Tongass National Forest by 

Biogeographic Province (NFS and non-NFS lands)

Biogeographic 

Province

Total 

number 

of VCUs

Percent of Intact 

Watersheds 

(VCUs) 

Approximate Total 

Acreage in VCUs

Percent of Acreage in 

Intact Large 

Watersheds

15

Revilla Island/

Cleveland 

Peninsula

83 61% 1,262,389 63%

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 20 45% 214,933 57%

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 35 49% 200,936 34%

18 South Prince of 

Wales 36 71% 388,239 70%

19 North Misty Fiords 30 91% 892,125 88%

20 South Misty Fiords 54 100% 907,183 100%

21 Ice Fields 59 89% 2,769,480 90%

Total 947 68% 17,941,713 71% 1 Intact is defined here as those watersheds (VCUs) having less than 5 percent of their POG harvested.

The extent of fragmentation effects must be assessed in the context of an 

organism’s ability to move between patches and the scale at which the organism 

interacts with the landscape (With 1999 as cited in D’eon et al. 2002). For 

example, species with limited dispersal capabilities (i.e., flying squirrel) appear to 

be more sensitive to habitat loss and resulting fragmentation than species with 

greater dispersal capabilities (i.e., goshawks; D’eon et al. 2002). Natural 

fragmentation of habitats can also affect the level of additional fragmentation that 

can be supported. 

The Tongass National Forest is characterized by an inherent level of 

fragmentation due to its island geography. The natural distribution of POG forest 

is also patchy and linear in many areas, as a result of the mosaic condition of our 

landscape created by muskeg, forested wetlands, alpine areas, other 

unproductive forest, and other non-forested habitats. This section provides an 

overview of the concepts of landscape connectivity and fragmentation and 

existing conditions on the Tongass National Forest.

Landscape connectivity has been defined as the degree to which the structure of 

a landscape helps or hinders the movement of wildlife species (Taylor et al. 

1993). A landscape with a high degree of connectivity is one in which wildlife 

and other species can move readily between habitat patches over the long term 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a). On the Tongass, connectivity between areas of 

similar habitats (for example, between two patches of old-growth forest) or 

between high and low elevation habitats is important to maintaining welldistributed, viable wildlife populations and thus contributing to the ecological 

integrity of the landscape. 

Landscape connectivity can be both structurally and functionally based. 

Structural connectivity refers to the physical connections between areas of 

habitat that facilitate movement of wildlife and other organisms. For example, 

intact stream buffers function as corridors providing structural connectivity 

between habitat patches. Likewise, the beach fringe may provide low elevation 

structural connectivity between watersheds and function as a transition zone 

between interior forest and saltwater influences (Julin 1997). Functional 

connectivity refers to the degree of movement or flow of organisms through 

broader linkage “zones” which contain an appropriate juxtaposition of habitats 

Landscape 

Connectivity and 

Fragmentation
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-199 Biodiversity

and land uses that facilitate movement across the landscape. On the Tongass 

National Forest, matrix lands may provide both structural and functional 

connectivity between old-growth reserves (OGRs) and other non-development 

LUDs. 

Empirical studies to date suggest that habitat loss has large, consistently 

negative effects on biodiversity. Habitat fragmentation per se has much weaker 

effects on biodiversity that are at least as likely to be positive as negative (Fahrig 

2003). Fragmentation, both natural (e.g., wind throw, landslides, insects and 

diseases, and avalanches) and human-caused (e.g., timber harvest, road 

building and powerline development), reduces landscape connectivity by 

breaking apart larger contiguous blocks of habitat into smaller patches. The 

value of residual old growth habitat patches may decline if they become too small

to support species with minimum area requirements or to support a 

subpopulation of a particular organism (i.e., the functional unit of a 

metapopulation, or population made up of spatially separated local populations 

that interact with each other). In the latter case, interaction occurs via dispersal 

as individuals move among patches. Populations may become isolated, and 

therefore at greater risk of local extirpation, if fragmentation hinders movement of 

individuals between subpopulations (Wilcove et al.1986). The degree to which 

this occurs depends on species-specific dispersal capabilities, the distance 

between habitat patches, and conditions within the matrix between habitat 

patches. 

When fragmentation occurs there is an increase in the amount of forest edge 

habitat and a decrease in the amount of interior old growth forest habitat, with 

which many wildlife species are associated (see Section 3.10 – Wildlife). 

Fragmentation is often accompanied by a decline in native species diversity 

because habitat conditions along the edge (edge effects) may favor some 

species over others. Edge effects may include changes to vegetation structure, 

species composition (both plants and animals), predation rates, and disturbance 

(Murcia 1995; Nilon et al. 1995; As 1999). Although the number of species may 

be higher along edges (often favoring invasive species), the number of habitat 

specialists (such as those associated with interior old growth forest conditions 

and those that tend to be more sensitive or at‐risk) decreases (As 1999; Nilon et 

al. 1995; Kissling and Garton 2008).

The extent or “depth” of edge effects varies with the contrast in the structure and 

composition of adjacent vegetative communities, the width of the habitat 

fragment, and the stability of the remaining vegetation as it relates to other 

environmental effects such as windthrow, and may be species-dependent 

(Harper et al. 2005; Euskirchen et al. 2006). Edge effects related to vegetation 

structure and composition typically occur within 165 feet (50 meters) of created 

forest edges (Harper et al. 2005), whereas edge effects related to habitat 

functionality for wildlife extend farther (i.e., up to 1,640 feet [500 meters] for 

edge-related nest predation in migratory songbirds; Wilcove 1987). However, 

uncertainties remain regarding the spatial and temporal nature of edge effects. 

Edges are a dynamic component of the landscape. On harvested landscapes, 

edge contrast may decrease over time with the regeneration of disturbed areas, 

a process called “edge softening” (Matlack 1994; Euskirchen et al. 2006). 

Additionally, recent studies suggest that the presence of multiple edges (i.e., 

three or more adjacent patch types) may affect the magnitude and extent of edge 

effects (Euskirchen et al. 2006; Li et al. 2007).

Forested corridors along streams and between old-growth habitats at different 

elevations have been reduced in size by past harvest in many areas of the 

Tongass. Remaining patches of old-growth forest may serve as the only habitat in 
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-200 Final EIS

a landscape for many lichens, fungi, bryophytes, plants, and small-bodied animals, 

all of which contribute to the biodiversity and productivity of the old-growth forest 

ecosystem. These patches may be critical for species that are locally endemic, 

occur only in very specific conditions of forest structure or soil type, or have limited 

dispersal capabilities. Biogeographic provinces with the greatest levels of past 

timber harvest (Table 3.9-6) and fewest intact watersheds (Table 3.9-7) are at 

highest risk of not maintaining a full range of natural biodiversity (ecological 

integrity) and have the greatest reductions in landscape connectivity. Other 

biogeographic provinces are naturally fragmented by unproductive forest and nonforest habitats. Detailed analyses of landscape connectivity and fragmentation are 

typically conducted at the project level where individual patches of contiguous oldgrowth forest habitat and movement corridors can be identified. For this EIS,

landscape connectivity and fragmentation are discussed qualitatively and with an 

overview by biogeographic province.

The Tongass Forest Plan Conservation Strategy was developed to maintain the 

integrity of the old-growth forest ecosystem, and thereby conserve biodiversity

across the Forest, by retaining intact, largely undisturbed habitat. This strategy, 

initially incorporated into the 1997 Forest Plan, was reviewed and amended for 

incorporation into the 2008 Forest Plan. The Conservation Strategy includes two 

major components: (1) a forest-wide network of variably sized OGRs allocated to 

the Old-growth Habitat LUD plus all small islands less than 1,000 acres, and (2) 

a series of standards and guidelines applicable to lands where timber harvest is 

permitted, also known as the matrix (USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2008b). 

The reserve network was designed to maintain habitats of the species that have 

the highest viability concerns (USDA Forest Service 2008b), particularly those 

associated or dependent upon old growth forest characteristics. The reserve 

network also includes other non-development LUDs such as Wilderness, LUD II, 

Remote and Semi-Remote Recreation. These other non-development LUDs are 

comprised of representative habitat types found within the temperate rainforest of 

Southeast Alaska, including old-growth forest as well as other habitats. These 

non-development LUDs contribute to maintaining a variety of habitats important 

for species not necessarily dependent on old growth ecosystems. The intent of 

the reserve system is to help ensure the maintenance of well-distributed viable 

populations of all old-growth associated wildlife species across the Tongass, with 

focus on those species that are most sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation. 

In general, the home range and dispersal capabilities of old-growth associated 

species of concern were considered in determining the size, number and spacing 

of reserves. . For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, 

including assumptions underlying the design of the OGR system, refer to 

Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

The recent Sealaska conveyance (Public Law 113-291) directly affected OGRs in 15 

VCUs (3610, 3620, 3630, 5450, 5460, 5560, 5570, 5600, 5872, 5900, 5940, 6180, 

6190, 6200, and 6850) reducing the size, fragmenting, and in some cases 

eliminating them. A summary of the status of the resulting, existing OGRs (postpost-conveyance) and their consistency with Forest Plan minimum acreage 

requirements is provided in Appendix E. To compensate for effects to the 

Conservation Strategy, an interagency group of biologists from the Forest Service, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game convened 

in 2015 to identify new locations or boundary modifications for the affected OGRs. 

These “Biologically Preferred” OGRs are proposed as part of this Forest Plan 

amendment under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 and are discussed in the Interagency 

Old-growth Review report, included as Appendix E. 

Tongass Forest 

Plan 

Conservation 

Strategy
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-201 Biodiversity

Within the matrix areas outside of reserves, components of the old-growth 

ecosystem are maintained through standards and guidelines designed to provide for 

important ecological functions such as dispersal of organisms, movement between 

forest stands, and maintenance of ecologically valuable structural components such 

as down logs, snags, and large trees. Matrix lands where commercial timber harvest 

occurs include Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, and Timber Production LUDs. 

Matrix management complements the reserve system by providing habitat at 

smaller spatial scales, increasing the effectiveness of reserves, and maintaining 

landscape connectivity (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Standards and guidelines 

applicable to these lands include maintenance of the 1,000-foot beach and 

estuary buffer, variable-width stream buffers, project-level legacy forest structure 

retention requirements, high-hazard soils, steep slopes, karst terrain, and visually 

sensitive travel routes and use areas, and requirements for connectivity. These 

are all considered contributing elements of the Conservation Strategy. Finally, a 

number of species-specific standards and guidelines, such as raptor nest and 

wolf den buffers, set aside old growth, sometimes temporarily, to avoid impacts 

to these species. These standards and guidelines are also addressed in the 

Wildlife section of this EIS. Additional detail on the rationale behind the 

standards and guidelines within the matrix is provided in Appendix D of the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Table 3.9-8 shows the 

distribution of POG and young-growth forest within the reserve system and 

matrix lands.

Table 3.9-8

Distribution of Existing POG and Young Growth within the Reserve System and Matrix 

Lands (NFS Lands Only) Biogeographic Province

Within Reserves (Non-Development LUDs; 

acres) Within Matrix ((Development LUDs; acres)

Productive Old-growth

Younggrowth1

Productive Old-growth

Younggrowth1 Total

Highvolume 

(SD 5N, 

5S, 67)

Largetree 

(SD 67) Total

Highvolume 

(SD 5N, 

5S, 67)

Largetree 

(SD 67)

1 74,371 42,876 30,916 24 20,691 15,806 13,171 3,569 

2 43,193 13,850 3,185 254 821 455 237 1,119 

3 230,146 94,783 23,185 10,341 169,060 64,079 11,064 33,694 

4 72,639 18,480 2,021 - 5 - - - 

5 53,694 16,444 1,214 1,767 34,974 13,654 785 11,648 

6 181,273 47,481 3,551 6,323 33,184 8,185 543 10,529 

7 595,432 301,706 97,582 8,823 - - - - 

8 116,162 44,024 8,650 1,093 41,827 17,010 3,302 4,277 

9 215,920 90,802 14,521 354 106,763 46,508 7,824 323 

10 135,284 49,737 9,467 5,992 172,467 56,544 10,120 31,392 

11 197,425 105,819 17,633 4,672 94,414 57,193 16,894 22,799 

12 163,813 72,362 12,305 662 82,340 37,214 7,721 5,858 

13 102,207 37,434 6,067 4,192 118,848 43,113 6,416 33,824 

14 257,676 121,130 55,795 29,811 228,483 100,154 46,128 140,445 

15 344,679 160,998 21,401 9,384 160,148 71,700 10,536 39,180 

16 89,536 36,703 8,468 4,155 22,498 11,706 3,982 13,701 

17 57,671 29,772 7,557 1,269 9,279 3,723 363 30 

18 105,567 49,825 27,651 1,667 45,507 22,058 11,179 2,608 

19 184,661 61,354 11,542 5,265 13,549 5,278 1,201 1,004 

20 309,132 99,488 14,089 2,405 0 - - - 

21 99,184 33,666 5,634 4,476 17,709 4,574 241 2,197 

Forestwide 3,629,686 1,528,738 382,437 102,928 1,372,569 578,956 151,706 358,196 

1 Previously harvested young growth, which could help contribute to the transition to young-growth harvest.
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-202 Final EIS

Invasive Species

Invasive species are known to diminish the natural biodiversity of a landscape by 

outcompeting native species and thereby changing the ecosystem components 

(species composition, structure, function and connectivity) of an area. Alaska 

has, until recently, been relatively isolated from invasive species, due to climatic 

conditions, large undeveloped areas, limited transportation routes, and sparse 

human population centers (Fay 2002). Schrader and Hennon (2005) assessed 

the current status of invasive species in Alaska’s ecosystems, which include nonnative plants, fish, wildlife, and other species, emphasizing the Chugach and 

Tongass National Forests. More than 130 non-native plant species have been 

recorded in Alaska through 2005 (AKEPIC 2006). Eighty-eight species of nonnatives have been recorded on the Tongass, 46 have been formally ranked

according to their invasive characteristics and threat to Alaska, with 29 of those 

species identified as having a potential threat to Alaska. Fifteen of the species 

found on the Tongass are among the species that pose a potential threat (see 

the Plant section in this chapter for additional discussion on non-native plants). 

Although many non-native wildlife species have been introduced or transplanted 

in Alaska, with the exception of rats in coastal ecosystems and possibly slugs in 

estuaries, none is considered invasive at the present. Additional discussion on 

terrestrial wildlife invasives are discussed in the Wildlife section of this chapter. 

Schrader and Hennon (2005) identified 11 aquatic invasive species in their 

assessment. Six species have already established breeding populations in 

National Forest System lands and other areas in Alaska and include northern 

pike (Esox lucius Linnaeus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), red-legged frog 

(Rana aurora), Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum), and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). The 

other five species are not established in Alaska yet, but cause widespread 

problems in the lower 48 states and could become problematic in Alaska. These 

species are the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Chinese mitten crab (Eriocheir 

sinesis), New Zealand mudsnail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum Gray), goldfish 

(Carassius auratus), and the signal crayfish (Pacifacstacus leniusculus). In 

Alaska, established populations of northern pike with the exception of Pike Lakes 

on the Yakutat Ranger District pose the greatest immediate concern, while the 

Atlantic salmon, Chinese mitten crab, and New Zealand mudsnail species are 

likely to invade Alaska in coming years (Fay 2002). Invasive tree pathogens are 

not currently damaging Alaskan ecosystems, but there are numerous species 

that could cause widespread tree mortality if introduced. 

Four introduced insects are currently established in Alaska and are cause for 

concern: the larch sawfly, alder woolly aphid, spruce aphid, and amber-marked 

birch leafminer. These insects can cause widespread tree defoliation and 

mortality. A number of exotic insects pose a potential threat and are related 

primarily to transport of infested plant and wood products.

The Forest Service is addressing invasive plant management through the Alaska 

Region Invasive Plant Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2005) and the Tongass 

National Forest Invasive Plant Management Guides (Lerum and Krosse 2005). 

Within the Forest Service, various approaches are in place to address four action 

elements (prevention, early detection and rapid response, control, and 

restoration) in the National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive 

Species Management (USDA Forest Service 2004b). See the Plants section in 

this chapter for more information on management of non-native plant species. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-203 Biodiversity

Environmental Consequences

Effects to the Old-Growth Forest Ecosystem

A functional and interconnected old-growth ecosystem is essential to maintaining 

ecological integrity of several biodiversity components, including: structural 

complexity (within-stand and landscape level); connectivity (unfragmented

contiguous blocks of old growth and well as functional connectivity within the 

matrix); stand age and species composition; and various ecological functions

(tree establishment, disturbance, and nitrogen fixation [USDA Forest Service 

2008b]). Timber harvest in POG may reduce biodiversity by shifting the agestructure of the forest by replacing old growth trees by younger t, Franklin et al. 

1997); changing the composition of understory vegetation (Deal and Tappeiner 

2002); and removing key habitat features such as large decadent trees, snags, 

and downed logs. The amount of POG remaining and its distribution across the 

landscape provide a method to estimate the effects of the alternatives on 

biodiversity. It can be assumed that the alternatives that harvest the most POG 

(and therefore result in the greatest changes in the natural distribution and 

composition of the old-growth ecosystem) would result in the greatest adverse 

direct effects to the biodiversity of old-growth ecosystems. It should be noted that 

many other cover types contribute to the overall biodiversity on the Tongass, but 

the focus throughout this section is placed on old-growth forest because this is 

the focus of the Conservation Strategy and the cover type that has been most

affected by timber management activities on the Tongass. Maximum POG 

harvest under the alternatives would range from 32,609 acres under Alternative 2 

to 62,815 acres under Alternative 1 (Table 3.9-9). 

Table 3.9-9

Existing Productive Old-Growth Forest within Reserves1 and Matrix2 Lands (minimum 

protected vs. maximum harvested) by Alternative3

Alt. POG Category

Amount in Reserves1

Amount in Matrix2

Estimated Protected Estimated Harvested4

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

1

All POG 3,638,141 73% 1,301,262 26% 62,815 1%

High-Volume POG 1,533,696 73% 546,533 26% 27,464 1%

Large-Tree POG 385,498 72% 139,342 26% 9,303 2%

2

All POG 3,645,766 73% 1,323,880 26% 32,609 1%

High-Volume POG 1,538,571 73% 555,101 26% 14,022 1%

Large-Tree POG 388,688 73% 140,827 26% 4,629 1%

3

All POG 3,645,766 73% 1,320,921 26% 35,568 1%

High-Volume POG 1,538,571 73% 555,407 26% 13,716 1%

Large-Tree POG 388,688 73% 141,771 26% 4,629 1%

4

All POG 3,645,766 73% 1,313,892 26% 42,597 1%

High-Volume POG 1,538,571 73% 550,875 26% 18,248 1%

Large-Tree POG 388,688 73% 139,435 26% 6,021 1%

5

All POG 3,645,766 73% 1,314,009 26% 42,479 1%

High-Volume POG 1,538,571 73% 551,307 26% 17,816 1%

Large-Tree POG 388,688 73% 139,651 26% 5,805 1% 1 Reserves include all Natural Setting and Wilderness Group LUDs (e.g., Old-Growth Habitat, Semi-Remote Recreation, Remote 

Recreation, Wilderness, National Monument, etc.). Roadless areas in Development LUDs are not included.

2 Matrix includes all Development LUDs (Timber Production, Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, and Experimental Forest). 

Roadless areas in matrix are included.

3 Numbers may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.

4 Estimated harvest over 100 years.

Young-growth harvest, particularly if repeated over time (i.e., under short

rotations) can have similar effects by maintaining early to mid-seral habitats 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects 

Common to All 

Alternatives
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-204 Final EIS

instead of allowing these stands to mature to old-growth conditions. These 

changes may reduce the range of habitats that support diverse plant and animal 

communities and alter the ecological functions supported by the old-growth 

ecosystem. However, treatments such as pre-commercial and commercial 

thinning can result in benefits to biodiversity by increasing understory growth 

over the short-term, and by promoting the development of old-growth stands over 

the long-term when stands are allowed to mature. The extent of the effects is 

dependent on the type of young-growth treatment implemented and the time 

period over which young-growth harvest is implemented. The effects of younggrowth harvest discussed throughout this section, as well as in Section 3.10-

Wildlife represent the trade-off associated with the proposed transition younggrowth harvest. The alternatives represent variations on this trade-off with those 

that propose quicker transition times, and therefore greater conservation of the 

POG ecosystem in a shorter time frame, requiring an expansion of the areas 

where young-growth harvest is permissible. The availability of suitable younggrowth is currently limited, such that in order to achieved the desired volume 

additional areas would need to be made available for harvest over the first 10-15 

years, after which time more of the current young-growth will become suitable for 

commercial harvest. In relation to the conservation of biodiversity, productive oldgrowth forests are some of the most biodiverse ecosystems in Southeast Alaska. 

Therefore, a transition to predominantly young-growth harvest would be expected 

to result in greater conservation of biodiversity than an old-growth-based timber 

program.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose a transition from old-growth to young-growth

timber harvest. The timing of the transition varies among the alternatives with 

some alternatives proposing a more aggressive transition by allowing younggrowth harvest in non-development LUDs and other contributing elements of the 

conservation strategy (e.g., beach and estuary buffers and RMAs), and/or 

portions of Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) (see Chapter 2 for a discussion of 

the transition to young-growth harvest and discussions below under each 

alternative). Young-growth forest stands are less structurally complex and do not 

support the full range of biodiversity found in old-growth forest stands. 

Therefore, a reduction in POG harvest over time in favor of young-growth harvest

would have beneficial effects to old-growth dependent species on the Tongass. 

However, young-growth forests provide a range of functions that may be 

impacted by repeated harvest. These may include serving as dispersal corridors 

between old growth forest patches, providing buffers between areas of suitable 

habitat and human activity, softening edge effects, and serving as thermal cover

which may be reduced by harvest. 

Young-growth stands have the potential to return to old-growth conditions over 

the long term if left to mature on their own or managed with that end goal. 

Management of young-growth stands for timber production only (maintaining 

previously harvested stand in a perpetual young-growth state) would not allow a

previously harvested stand to return to old-growth conditions and therefore would 

reduce the biodiversity of these stands. Maximum young-growth harvest under 

the alternatives would range from 209,882 acres under Alternative 1 to 335,334

acres under Alternative 2 (Table 3.9-10).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-205 Biodiversity

Table 3.9-10

Existing Young Growth1 in Reserves2 and in Matrix3 Lands (minimum protected vs. 

maximum harvested) by Alternative4

Alt.

Amount in Reserves2 Amount in Matrix3

Estimated Protected

Estimated Future 

Harvest5 Estimated Protected

Estimated Future 

Harvest5

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

1 103,084 22% 0 0% 148,158 32% 209,882 46%

2 61,305 13% 43,281 9% 64,475 14% 292,063 63%

3 67,807 15% 36,779 8% 80,101 17% 276,437 60%

4 104,586 23% 0 0% 121,653 26% 234,885 51%

5 102,775 22% 1,811 <0.5% 74,205 16% 282,333 61% 1 Young-growth in this table includes only young-growth originating from past timber harvest. It does not include natural younggrowth (e.g., from blowdown). 2 Reserves include all non-development LUDs (e.g., Old-Growth Habitat, Semi-Remote Recreation, Remote Recreation, 

Wilderness, National Monument, etc.); note under some alternatives limited harvesting of young-growth occurs in reserves. 3 Matrix includes all development LUDs (Timber Production, Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, and Experimental Forest). 4 Numbers may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding. 5 Estimated harvest over 100 years.

Alternatives that propose the greatest amounts of old-growth timber harvest 

would also result in the greatest effects to old-growth ecosystem biodiversity due 

to the associated fragmentation and loss of connectivity. Fragmentation may 

remove linkages between habitat patches, making it harder for organisms to 

move across the landscape. A continuously distributed population could become

a series of small, subpopulations that rely on the ability of dispersing individuals 

for genetic interchange and recolonization in the event of local extirpation. 

Remaining patches would become smaller and less suitable for some species, 

for example those associated with interior forest conditions. The extent of these 

effects depends in part on the dispersal capabilities of the organism, its need for 

interior forest conditions, and the type of treatment implemented (e.g., creation of 

a harder edge by even-aged harvest or a softer edge through uneven-aged 

harvest). 

However, these effects would be reduced to some extent under alternatives that 

propose the greatest amount of young-growth timber harvest (i.e., those with 

more rapid transition to young-growth harvest). These stands are intrinsically low 

in biodiversity particularly during the stem exclusion stage of stand development

(Franklin et al. 2002)and as such, would remain so in perpetuity, at least in the 

development LUDs (because young-growth stands in non-development LUDs will 

be allowed to reach old-growth conditions after the transition period). However, 

young-growth harvest would still have some effects associated with 

fragmentation because older young-growth stands in particular provide 

connectivity and also can also buffer edge effects to old-growth stands (i.e., 

when located between areas of even-aged harvest and old-growth forest).

At the project level, where harvest units and roads can be identified, 

fragmentation and loss of connectivity can be evaluated in terms of changes in 

remnant forest patch size, spacing, or other physical characteristics. This is not 

possible at the forest planning level; therefore, in this analysis changes in the 

number of intact landscapes (VCUs maintaining at least 95 percent of the original 

POG; see the Affected Environment section above for discussion) provide an 

index of fragmentation. 
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-206 Final EIS

Old-Growth Reserve Modifications

Appendix E includes an analysis of pre-conveyance, post-conveyance, and 

Biologically Preferred (identified by the Interagency Review Team) OGRs based 

on Forest Plan minimum acreage requirements included in Appendix K of the 

2008 Forest plan, and design criteria in Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan 

FEIS. Proposed OGR modifications are the same under all of the alternatives.

To the extent possible, the Biologically Preferred OGR locations were intended to 

compensate for reductions in the old-growth reserve acreage, connectivity 

between reserves and/or shoreline areas, and incorporate the best remaining 

habitats (e.g., the largest blocks of remaining POG forest, low elevation POG, 

etc.) available in the affected VCUs. The proposed OGR modifications would 

result in a net increase in 6,171 acres of OGR under the Conservation Strategy

and a net increase of 7,148 acres of POG in the reserve system. Additional 

discussion of increases in other habitat components important to wildlife are 

included in the Wildlife section of this EIS.

Effects to the Tongass Conservation Strategy

Under all of the alternatives, long-term protection of POG would continue to 

occur under the Conservation Strategy. The system of OGRs and other nondevelopment LUDs is intended to maintain the ecological integrity of the oldgrowth ecosystem. Within the matrix, old-growth between reserves is maintained 

through Forest-wide standards and guidelines for stream buffers, the beach and 

estuary fringe, legacy forest structure, and others that preclude or limit POG 

timber harvest for other resources under all alternatives. Collectively, these 

measures would facilitate organism dispersal and maintain the functionality and 

interconnectedness of the old-growth ecosystem (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Tables 3.9-9 and 3.9-10 show the current level of protection for POG and younggrowth forest, both within the reserves and the matrix. 

However, the alternatives differ in terms of the extent to which young growth may 

be harvested within the reserve system, non-development LUDs, and other 

elements of the Conservation Strategy, including beach and estuary buffers, 

RMAs, and in matrix management standards and guidelines. Table 3.9-11 

shows the proposed acres of young-growth harvest within the beach fringe and 

estuary fringe, riparian management areas, Old-growth Habitat LUD, and other 

non-development LUDs. Alternatives 2 and 3 propose the most young-growth 

harvest within Conservation Strategy elements (Table 3.9-11). Young-growth 

harvest within the reserve system, beach and estuary fringe, or RMAs has the 

potential to affect the integrity of the Conservation Strategy. Effects can include

reduced functionality of these areas, reduced or fragmented buffers, and 

increased edge effects. However, these effects would be localized, and in some 

instances temporary (Alternative 5 would have a one-time entry into the Oldgrowth Habitat LUD, beach and estuary fringe, and RMAs). Ultimately, the 

substantial reduction in old-growth harvest relative to what is allowed under the 

2008 Forest Plan and the transition to young-growth harvest would enhance 

biodiversity and the functioning of the Conservation Strategy over the long-term

under all alternatives. An analysis was developed to ascertain how well the 

overall integrity of the old-growth conservation strategy is maintained and was 

applied to each alternative. This analysis is included in Appendix D.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-207 Biodiversity

Table 3.9-11

Projected Harvest of Young-growth1 and Old-growth in Beach Buffers, RMAs, OldGrowth Habitat LUD, other Non-Development LUDs, and 2001 Roadless Areas by 

Alternative

Conservation 

Strategy Component

Estimated Acres of Harvest over 100 Years

Alt 1 Alt 21 Alt 32 Alt 43 Alt 54

YG OG YG OG YG OG YG OG YG OG

Harvest in Beach 

Buffer 0 0 21,871 0 30,769 0 11,114 0 3,903 0

Harvest in RMA 0 0 26,030 0 0 0 0 0 1,089 0

Harvest In OG Habitat 

LUD 0 0 31,640 0 26,186 0 0 0 1,811 0

Harvest in other NonDevelopment LUD 0 0 12,868 0 12,857 0 0 0 0 0

Maximum Harvest in 

2001 Roadless Rule 

Inventoried Roadless 

Areas

0 0 9,118 2,171 11,810 17,037 0 0 0 0

1 Alt 2 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Clearcutting is permitted in Beach Buffer for first 15 years; thereafter, only Commercial 

Thinning is permitted. Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in RMAs. Clearcutting is permitted in Old Growth Habitat 

LUD, Non-Development LUDs, and previously roaded Roadless Areas (this is inconsistent with the Roadless Rule for 

harvest to occur in these areas and the Roadless Rule would have to change to reflect the on-the-ground conditions), 

unless otherwise restricted. Old Growth - Clearcutting is permitted in previously roaded Roadless Areas.

2 Alt 3 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in Beach Buffers. Clearcutting is permitted in 

OG Habitat LUD, Non-Development LUDs, and Roadless Areas (this is inconsistent with the Roadless Rule for harvest to 

occur in these areas and the Roadless Rule would have to change or the Tongass Roadless Rule exemption would need 

to be reinstated), unless otherwise restricted. Old Growth - Clearcutting is permitted in Roadless Areas.

3 Alt 4 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Only Commercial Thinning is permitted in Beach Buffers. 

4 Alt 5 Prescriptions: Young Growth - Created openings of ≤ 10 acres and Commercial Thinning are permitted in Beach 

Buffers, OGRs, and RMAs for first 15 years and with maximum of 35% of the original stand harvested; thereafter, no 

harvest is permitted. 

Invasive Species

None of the alternatives propose changes to the management framework of the 

Tongass in relation to invasive species. The Alaska Region of the Forest Service 

is currently updating an invasive species strategy that will apply the principles of 

prevention, early detection, control, and rehabilitation in cooperation with various 

agencies and partners to reduce or eliminate invasive species establishment

(Stensvold 2015 - in progress). Under all alternatives, timber harvest, road 

construction, and development of renewable energy projects would contribute to 

additional opportunities for invasive species introduction and establishment. 

However, none of the alternatives propose increased old growth harvest and 

road development levels above the 2008 Forest Plan. Although the action 

alternatives propose varying levels of young growth harvest and changes to 

where that harvest would be allowed, the 2008 standards and guidelines for 

invasive species would apply. Therefore, no increase in invasive species risk is 

anticipated under any of the alternatives. See also the Plants section.

LUD Changes – Renewable Energy and Transportation

Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 the existing Transportation and Utility System 

overlay LUD would be replaced by Forest-wide management direction for 

Renewable Energy and for Transportation Systems Corridors. This replacement 

would be to allow greater flexibility in renewable energy development and help 

Southeast Alaska communities reduce fossil fuel energy dependence. An

overview of the existing LUD and proposed standards and guidelines is included 

in the Energy Resource Report (Tetra Tech 2015).
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-208 Final EIS

Renewable energy projects and associated infrastructure such as roads and 

utility lines have the potential to result in both temporary and long-term adverse 

localized effects to biodiversity. This may occur due to ground-disturbing 

activities (road construction, powerhouse construction, pipeline locations, etc.) or 

through inundation (water level increase associated with hydroelectric projects), 

which alter or remove vegetation communities, both forested and non-forested. 

The extent of these effects depends on the size and location of each project and 

the existing level of disturbance. The Renewable Energy section provides an 

overview of existing and foreseeable renewable energy projects in Southeast 

Alaska. Not all future project locations are known. Any renewable energy project 

proposed on NFS land or requiring Forest Service approval would undergo a 

separate, project-specific NEPA level review; therefore, individual projects are 

not addressed in detail here. 

Ultimately, renewable energy projects would offset carbon dioxide emissions

generated by facilities that burn fossil fuels, a primary contributor to climate 

change. Changes in temperature, precipitation, water availability, and sea level 

associated with climate change have the potential to affect ecosystems through 

habitat shifts, increased invasive species survival, enhanced competition for 

limited resources, and amplification of existing stressors, such as habitat 

fragmentation and pollution which can result in changes in biodiversity. 

Therefore, renewable energy development could have both a positive as well as 

negative contribution to old-growth ecosystems and overall forest biodiversity.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 represents the 2008 Forest Plan. Under Alternative 1, there would 

be no effects related to additional or modified Forest Plan components because

none are proposed. 

Under Alternative 1, approximately 62,815 acres of POG forest including 27,464

acres of high-volume POG, of which 9,303 acres are large-tree POG, would be 

available for timber harvest (Table 3.9-9). Alternative 1 would maintain at least 

99 percent of the existing total POG, 99 percent of the existing high-volume 

POG, and 98 percent of the existing large-tree POG Forest-wide. Approximately

73 percent of the existing total POG would be maintained within the reserve 

system and 26 percent within the matrix (Table 3.9-9).

Effects of Alternative 1 to biodiversity in the old-growth ecosystem associated 

with the removal of POG forest and fragmentation would be greatest in the East 

Chichagof Island, East Baranof Island, Kupreanof/Mitkof Islands, Kuiu Island, 

Etolin Island, and North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic provinces where 

2 percent reductions in the amount of original total POG would occur. 

Reductions of 0 to 1 percent of the original total POG would occur all other

biogeographic provinces. 

Under Alternative 1 approximately 209,882 acres of young-growth would be 

available for harvest (Table 3.9-10). No young-growth harvest would occur in 

contributing elements of the Conservation Strategy including the beach and 

estuary fringe, OGRs, RMAs, or other non-development LUDs (Table 3.9-11), 

except for limited amounts of treatments aimed at improving habitat conditions as 

allowed under the 2008 Forest Plan. Another 251,242 acres of young-growth 

would be maintained within the reserve system or would be protected by matrix 

standards and guidelines (Table 3.9-10). These acres (approximately 5 percent of 

the original total POG) would be allowed to mature and eventually develop into 

POG forest.

Direct and 

Indirect Effects 

Specific to Each

Alternative
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-209 Biodiversity

Forest-wide and assuming maximum timber harvest over the planning horizon, 

approximately 90 percent of the original total POG, 85 percent of the original 

high-volume POG, and 78 percent of the original large-tree POG would be 

maintained under Alternative 1 (Tables 3.9-12, 3.9-13, and 3.9-14). By 

biogeographic province, 72 to 100 percent of the original total, 62 to 100 percent 

of the original high-volume, and 33 to 100 percent of the original large-tree POG 

would be maintained.

Alternative 1 would result in a reduction in the number of intact watersheds, and 

acreage within intact watersheds, over the planning horizon. After 100+ years,

the percentage of intact watersheds would be reduced from 68 percent to 59 

percent (Table 3.9-15). 

Table 3.9-12

Estimated Percent of Original POG Remaining (Total and in Reserves) after 100 Years by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS lands only)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

POG

% Original POG Remaining after 100+ Years 

(Total / In Reserves) by Alternative

Original 

Acres

% 

Remaining 

in 2015 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1 Yakutat Forelands 98,656 96 95 / 75 96 / 75 96 / 75 96 / 75 96 / 75

2 Yakutat Uplands 45,387 97 97 / 95 97 / 95 97 / 95 97 / 95 97 / 95

3 East Chichagof 

Island 443,241 90 88 / 52 89 / 52 89 / 52 89 / 52 89 / 52

4 West Chichagof 

Island 72,643 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100

5 East Baranof 

Island 102,083 87 85 / 53 86 / 53 86 / 53 86 / 53 86 / 53

6 West Baranof 

Island 231,308 93 92 / 78 93 / 78 92 / 78 93 / 78 93 / 78

7 Admiralty Island 604,254 99 99 / 99 99 / 99 99 / 99 99 / 99 99 / 99

8 Lynn Canal 163,358 97 96 / 67 96 / 67 96 / 67 96 / 67 96 / 67

9 North Coast Range 323,361 100 100 / 67 100 / 67 100 / 67 100 / 67 100 / 67

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 345,136 89 87 / 39 88 / 39 87 / 39 88 / 39 87 / 39

11 Kuiu Island 319,310 91 89 / 63 90 / 63 91 / 63 90 / 63 91 / 63

12 Central Coast 

Range 252,672 97 97 / 68 97 / 68 97 / 68 97 / 68 97 / 68

13 Etolin Island & 

Vicinity 259,071 85 83 / 39 84 / 39 84 / 39 83 / 39 83 / 39

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 656,415 74 72 / 40 73 / 41 73 / 41 72 / 41 72 / 41

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Pen. 553,391 91 90 / 62 91 / 62 90 / 62 90 / 62 90 / 62

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 129,891 86 85 / 69 86 / 69 86 / 69 85 / 69 85 / 69

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 68,249 98 98 / 84 98 / 84 98 / 84 98 / 84 98 / 84

18 South Prince of 

Wales 155,349 97 97 / 68 97 / 68 97 / 68 97 / 68 97 / 68

19 North Misty Fiords 204,479 97 97 / 90 97 / 90 97 / 90 97 / 90 97 / 90

20 South Misty Fiords 311,537 99 99 / 99 99 / 99 99 / 99 99 / 99 99 / 99

21 Ice Fields 123,566 95 94 / 79 95 / 79 95 / 79 95 / 79 95 / 79

Forest-wide 5,463,379 92 90 / 67 91 / 67 91 / 67 91 / 67 91 / 67 1 Numbers may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-210 Final EIS

Table 3.9-13

Estimated Percent of Original High-Volume POG Remaining (Total and in Reserves) 

after 100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS lands only)1

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

High-volume POG

% Original High-volume POG Remaining after 100+ 

Years (Total / In Reserves) by Alternative

Original 

Acres

% 

Remaining 

in 2015 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1 Yakutat Forelands 61,377 96 94 / 70 95 / 70 96 / 70 96 / 70 96 / 70

2 Yakutat Uplands 15,335 93 93 / 90 93 / 90 93 / 90 93 / 90 93 / 90

3 East Chichagof 

Island 191,888 83 81 / 49 82 / 49 82 / 49 82 / 49 82 / 49

4 West Chichagof 

Island 18,480 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100

5 East Baranof 

Island 40,159 75 73 / 41 74 / 41 74/ 41 74/ 41 74/ 41

6 West Baranof 

Island 68,304 81 81 / 70 81 / 70 81 / 70 81 / 70 81 / 70

7 Admiralty Island 308,323 98 98 / 98 98 / 98 98 / 98 98 / 98 98 / 98

8 Lynn Canal 65,061 94 93 / 63 93 / 63 93 / 63 93 / 63 93 / 63

9 North Coast 

Range 137,818 100 100 / 66 100 / 66 100 / 66 100 / 66 100 / 66

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 134,319 79 77 / 37 78 / 37 78 / 37 78 / 37 78 / 37

11 Kuiu Island 183,616 89 86 / 59 88 / 59 88 / 59 87 / 59 88 / 59

12 Central Coast 

Range 114,465 96 95 / 67 96/ 67 95 / 67 95 / 67 96 / 67

13 Etolin Island & 

Vicinity 109,059 74 72 / 34 73 / 34 73 / 34 72 / 34 72 / 34

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 348,976 63 62 / 35 62 / 37 63 / 37 62 / 37 62 / 37

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Pen. 269,121 86 85 / 60 86 / 60 86 / 60 86 / 60 86 / 60

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 61,801 78 77 / 59 78 / 59 78 / 59 77 / 59 77 / 59

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 34,469 97 97 / 86 97 / 86 97 / 86 97 / 86 97 / 86

18 South Prince of 

Wales 75,089 96 95 / 66 95 / 67 95 / 67 95 / 67 95 / 67

19 North Misty Fiords 71,334 93 93 / 86 93 / 86 93 / 86 93 / 86 93 / 86

20 South Misty Fiords 101,292 98 98 / 98 98 / 98 98 / 98 98 / 98 98 / 98

21 Ice Fields 43,245 88 88 / 76 88 / 76 88 / 76 88 / 76 88 / 76

Forest-wide 2,453,537 86 85 / 63 85 / 63 85 / 63 85/ 63 85 / 63 1 High-volume POG incudes SD5S, SD5N, and SD67 classes.

2 Numbers may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-211 Biodiversity

Table 3.9-14

Estimated Percent of Original Large-Tree POG Remaining (Total and in Reserves) after 

100 Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS lands only)1

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Large-tree POG

% Original Large-tree POG Remaining after 100+ Years 

(Total / In Reserves) by Alternative

Original 

Acres

% 

Remaining 

in 2015 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1 Yakutat Forelands 45,164 98 95 / 68 97 / 68 98 / 68 98 / 68 98 / 68

2 Yakutat Uplands 3,834 89 89 / 83 89 / 83 89 / 83 89 / 83 89 / 83

3 East Chichagof 

Island 47,460 72 71 / 49 72 /49 72 / 49 72 / 49 71 / 49

4 West Chichagof 

Island 2,021 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100 100 / 100

5 East Baranof 

Island 56,023 33 33 / 20 33 / 20 33 / 20 33 / 20 33 / 20

6 West Baranof 

Island 9,150 45 47 / 41 47 / 41 47 / 41 47 / 41 47 / 41

7 Admiralty Island 100,229 97 97 / 97 97 / 97 97 / 97 97 / 97 97 / 97

8 Lynn Canal 13,563 88 88 / 58 88 / 58 88 / 58 88 / 58 88 / 58

9 North Coast 

Range 22,549 99 99 / 64 99 / 64 99 / 64 99 / 64 99 / 64

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 30,802 64 62 / 31 62 / 31 62 / 31 62 / 31 62 / 31

11 Kuiu Island 42,768 81 77 / 43 79 / 43 79 / 43 78 / 43 79 / 43

12 Central Coast 

Range 21,982 91 91 / 60 91 / 60 91 / 60 91 / 60 91 / 60

13 Etolin Island & 

Vicinity 23,888 52 51 / 25 51 / 25 51 / 25 51 / 25 51 / 25

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 152,999 67 64 / 38 66 / 40 66 / 40 65 / 40 65 / 40

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Pen. 46,506 69 68 / 46 68 / 46 68 / 46 68 / 46 68 / 46

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 17,807 70 68 / 48 68 / 48 68 / 48 68 / 48 68 / 48

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 8,310 95 95 / 91 95 / 91 95 / 91 95 / 91 95 / 91

18 South Prince of 

Wales 40,113 97 96 / 69 96 / 69 96 / 69 96 / 69 96 / 69

19 North Misty Fiords 14,623 87 87 / 79 87 / 79 87 / 79 87 / 79 87 / 79

20 South Misty Fiords 14,811 95 95/ 95 95/ 95 95/ 95 95/ 95 95/ 95

21 Ice Fields 7,877 75 75/ 68 75/ 68 75/ 68 75/ 68 75/ 68

Forest-wide 672,481 79 78 / 57 79 / 58 79 / 58 79 / 58 79 / 58 1 Large tree POG is defined as the SD 67 classes (a subset of high-volume POG).

2 Numbers may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-212 Final EIS

Table 3.9-15

Number and Acreage within Intact VCUs, Comparable to Large Watersheds , after 100+ 

Years by Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS lands)1

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Number of and 

Acreage within 

Large Watersheds % of Watersheds/Percent of Acreage

No. Acres Existing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1 Yakutat Forelands 24 339,880 88/84 63/73 71/77 75/82 75/82 75/82

2 Yakutat Uplands 26 913,175 96/99 93/99 93/99 93/99 93/99 93/99

3 East Chichagof 

Island 87 1,134,726 53/49 46/41 48/43 52/48 52/48 52/48

4 West Chichagof 

Island 31 283,992 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100

5 East Baranof Island 22 394,188 55/60 45/50 45/50 45/50 45/50 45/50

6 West Baranof 

Island 43 795,120 65/69 51/59 51/59 51/59 51/59 51/59

7 Admiralty Island 60 1,087,654 87/84 80/79 80/79 80/79 80/79 80/79

8 Lynn Canal 50 590,146 76/78 57/60 59/62 59/62 59/62 59/62

9 North Coast Range 48 911,106 88/92 67/77 67/77 67/77 67/77 67/77

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 35 845,611 40/42 34/37 34/37 29/27 34/38 34/38

11 Kuiu Island 30 465,555 73/57 67/52 70/55 73/57 73/57 73/57

12 Central Coast 

Range 28 550,466 86/85 75/69 75/69 75/69 75/69 79/74

13 Etolin Island & 

Vicinity 28 519,357 32/30 32/30 32/30 32/30 32/30 32/30

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales 117 1,472,299 22/15 19/12 19/12 19/12 19/12 19/12

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Pen. 83 1,262,389 61/63 51/52 51/52 48/51 51/52 51/52

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 20 214,933 45/57 40/53 45/57 40/53 40/53 40/53

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 35 200,936 49/34 31/19 31/19 31/19 31/19 31/19

18 South Prince of 

Wales 36 388,239 71/70 60/62 60/62 60/62 60/62 60/62

19 North Misty Fiords 30 892,125 91/88 84/83 84/83 84/83 84/83 84/83

20 South Misty Fiords 54 907,183 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100

21 Ice Fields 59 2,769,480 89/90 86/89 86/89 86/89 86/89 86/89

Forest-wide 947 17,941,713 68/71 59/65 60/65 61/65 61/66 61/66 1 Large-watershed are defined here by VCUs. 2 Intact is defined here has having less than 5 percent of original POG harvest.

3 Numbers may not appear to sum correctly due to rounding.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 proposes the most aggressive transition to young-growth harvest. 

POG harvest would be in Phase 1, 2, and 3 lands (same as 2008 Forest Plan) 

under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would allow young-growth harvest in

development LUDs including within the beach and estuary fringe and RMAs, and 

in some non-Development LUDs. Clearcutting of young-growth stands would be 

allowed within the beach and estuary fringe, although only during the first 15 

years with only commercial thinning thereafter, and non-development LUDs

under Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would also maintain a 1,000-foot buffer 

adjacent to even-aged (clearcut) harvest units within the beach and estuary 

fringe, effectively moving the buffer inland. Alternative 2 would also allow POG 

and young-growth harvest in the roaded roadless portions of IRAs (approximately 

2,171 acres and 9,118 acres, respectively; Table 3.9-11), after new rulemaking to 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-213 Biodiversity

update the boundaries. Harvest in any portion of IRAs is inconsistent with the 

2001 Roadless Rule and could not occur until there was a change in the 2001 

Roadless Rule. Harvest in these areas would be deferred until there was a rule 

change. 

Under Alternative 2, approximately 32,609 acres of POG forest including 14,022

acres of high-volume POG and 4,629 acres of large tree POG would be available

for timber harvest (Table 3.9-9). Alternative 2 would maintain at least 99 percent 

of the existing total POG, 99 percent of the existing high-volume POG, and 99

percent of the existing large-tree POG Forest-wide. Approximately 73 percent of 

the POG forest would be maintained within the reserve system and 26 percent 

within the matrix (Table 3.9-9).

Effects of Alternative 2 to biodiversity in the old-growth ecosystem associated 

with the removal of POG forest and fragmentation would be comparable among 

biogeographic provinces. Reductions of 0 to 1 percent of the original total POG 

would occur in each biogeographic provinces (Table 3.9-12). 

Assuming maximum timber harvest over the planning horizon, approximately 91

percent of the original total POG, 85 percent of the original high-volume POG, 

and 79 percent of the original large-tree POG would be maintained under 

Alternative 2. By biogeographic province, 73 to 99 percent of the original total, 

62 to 100 percent of the original high-volume, and 33 to 100 percent of the 

original large-tree POG would be maintained (Tables 3.9-12, 3.9-13, and 3.9-14).

Alternative 2 would result in a reduction in the number of intact watersheds, and 

acreage within intact watersheds, over the planning horizon. After 100+ years 

the percentage of intact watersheds would be reduced from 68 percent to 60 

percent (Table 3.9-15). 

Under Alternative 2 approximately 335,344acres of young growth would be 

available for harvest (Table 3.9-10). This includes approximately 21,872 acres 

within the beach and estuary fringe, 26,030 acres within RMAs, 31,640 acres 

within Old-Growth Habitat LUD, and 12,868 acres within other non-development 

LUDs (Table 3.9-11). Another 125,780 acres of young growth would be 

maintained within the non-development LUDs which contribute to the 

Conservation Strategy or would be protected by matrix standards and guidelines

(Table 3.9-10). These acres (approximately 2 percent of the original total POG) 

would be allowed to mature and eventually develop into POG forest. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes the second most aggressive transition to young-growth 

harvest. POG harvest would occur only in Phase 1, 2, and 3 lands (same as the 

2008 Forest Plan) under Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would allow young-growth 

harvest in development LUDs, including within the beach and estuary fringe, and 

in some non-Development LUDs. However, only commercial thinning would be 

allowed in the beach and estuary fringe; no young-growth harvest would occur in 

RMAs. Both POG and young-growth harvest would be allowed in IRAs (11,810

acres and 17,037 acres, respectively; Table 3.9-11) if new rulemaking allowed for 

it. Harvest in IRAs is inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule and could not 

occur until there was a change in the 2001 Roadless Rule. Harvest in these 

areas would be deferred until there was a rule change.

Under Alternative 3, approximately 35,568 acres of POG forest including 13,716

acres of high-volume POG and 4,629 acres of large tree POG would be available

for timber harvest (Table 3.9-9). Alternative 3 would maintain at least 99 percent 

of the existing total POG, 99 percent of the existing high-volume POG, and 99
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-214 Final EIS

percent of the existing large-tree POG Forest-wide. Approximately 73 percent of 

the POG forest would be maintained within the reserve system and 26 percent 

within the matrix (Table 3.9-9).

Effects of Alternative 3 to old-growth ecosystem biodiversity associated with the 

removal of POG forest and fragmentation would be greatest in the 

Kupreanof/Mitkof Island biogeographic province where there would be a 

reduction of 2 percent of the original total POG; reductions of 0 to 1 percent of 

the original total POG would occur in all other biogeographic provinces (Table. 

3.9-12). 

Assuming maximum timber harvest over the planning horizon, approximately 91

percent of the original total POG, 85 percent of the original high-volume POG, 

and 79 percent of the original large-tree POG would be maintained under 

Alternative 3 (Tables 3.9-12, 3.9-13, and 3.9-14). By biogeographic province, 73

to 100 percent of the original total, 63 to 100 percent of the original high-volume, 

and 33 to 100 percent of the original large-tree POG would be maintained.

Alternative 3 would result in a reduction in the number of intact watersheds, and 

acreage within intact watersheds, over the planning horizon. After 100+ years 

the percentage of intact watersheds would be reduced from 68 percent to 61 

percent (Table 3.9-15). 

Under Alternative 3 approximately 313,216 acres of young growth would be 

available for harvest (Table 3.9-10). This includes approximately 30,769 acres 

within the beach and estuary fringe, 26,186 acres within OGRs, and 12,857

acres within other non-development LUDs; no young-growth harvest would occur

in RMAs (Table 3.9-11). Another 147,902 acres of young growth would be 

maintained within the non-development LUDs that contribute to the Conservation 

Strategy or would be protected by matrix standards and guidelines. These acres 

(approximately 3 percent of the original total POG) would be allowed to mature 

and eventually develop into POG forest.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 proposes the least aggressive transition to young-growth harvest. 

POG harvest under Alternative 4 would be allowed in only Phase I lands (less 

than the 2008 Forest Plan). Under Alternative 4 young-growth harvest would be 

limited to development LUDs, including the beach and estuary fringe. Only 

commercial thinning would be allowed in beach and estuary fringe. No POG or 

young-growth harvest would be allowed in RMAs, IRAs or non-development 

LUDs including OGRs under Alternative 4. 

Under Alternative 4, approximately 42,597 acres of POG forest including 18,248

acres of high-volume POG and 6,021 acres of large tree POG would be available

for timber harvest (Tables 3.9-9). Alternative 4 would maintain at least 99

percent of the existing total POG, 99 percent of the existing high-volume POG, 

and 99 percent of the existing large-tree POG Forest-wide. Approximately 73

percent would be maintained within the non-development LUDs and 26 percent 

within the matrix (Table 3.9-9).

Effects of Alternative 4 to old-growth ecosystem biodiversity associated with the 

removal of POG forest and fragmentation would be greatest in Etolin Island, and 

North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic provinces where reductions of 2 

percent of the original total POG would occur (Table 3.9-12). Reductions of 0 to 

1 percent of the original total POG would occur in all other biogeographic 

provinces. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-215 Biodiversity

Assuming maximum timber harvest over the planning horizon, approximately 91

percent of the original total POG, 85 percent of the original high-volume POG, 

and 79 percent of the original large-tree POG would be maintained under 

Alternative 4 (Tables 3.9-12, 3.9-13, and 3.9-14). By biogeographic province, 72

to 100 percent of the original total, 62 to 100 percent of the original high-volume, 

and 33 to 100 percent of the original large-tree POG would be maintained.

Alternative 4 would result in a reduction in the number of intact watersheds, and 

acreage within intact watersheds, over the planning horizon. After 100+ years 

the percentage of intact watersheds would be reduced from 68 percent to 61 

percent (Table 3.9-15). 

Under Alternative 4 approximately 234,885 acres of young growth would be

available for harvest (Table 3.9-10). This includes approximately 11,114 acres 

within the beach and estuary fringe; no young-growth harvest would occur within 

RMAs, OG Habitat LUD, or other non-Development LUDs (Table 3.9-11). 

Another 226,239 acres would be maintained within the non-development LUDs 

or would be protected by matrix standards and guidelines (Table 3.9-10). These 

acres (approximately 4 percent of the original total POG) would be allowed to 

mature and eventually develop into POG forest.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 proposes the third-most aggressive transition to young-growth 

harvest. POG harvest under Alternative 5 would occur in Phase 1, 2, and 3 

lands (same as the 2008 Forest Plan). Under Alternative 5, young-growth 

harvest would be allowed in development LUDS, including in beach and estuary

fringe (group selection with less than 10-acre openings or commercial thinning) 

outside of a 200-foot buffer and RMAs (group selection with less than 10-acre 

openings or commercial thinning), and in the Old-Growth Habitat LUD but not in 

other non-development LUDs. A one-time entry stipulation would be 

implemented for young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat LUD, beach and 

estuary fringe and RMAs. No POG or young-growth harvest would occur in IRAs 

under Alternative 5.

Under Alternative 5, approximately 42,479 acres of POG forest including 17,816

acres of high-volume POG and 5,805 acres of large tree POG would be available 

for timber harvest (Table 3.9-9). Alternative 5 would maintain at least 99 percent 

of the existing total POG, 99 percent of the existing high-volume POG, and 

99 percent of the existing large-tree POG Forest-wide. Approximately 73 percent 

would be maintained within the reserve system and 26 percent within the matrix 

(Table 3.9-9).

Effects of Alternative 5 to biodiversity in the old-growth ecosystem associated 

with the removal of POG forest and fragmentation would be greatest in the 

Kupreanof/Mitkof Island, Etolin Island, and North Central Prince of Wales 

biogeographic provinces where the amount of original POG remaining would be 

reduced by 2 percent. Reductions of 0 to 1 percent of the original total POG 

would occur in all other biogeographic provinces. 

Assuming maximum timber harvest over the planning horizon, approximately 

91 percent of the original total POG, 85 percent of the original high-volume POG, 

and 79 percent of the original large-tree POG would be maintained under 

Alternative 5 (Tables 3.9-12, 3.9-13, and 3.9-14). By biogeographic province, 

72 to 100 percent of the original total, 62 to 100 percent of the original highvolume, and 33 to 100 percent of the original large-tree POG would be 

maintained.
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-216 Final EIS

Alternative 5 would result in a reduction in the number of intact watersheds, and 

acreage within intact watersheds, over the planning horizon. After 100+ years 

the percentage of intact watersheds would be reduced from 68 percent to 61 

(Table 3.9-15). 

Under Alternative 5 approximately 324,144 acres of young-growth would be 

available for harvest (Table 3.9-10). This includes approximately 3,903 acres 

within the beach and estuary fringe, 1,089 acres within RMAs, 1,811 acres in 

OGRs; no young-growth harvest would occur in other non-Development LUDs

(Table 3.9-11). Another 176,980 acres of young-growth would be maintained 

within the non-development LUDs which contribute to the Conservation Strategy

or would be protected by matrix standards and guidelines (Table 3.9-10). These 

acres (approximately 4 percent of the original total POG) would be allowed to 

mature and eventually develop into POG forest.

Historically, harvest in Southeast Alaska has been more extensive on non-NFS 

lands than on NFS lands (Table 3.9-16). The cumulative effects analysis for oldgrowth ecosystem biodiversity takes into account all of Southeast Alaska, including 

all lands within the Tongass National Forest boundary from the Yakutat area to the 

south of Ketchikan, and the area of Glacier Bay National Park, and the areas 

around Haines and Skagway. To estimate the future harvest of POG on non-NFS 

lands, it was assumed that 75 percent of the remaining POG would be harvested 

on Native corporation lands and 50 percent of the remaining POG would be 

harvested on state lands, other private lands, and lands owned by municipalities, 

over the life of the Forest Plan (100 years). A list of all projects considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis is provided in Appendix C of this EIS.

Approximately 875,700 acres of POG have been harvested across the Tongass, 

including both NFS lands and non-NFS lands, resulting in a reduction to 86, 79, 

and 68 percent of the original total, high-volume, and large-tree POG in 

Southeast Alaska, respectively (Tables 3.9-16, 3.9-17, and 3.9-18). 

Approximately 83 percent of the original POG would remain on the Tongass after 

full implementation of the 2008 Forest Plan (Alternative 1) and future non-NFS 

harvest in 100+ years (Table 3.9-16). Future representation of high-volume POG 

and large-tree POG would be expected to be approximately 76 and 63 percent of 

the original amount, respectively, after 100+ years under the 2008 Forest Plan 

(Table 3.9-17 and 3.9-18). POG harvest on NFS lands under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 

5 would all be less than Alternative 1, but would also maintain approximately 83

percent of the total original POG remaining on the Tongass after implementation 

of alternatives and future non-NFS harvest (Table 3.9-16). Future 

representations of high-volume POG and large-tree POG under the alternatives 

would be expected to be approximately 76 percent and 63 percent of the original 

amounts, respectively, under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 after 100+ years, and 76 

percent and 64 percent of the original amounts, respectively under alternative 4 

after 100+ years (Tables 3.9-17 and 3.9-18). This does not include maturing 

young growth that develops older forest characteristics during that time period 

(estimated to be approximately 2 to 5 percent of the original POG that would be 

represented by mature young- growth, in non-development LUDs, which would 

be beginning to take on older forest characteristics; Table 3.9-9). 

All action alternatives would contribute to the cumulative reduction in POG and 

associated increase in fragmentation and loss of connectivity, which has the 

potential to reduce biodiversity. Timber harvest on NFS, including micro-sales 

and personal use, as well as on non-NFS lands would result in similar effects. 

Future land adjustments and remaining land conveyances would also be 

assumed to affect POG as these lands become available for harvest. 

Collectively, the implementation of the Forest Plan under all of the alternatives in 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-217 Biodiversity

combination with ongoing and foreseeable projects would increase in the number 

of smaller patches on the landscape, reducing the amount of interior forest and 

increasing the occurrence of forest edge habitat. Edge effects such as shifts in 

species composition may reduce natural biodiversity over time by favoring some 

species over others. These effects would be lessened by the action alternatives 

which propose a transition to young-growth harvest, which would reduce the 

long-term cumulative effects to old-growth ecosystem biodiversity by reducing 

the total amount of POG harvest and associated fragmentation. The actual 

amount of harvest that has occurred to date on the Tongass is far less than that 

projected under the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS, and would continue to be less under 

all of the alternatives (see Appendix D of this EIS for additional discussion).

Overall, biodiversity on the Tongass and in Southeast Alaska remains in good 

condition and the landscape continues to be dominated by old-growth forest

ecosystems. As development continues through timber harvest and associated 

activities such as road building, and community expansion, particularly in areas 

where extensive development has already occurred (i.e., Prince of Wales Island), 

maintaining connectivity and roadless refugia will become increasingly important, 

particularly for wide-ranging species whose distribution depends on some level of 

connectivity across the landscape. In addition, the management of human 

resources will continue to play a role in maintaining biodiversity across the 

Tongass. Within the Tongass National Forest boundary, the Conservation 

Strategy was designed to address the more extensive harvest on non-NFS lands 

through the old-growth reserve system and Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines, both of which were intended to maintain ecological components 

needed to maintain the ecological integrity important to a variety of organisms

and maintain connectivity across the landscape, with or without much 

contribution from non-NFS lands. 

Table 3.9-16

Cumulative Percent of Original Total POG Remaining on All Landownerships 

after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by Biogeographic Province and 

Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Estimated 

Original Total 

POG (Acres)

Percent 

Original Total 

POG 

Remaining

Percent Total POG Remaining after 

100+ Years1,2

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

1 Yakutat Forelands 123,675 85% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80%

2 Yakutat Uplands 45,426 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

3 East Chichagof Island 507,958 84% 79% 80% 80% 80% 80%

4 West Chichagof Island 72,958 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 East Baranof Island 103,046 87% 84% 85% 85% 85% 86%

6 West Baranof Island 247,420 92% 88% 89% 89% 89% 89%

7 Admiralty Island 634,873 95% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94%

8 Lynn Canal 180,172 97% 90% 91% 91% 91% 91%

9 North Coast Range 382,583 94% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88%

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 406,907 82% 76% 77% 77% 77% 77%

11 Kuiu Island 327,703 91% 88% 89% 90% 89% 89%

12 Central Coast Range 259,558 97% 95% 96% 95% 95% 95%

13 Etolin Island 275,571 85% 80% 82% 81% 81% 81%

14 North Central Prince of 

Wales

906,143

63% 56% 57% 57% 56% 56%

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Peninsula

648,823

88% 81% 82% 81% 81% 81%

16 Southern Outer Islands 141,131 83% 79% 80% 80% 79% 80%

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 135,765 68% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57%

18 South Prince of Wales 192,458 88% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82%
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-218 Final EIS

Table 3.9-16 (continued)

Cumulative Percent of Original Total POG Remaining on All Landownerships 

after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by Biogeographic Province and 

Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Estimated 

Original Total 

POG (Acres)

Percent 

Original Total 

POG 

Remaining

Percent Total POG Remaining after 

100+ Years1,2

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

19 North Misty Fiords 207,657 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96%

20 South Misty Fiords 311,823 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

21 Ice Fields 123,674 95% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95%

Total for Southeast 

Alaska3 6,235,343 86% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

1 The estimate assumes all scheduled suitable POG is harvested; does not account for Model Implementation 

Reduction Factor (MIRF).

2 Based on an inventory of existing harvest on non-NFS lands and the estimation of future harvest by major 

landowner category. To estimate the future harvest of POG on non-NFS lands, it was assumed that 75 percent of 

the remaining POG would be harvested on Native corporation lands and 50 percent of the remaining POG would 

be harvested on state lands, other private lands, and lands owned by municipalities, over the life of the Forest Plan 

(100 years). 

3 Does not include land area in biogeographic provinces 22 and 23 which are almost exclusively non-NFS land.

Table 3.9-17

Cumulative Percent of Original High-Volume POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Estimated 

Original HighVolume POG 

(Acres)

Percent 

Original HighVolume POG 

Remaining

Percent Original High-Volume POG

Remaining after 100+ Years1,2

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

1 Yakutat Forelands 74,753 83% 79% 80% 81% 81% 81%

2 Yakutat Uplands 15,384 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%

3 East Chichagof Island 225,290 75% 72% 72% 72% 72% 72%

4 West Chichagof Island 18,598 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5 East Baranof Island 40,496 75% 73% 74% 74% 73% 74%

6 West Baranof Island 74,710 81% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

7 Admiralty Island 325,440 94% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%

8 Lynn Canal 71,127 94% 89% 90% 90% 90% 90%

9 North Coast Range 165,343 91% 86% 87% 87% 87% 87%

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 166,887 69% 65% 66% 65% 66% 65%

11 Kuiu Island 186,894 89% 85% 87% 87% 86% 87%

12 Central Coast Range 117,349 95% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94%

13 Etolin Island 116,073 73% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%

14 North Central Prince of 

Wales 485,130 52% 48% 49% 49% 48% 48%

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Peninsula 310,772 83% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%

16 Southern Outer Islands 67,773 74% 71% 72% 72% 71% 72%

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 70,553 60% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55%

18 South Prince of Wales 93,875 83% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%

19 North Misty Fiords 72,780 93% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-219 Biodiversity

Table 3.9-17 (continued)

Cumulative Percent of Original High-Volume POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Estimated 

Original HighVolume POG 

(Acres)

Percent 

Original HighVolume POG 

Remaining

Percent Original High-Volume POG

Remaining after 100+ Years1,2

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

20 South Misty Fiords 101,392 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%

21 Ice Fields 43,282 88% 88% 88% 88% 90% 88%

Total for Southeast 

Alaska3 2,845,053 79% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76%

1 The estimate assumes all scheduled suitable POG is harvested; does not account for Model Implementation 

Reduction Factor (MIRF).

2 Based on an inventory of existing harvest on non-NFS lands and the estimation of future harvest. 3 Does not include land area in biogeographic provinces 22 and 23 which are almost exclusively non-NFS land.

Table 3.9-18

Cumulative Percent of Original Large-tree POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Estimated 

Original SD67 

POG (Acres)

Percent Original

SD67 POG 

Remaining

Percent SD67 POG Remaining after 

100+ Years1,2

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

1 Yakutat Forelands 52,545 87% 84% 85% 86% 86% 86%

2 Yakutat Uplands 3,841 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%

3 East Chichagof Island 65,774 60% 55% 56% 56% 55% 55%

4 West Chichagof 

Island 2,079 100% 97% 98% 98% 97% 98%

5 East Baranof Island 6,192 35% 33% 33% 34% 33% 33%

6 West Baranof Island 12,468 52% 42% 42% 42% 42% 42%

7 Admiralty Island 109,747 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

8 Lynn Canal 16,623 89% 78% 79% 78% 78% 78%

9 North Coast Range 37,331 77% 64% 66% 67% 65% 66%

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 48,728 49% 44% 45% 45% 45% 45%

11 Kuiu Island 44,459 81% 78% 79% 79% 78% 78%

12 Central Coast Range 23,494 89% 72% 80% 81% 76% 75%

13 Etolin Island 27,581 53% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48%

14 North Central Prince 

of Wales 228,389 51% 48% 48% 48% 48% 48%

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Peninsula 68,569 64% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55%

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 21,098 63% 9% 60% 60% 59% 59%

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 28,220 44% 36% 36% 36% 36% 36%

18 South Prince of Wales 50,376 83% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
3 Environment and Effects

Biodiversity 3-220 Final EIS

Table 3.9-18 (continued)

Cumulative Percent of Original Large-tree POG Remaining on All 

Landownerships after 100 Years of Forest Plan Implementation by 

Biogeographic Province and Alternative (NFS and Non-NFS Lands)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Estimated 

Original SD67 

POG (Acres)

Percent Original

SD67 POG 

Remaining

Percent SD67 POG Remaining after 

100+ Years1,2

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

19 North Misty Fiords 15,397 85% 84% 84% 84% 84% 84%

20 South Misty Fiords 14,861 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

21 Ice Fields 7,896 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%

Total for Southeast 

Alaska 886,260 68% 63% 63% 64% 63% 63%

1 The estimate assumes all scheduled suitable POG is harvested; does not account for Model Implementation 

Reduction Factor (MIRF).

2 Based on an inventory of existing harvest on non-NFS lands and the estimation of future harvest by major landowner 

category.

3 Does not include land area in biogeographic provinces 22 and 23 which are almost exclusively non-NFS land.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-221 Wildlife

Wildlife

Affected Environment 3-221

Old-Growth Habitat and the Conservation Strategy 3-221

Landscape Connectivity and Fragmentation 3-222

Wildlife Species 3-222

Endemism 3-247

Invasive Species 3-250

Environmental Consequences 3-252

Direct and Indirect Effects 3-252

Cumulative Effects 3-286

Affected Environment

This section describes the wildlife resources on the Tongass National Forest. 

The following subsections address the old-growth habitat conservation strategy; 

threatened, endangered, and candidate species; Management Indicator Species 

(MIS); Alaska Region Sensitive Species; migratory birds; endemic species; and 

invasive species. Consumptive uses of wildlife on the Tongass National Forest 

are discussed in the Subsistence section.

Typical of Southeast Alaska, vegetation on the Tongass National Forest is 

dominated by temperate coastal rain forests at lower elevations (less than 2,000 

feet elevation), with interspersed muskegs, other wetlands, and other non-forest 

types. At higher elevations, alpine vegetation, rock, glaciers, and snowfields 

dominate. Although many wildlife species on the Tongass are associated with 

more than one habitat type, most inhabit old-growth forests or prey on species 

that inhabit old-growth forests. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the oldgrowth ecosystem. In Southeast Alaska, old-growth forests are typically greater 

than 150 years old, and are characterized by complex canopies; an interspersion 

of trees of multiple age classes; the presence of snags, decadent trees, and 

fallen trees; and a variation in the amounts and distribution of live trees. These 

features create intricate habitat niches that support many wildlife species (Spies 

2004). 

The 1997 Tongass Forest Plan established a comprehensive, science-based 

Conservation Strategy to provide for wildlife sustainability and viability across the 

Tongass (USDA Forest Service 1997a, 1997b). The Conservation Strategy was 

developed to maintain the integrity of a functional and interconnected old-growth 

ecosystem on the Tongass by retaining intact, largely undisturbed habitat welldistributed across the Forest. The Conservation Strategy includes two major 

components: (1) a forest-wide network of large, medium, and small OGRs 

allocated to the Old-Growth Land Use Designation (LUD) and other nondevelopment LUDs plus all small islands less than 1,000 acres, and (2) a series 

of standards and guidelines applicable to lands where timber harvest is permitted 

(the matrix; USDA Forest Service 2008a, 2008b). 

The OGR system was designed to maintain habitats of the old-growth associated 

and dependent species (USDA Forest Service 2008a). The forested areas of 

other non-development LUDs such as Wilderness, LUD II, Remote and SemiRemote Recreation also maintain the old-growth ecosystem. The intent of the 

reserve system was to help ensure the maintenance of well-distributed viable 

populations of old-growth associated wildlife species across the Tongass, with 

focus on those species that are most sensitive to habitat loss and fragmentation. 

For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, including 

Old-Growth 

Habitat and the 

Conservation 

Strategy
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-222 Final EIS

assumptions underlying the design of the OGR system, refer to Appendix D of 

the 2008 Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS; USDA Forest 

Service 2008a). 

Within the matrix (areas outside of reserves), components of the old-growth 

ecosystem are maintained through a series of standards and guidelines designed 

to provide for important ecological functions such as dispersal of organisms, 

movement between forest stands, and maintenance of ecologically valuable 

structural components such as down logs, snags, and large trees (USDA Forest 

Service 2008a). Matrix lands include Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, 

and Timber Production LUDs; Experimental Forest is also a development LUD, 

however timber harvest occurs only for research purposes. Standards and 

guidelines applicable to these lands include the 1,000-foot beach and estuary 

buffer, Riparian Management Areas (RMAs), legacy forest structure standards 

and guidelines, and a number of species-specific standards and guidelines (e.g., 

raptor nest buffers and wolf den buffers). A more detailed description of the 

Tongass Conservation Strategy, and the basis for its development, is provided in 

the Biodiversity section. 

There are currently approximately 5.0 million acres of POG forest on the 

Tongass National Forest, of which 2.1 million acres are high-volume POG and 

half a million acres are large-tree POG, representing 92, 84, and 82 percent of 

these forest types estimated to have been originally existing in 1954 prior to the 

beginning of commercial timber harvest (Tables 3.9-3 and 3.9-6). There are 

approximately half a million acres of young-growth forest on the Tongass 

National Forest, of which 84 percent are a result of past harvest and 16 percent

are natural young-growth (Table 3.9-5). The Biodiversity Section provides a 

description POG forest and other cover types and a discussion of past timber 

harvest on the Tongass National Forest.

Landscape connectivity is defined as the degree to which the structure of a 

landscape helps or hinders the movement of wildlife species (Taylor et al. 1993). 

A landscape with a high degree of connectivity is one in which wildlife move 

readily between habitat patches over the long term (USDA Forest Service 

2008a). On the Tongass, connectivity between areas of similar habitats (i.e., oldgrowth forest) or between high and low elevation habitats is important to 

maintaining well-distributed, viable wildlife populations of some species. 

Fragmentation by both natural and human-caused actions reduces landscape 

connectivity by breaking apart larger contiguous blocks of habitat into smaller 

patches. Populations may become isolated, and therefore at greater risk of local 

extirpation, if fragmentation hinders movement of individuals between 

subpopulations (Wilcove et al. 1986). The degree to which this occurs depends 

on species-specific dispersal capabilities, the distance between habitat patches, 

and conditions within the matrix between habitat patches. Empirical studies to 

date suggest that habitat loss has large, consistently negative effects on 

biodiversity. Habitat fragmentation per se has much weaker effects on 

biodiversity that are at least as likely to be positive as negative (Fahrig 2003). 

The concepts of landscape connectivity and fragmentation are described in the 

Biodiversity section.

The following sections describe threatened and endangered species, candidates 

for listing, management indicator species (MIS; 1982 planning rule), Alaska 

Region sensitive species, and other species of interest. Table 3.10-1 provides a 

comprehensive list of these species and identifies those carried forward in the 

analysis based on known occurrences or the presence of suitable habitat in the 

planning area.

Landscape 

Connectivity and 

Fragmentation

Wildlife Species 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-223 Wildlife

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Federally listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal 

species formally listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under authority of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) of 1973, as amended. An endangered species is defined as one that is in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A 

threatened species is defined as one that is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range.

The federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species known to occur 

within the boundary of the Tongass National Forest include the humpback whale 

(Megaptera novaeangliae), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), sperm whale 

(Physeter microcephalus), short-tailed albatross (Phoebastria albatrus), and

Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubata; western Distinct Population Segment [DPS]). 

There are also several listed fish species which are addressed in the Fish section

of this EIS. Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, a Biological Assessment (BA) 

evaluating the effects of the selected alternative of this Forest Plan amendment 

on these species was prepared; one BA for the marine mammals and fish 

species was submitted to the NMFS and another containing the short-tailed 

albatross was submitted to the USFWS for review and concurrence. The 

remaining federally listed species are not addressed further because the 

Tongass is outside of their known range or suitable habitat is not present (Table 

3.10-1). Currently, no candidates for federal listing occur within the boundary of 

the Tongass National Forest (Table 3.10-1). In accordance with Forest Service 

Manual 2670, a Biological Evaluation (BE) covering federally listed threatened 

and endangered wildlife species and Region 10 sensitive species was also 

prepared; this BE contains an evaluation and comparison of all alternatives. The 

BA and BEs for this Forest Plan Amendment are included in the project record.

Short-tailed Albatross

The short-tailed albatross was federally listed as endangered throughout its 

range on July 31, 2000 (65 Federal Register [FR] 147:46643-46654). It is a 

pelagic seabird species that forages offshore and in shelf-break waters 

throughout the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. The short-tailed albatross

primarily breeds in Japan but single nest sites have been documented on

Midway Island, Hawaii. Outside of the breeding season, it occurs in the waters of 

the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska (USFWS 2012). Primary 

threats to this species include loss of nesting habitat as well as interactions with 

fishing operations (e.g., entanglement with gear), ingestion of plastic debris, 

contamination from oil spills, and predation at breeding colonies. 

Based on the most recent USFWS 5-year review for the species (USFWS 2014), 

the short-tailed albatross population is making progress toward recovery. Data 

from breeding colony surveys, suggest a total population of estimate of 4,454 

individuals at the end of the 2013-2014 breeding season. 

Previously the waters adjacent to the Tongass National Forest were thought to 

be outside of the range of this species (USFWS 2008b); however, more recent 

satellite tracking of adult (in 2006-2008) and juvenile (in 2008-2012) albatrosses

has helped to provide a more complete picture of the marine distribution of this 

species (USFWS 2014). The satellite tracking data indicates that there are 

marked differences in the marine distribution of juvenile and adult albatrosses, 

with juvenile and sub-adult birds (up to 2 years old) traveling to the west coast of 

North America (including Southeast Alaska), and more extensively between 

Hawaii and Alaska, than adult birds. This species may forage in nearshore 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-224 Final EIS

waters adjacent to the outer coast of the Tongass, particularly where the 

continental shelf break is close to shore. Therefore, it could be exposed to water

quality effects associated with land management activities on the Tongass 

National Forest.

Table 3.10-1

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Candidate Species Under the ESA, 

and Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species and Potential for Occurrence on the 

Tongass National Forest

Common 

Name Scientific Name Habitat Association

Potential for 

Occurrence in the 

Planning Area Status1

ESA Species Under USFWS Jurisdiction

Eskimo curlew Numenius borealis Arctic tundra. No, outside of 

species’ range.

E

Short-tailed 

albatross

Phoebastria albatrus Winters in waters of the Bering 

Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf 

of Alaska; breeds in Japan 

(USFWS 2012a).

Yes, may occur in 

nearshore waters 

near islands and 

mainland coastlines 

of southeast Alaska. 

E

Spectacled 

eider

Somateria fischeri Coastal waters in northern and 

western Alaska (USFWS 2012b).

No, outside of 

species’ range.

T

Steller’s eider Polysticta stelleri Occurs in northern and western 

Alaska (USFWS 2012c).

No, outside of 

species’ range.

T

Polar bear Ursus maritimus Sea ice and coastlines of 

western Alaska and along the 

North Slope.

No, outside of the 

species’ range.

T

Pacific walrus Odobenus rosmarus 

divergens

Continental shelf waters of 

Bering and Chukchi seas.

No, outside of the 

species’ range.

C

ESA Species Under NMFS Jurisdiction

Blue whale Balaenoptera 

musculus

Off-shore (pelagic) marine 

waters of the Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, North Pacific 

Ocean and/or Gulf of Alaska 

(NMFS 2009a). Critical habitat 

designated for North Pacific right 

whales in the Bering Sea and the 

Gulf of Alaska (NMFS 2009a).

No, very rarely 

observed in 

Southeast Alaska.

E

Beluga whale Delphinaperus leucas

Bowhead 

whale

Blaena mysticetus

Northern 

Pacific right 

whale

Eubalaena japonica

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis

Humpback 

Whale

Megaptera 

novaeangliae

Common in the inside waters of 

the Alexander Archipelago and 

are regularly sighted in the Inside 

Passage and coastal waters of 

the Southeast Alaska panhandle 

(NMFS 1991).

Yes, likely to occupy 

marine waters 

surrounding the 

Tongass. May occur 

in shallow coastal 

areas.

E

Fin whale Balaenoptera 

physalus

Typically off-shore (pelagic) 

marine waters of the Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, North Pacific 

Ocean and/or Gulf of Alaska 

(NMFS 2009a); two more recent 

sightings in lower Clarence Strait 

(Dahlheim et al. 2009). 

Yes, may occur 

seasonally in marine 

waters surrounding 

the Tongass, but in 

proximity to the open 

ocean.

E

Sperm whale Physeter 

macrocephalus

Typically off-shore marine waters 

of the Bering Sea, Gulf of AK, 

Southeast AK and Aleutian 

Islands (Allend and Angliss 

2014).

Yes, may occur 

seasonally in marine 

waters around 

Tongass, but in 

proximity to the open 

ocean.

E
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-225 Wildlife

Table 3.10-1 (continued)

Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species, Candidate Species Under the ESA, 

and Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species and Potential for Occurrence on the 

Tongass National Forest (continued)

Common 

Name Scientific Name Habitat Association

Potential for 

Occurrence in the 

Planning Area Status1

Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus Sea-ice habitats in Bering Sea, 

Chukchi Sea, Beaufort seas (77 

FR 76740-76768, 77 FR 76706-

76738).

No, outside of 

species’ range.

C – bearded 

seal; T –

ringed seal

Ringed Seal Phoca hispida

Northern sea 

otter, SW Alaska 

population

Enhydra lutris 

kenyoni

Coastal marine habitats. No, outside of 

species range.

T

Steller sea lion 

– Western AK 

DPS2

Eumetopias jubatus Marine and terrestrial areas from 

Prince William Sound westward 

(west of 144° west longitude).

Yes, DPS occurs in 

waters surrounding 

the Tongass. Critical 

habitat has also been 

designated.

E

Green sea 

turtle

Chelonia mydas Occur in the Gulf of Alaska and 

some species are found as far 

west as the Aleutian Islands. 

Adults are highly migratory, but 

the details and locations of 

migrations are largely unknown 

(NMFS 2009b).

No, only rarely 

observed in 

Southeast Alaska.

T

Loggerhead 

sea turtle

Caretta T

Olive Ridley 

sea turtle

Lepidochelys olivacea T

Leatherback 

sea turtle

Dermochelys 

coriacea

E

Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species3

Steller sea lion 

– Eastern AK 

DPS3

Eumetopias jubatus Marine and terrestrial areas in 

Southeast Alaska (east of 144° 

west longitude).

Yes, occurs in waters 

surrounding the 

Tongass.

S

Queen 

Charlotte 

goshawk

Accipiter gentiles 

laingi

Mature/old-growth forests. Yes, known to occur 

on the Tongass.

S

Aleutian Tern Sterna aleutica Nests on islands, shrub-tundra, 

grass or sedge meadows and 

freshwater and coastal marshes.

Yes, known to occur 

on the Tongass.

S

Black 

oystercatcher

Haematopus 

bachmani

Rocky shorelines along the 

coast; forages in sheltered areas 

where low-sloping gravel or rock 

beaches with abundant prey 

occur.

Yes, known to occur 

on the Tongass.

S

Kittlitz’s 

murrelet

Brachyramphus 

brevirostris

Breeds in the vicinity of glaciers 

and cirques in high elevation 

alpine areas with little or no 

vegetative cover; northern Gulf of 

Alaska and Bering Sea coast 

(Day et al. 1999).

Yes, known to occur 

on the Tongass.

S

1 T = Federally threatened; E = Federally endangered; C = candidate for Federal listing; S = Alaska Region Sensitive Species 2 DPS = Distinct Population Segment. 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (February 2009). The Steller sea lion Eastern DPS was added as a sensitive species afte 

federal ESA delisting. The Western DPS remains federally endangered.

Alaska Region Sensitive Species

The Alaska Region Sensitive Species list was updated in 2009 and supersedes 

previous lists (USDA Forest Service 2009b). The following summarizes the 2009 

updates to the Alaska Region Sensitive Species list for animal species that occur 

on the Tongass National Forest. Three animal species were removed from the 

list and include the Trumpeter swan, American osprey, and Peale’s peregrine 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-226 Final EIS

falcon. Two animal species were added to the list and include Black 

Oystercatcher and Aleutian tern. Two animal species were retained on the list 

and include the Kittlitz’s murrelet and Queen Charlotte goshawk. 

Although not on the 2009 list, the Steller sea lion (eastern DPS) is now an Alaska 

Region Sensitive Species. A species removed from listing under the ESA

because recovery criteria have been met will automatically be added to the 

sensitive species list for at least 5 years (FSM 2672.11, R-10 2600-2005-1). On 

November 4, 2013, the NMFS issued a final rule (78 FR 66140) to remove the 

eastern DPS of Steller sea lion from the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and therefore will be analyzed as a sensitive species through at least 

2018. 

Species that are candidates for listing under the ESA are also automatically 

considered an Alaska Region Sensitive Species. Pacific walrus is a USFWS

candidate for listing, but this species does not occur on the Tongass and is not 

considered further here (Table 3.10-1).

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

The Queen Charlotte goshawk (Accipiter gentilis laingi) is included by Stenhouse 

and Senner (2005) on Audubon’s Alaska WatchList. 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. 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). On August 1, 

2012, the British Columbia DPS of the Queen Charlotte goshawk was listed as 

threatened under the ESA (FR 45870-45893). The Alaska DPS was not listed in 

part due to the protections provided by the Tongass Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy.

The goshawk is a year-round resident in Southeast Alaska and may occupy 

different or overlapping breeding and winter territories. Goshawk breeding 

territories can be described hierarchically in terms of the nest site, the nest area, 

post-fledging area, and foraging area (see Reynolds et al. 1992 and USDA 

Forest Service 2008b). Goshawks in Southeast Alaska typically nest in large 

patches of tall, mature, and old trees with dense canopies. When mature and 

old-growth habitats are not available, they will nest in maturing young growth with 

sufficient structure (Reynolds et al. 2006; Boyce et al. 2006). Nesting in mature 

young growth is less common, and occurs in proportion to the amount of this 

habitat available on the landscape, suggesting goshawks neither prefer nor avoid 

its use (USFWS 2007).

Goshawk foraging areas typically consist of mature and old-growth forest stands, 

though they will also forage in young forest as well as along edges and in 

openings as long as suitable perches from which to observe and attack prey are 

present (Iverson et al. 1996; Bosakowski et al. 1999; McClaren 2004; Boyce et 

al. 2006; Reynolds et al. 2006). Prey species vary geographically, and include 

blue grouse, red squirrels, and a variety of forest-dwelling birds (spruce grouse, 

Steller’s jay, and ptarmigan; Lewis 2001). High-volume POG represents optimal 

nesting and foraging habitat for goshawks due to the presence of large trees and 

snags. Existing amounts of this forest type on the Tongass are discussed in the 

Biodiversity section. Approximately 84 percent of the original high-volume POG 

existing in 1954, the time at which commercial timber harvest began on the 

Tongass National Forest, remains (Table 3.9-6).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-227 Wildlife

Timber harvest in both old-growth and mature young-growth forest may locally

limit the availability of nest sites through removal of suitable nest trees, or 

through removal of forest surrounding these trees. Nest trees optimally should 

be surrounded by patches of mature or old-growth forest large enough to include 

several alternate nests and provide post-fledging habitat. Timber harvest may 

also decrease foraging habitat quality through reductions in prey abundance and 

availability. Dense young growth stands are difficult for goshawks to hunt, 

reducing availability of prey, even where prey populations may otherwise be 

adequate. The availability of adequate prey resources has been linked to 

goshawk territory occupancy and breeding success (Doyle and Smith 1994; 

Salafsky et al. 2005; Keane et al. 2006; Salafsky et al. 2007). Conservation 

measures for this species include requirements for project surveys for nesting 

goshawks, retention of confirmed or probable nest stands, and retention of 

legacy old-growth forest structure in old-growth harvest units larger than 20 

acres, where logging has been most intensive (USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

The system of OGRs and other non-development LUDs also maintains habitat 

for this species, although a recent study suggests that some uncertainty remains 

with respect to the ability of Forest Plan conservation measures to contribute 

sufficient habitat to sustain well-distributed, viable populations of northern 

goshawks throughout Southeast Alaska (Smith 2013). Continued inventories 

and monitoring of established nest protection buffers will help to inform future 

decisions. 

Kittlitz’s Murrelet

The Kittlitz’s murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) was retained as a 2009 

sensitive species because it was a USFWS candidate (USDA Forest Service 

2009b). On October 3, 2013, the USFWS issued a 12-month finding (78 FR 

61763) that listing the Kittlitz’s murrelet is not warranted. However, until the 

Alaska Region Sensitive Species list has been updated, the Kittlitz’s murrelet will 

continue to be analyzed as a sensitive species. During its 2013 review, the 

USFWS concluded that the rangewide Kittlitz’s murrelet population declined by 

approximately 30 percent per year between 1989 and 2000, but since then 

appears to have stabilized or may be declining at a much slower rate (USDI 

2013). Declines have been attributed to glacial retreat and changes in the ocean 

environment which may alter foraging habitat and prey populations; other factors 

include predation, oil pollution, gill-net by-catch, disturbance by commercial and 

recreational boaters, and flightseeing operations (USFWS 2006b).

More than 95 percent of the global population is estimated to breed in Alaska, 

with the remainder occurring in the Russian Far East. The largest breeding 

populations are believed to be in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Prince 

William Sound, Kenai Fjords, and Icy Bay (Kendall and Agler 1998 as cited in 

Day et al. 2000). Breeding season core population centers adjacent to the 

Tongass include Icy Bay, Malaspina Forelands, and Yakutat Bay where the 

species is closely associated with glacial habitats (Kissling et al. 2011). The 

Forest Plan contains direction to “provide for the protection and maintenance of 

known Kittlitz’s murrelet nesting habitat.”

Black Oystercatcher

The black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) was added to the Alaska 

Region Sensitive Species list in 2009. The Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan 

also notes it as a species of high concern due to concerns with population size, 

breeding and nonbreeding threats, and nonbreeding distribution (Alaska 

Shorebird Group 2008). It is also a Bird of Conservation Concern, and is on the 

Audubon Society’s Watch List (Tessler et al. 2007).
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-228 Final EIS

The black oystercatcher occurs along the North American Pacific coast from the 

Aleutian Islands to Baja California (Andres and Falxa 1995), with over half of the 

global population residing in Alaska primarily in Prince William Sound and the 

Kodiak Archipelago (Tessler et al. 2007). They favor rocky shorelines and forage 

exclusively on intertidal macroinvertebrates (e.g., limpets and mussels) found in 

sheltered areas of high tidal variation (Tessler et al. 2007). 

Breeding oystercatchers are highly territorial and breeding pairs tend to be widely 

distributed (Tessler et al. 2007). After breeding, black oystercatchers aggregate 

into winter flocks ranging from tens to hundreds of individuals. Winter flocks 

typically concentrate on protected, ice-free tidal flats or rocky islets with dense 

mussel beds.

Because black oystercatchers solely use the intertidal zone, where they may 

congregate in large numbers, they are especially vulnerable to disturbance from 

marine industrial pollution and human disturbance from tourism and fishing. 

Threats include predation, recreational disturbances, flooding, vessel wakes, and 

shoreline contamination (Tessler et al. 2007). 

Surveys specifically targeting black oystercatchers in Alaska are limited and the 

Northern Pacific Pelagic Seabird Database (NPPDS) serves as one of the largest 

data sources, although it may underestimate the number of birds because it is 

not specific to oystercatcher (Tessler et al. 2007). Kodiak Island is currently the 

only documented area in Alaska that supports large concentrations of black 

oystercatchers (Tessler et al. 2007), but they have been observed and are known 

to nest in low densities along shorelines and use intertidal areas adjacent to the 

Tongass National Forest. Historically, they have been documented in Sitka

Sound/Necker Islands, the Myriad Islands, the outer coast of Baranof Island, and 

the Forrester Island group but breeding birds are generally sparsely distributed 

(Tessler et al. 2007). From Baranof Island south to the Canadian border, the 

NPPSD shows only 57 incidental observations of black oystercatchers between 

1972 and 2003, most (65 percent) of which are from the Forrester Island group 

(Tessler et al. 2007). There is no specific 2008 Forest Plan direction for this 

species because it was added to the sensitive species list after the 2008 Forest 

Plan was approved.

Aleutian Tern

The Aleutian tern (Sterna aleutica) is a migratory seabird that breeds exclusively 

in Alaska and eastern Siberia. It is a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern and 

is protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and is listed as an 

Alaska Region sensitive species by the Forest Service. In Alaska, Aleutian tern 

colonies are located throughout the Aleutian Islands, north to the southeastern 

Chukchi Sea and east to the Alaska Peninsula, Yakutat, and Glacier Bay 

(USFWS 2012d).

Aleutian terns breed in loose colonies, often in association with Arctic terns, in 

coastal sites located at the heads of bays, reefs, island, estuaries, and river 

mouths (USFWS 2012d). Nests are located on the ground in a variety of habitats 

including shrub tundra, grass or sedge meadows, and freshwater and coastal 

marshes (USFWS 2006b). One of the largest breeding colonies of Aleutian terns 

occurs on Black Sand Spit in the Yakutat Forelands, which supports

approximately one third of Alaska’s population. Due to its importance as a 

breeding colony, Black Sand has been identified as an Audubon Important Bird 

Area. Most other known occurrences of Aleutian terns are not located on the 

Tongass. Little is known about this species outside of the breeding season; 

however, it is known to winter in the eastern Pacific.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-229 Wildlife

Threats to this species include human disturbance at nest sites, marine oil spills, 

and change in forage fish populations (USFWS 2012d). Timber harvest 

associated activities (i.e., log transport, use of log transfer facilities [LTFs], and 

helicopter activity) could have the potential to affect this species through 

disturbance to nesting colonies or through water quality impacts to prey species. 

Although most known colonies are in remote sites, some do exist in areas where 

Forest Service permitting may have the potential to cause disturbance (USDA 

Forest Service 2009b). There is no specific Forest Plan direction for this species 

but the standards and guidelines for Seabird Colonies apply (USDA Forest 

Service 2008a).

Steller Sea Lion Eastern DPS

The Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 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, while the 

increasing eastern DPS was delisted in November 2013. On November 4, 2013,

NMFS issued a final rule (78 FR 66140) to remove the eastern DPS of Steller 

sea lion from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. A species 

removed from listing under the ESA because of recovery criteria have been met 

will be automatically added to the Alaska Region Sensitive Species list for at 

least 5 years (FSM 2672.11, R-10 2600-2005-1). The western DPS is analyzed 

in the BA. Steller sea lions are also protected by the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act (MMPA) under which they are designated as “depleted” (NMFS 2013a, 

2013b). 

Steller sea lions are widely distributed over the continental shelf and throughout 

the coastal waters of the Gulf of Alaska. The eastern DPS is known to occur in 

the waters surrounding the Tongass, although intermigration between the 

eastern and western populations has been documented, particularly north of 

Frederick Sound. 

Steller sea lions forage in nearshore and pelagic waters where they are 

opportunistic predators. They feed primarily on a wide variety of fishes and 

cephalopods (squid and octopus). Steller sea lions use terrestrial haulout sites to 

rest and take refuge. They also gather on well-defined, traditionally used 

rookeries to pup and breed. These habitats are typically gravel, rocky, or sand 

beaches; ledges; or rocky reefs (NMFS 2013b). 

Critical habitat was designated for the Steller sea lion by NMFS in 1993 and 

represents areas considered essential for the continued survival and recovery of 

this species (NMFS 1993). Adult Steller sea lions congregate at rookeries for 

breeding and pupping. Rookeries are generally located on relatively remote 

islands, often in exposed areas that are not easily accessed by humans or 

mammalian predators. These rookeries, as well as haulouts, have been officially 

designated as critical habitat in Southeast Alaska (NMFS 2001).

NMFS defines critical habitat for Southeast Alaska to include a “terrestrial zone, 

aquatic zone, and an air zone, that extend 3,000 feet landward, seaward, and 

above, respectively, for each major rookery and major haulout in Southeast 

Alaska.” Critical habitat provides notice to federal agencies that a listed species 

is dependent on these areas for its continued existence and that any federal 

action that may affect these areas is subject to the consultation requirements of 

Section 7 of the ESA. To date, 3 major rookeries and 11 major haulouts have 

been identified as critical habitat on or adjacent to the Tongass. Two additional 

haulouts have been identified in Southeast Alaska (Cape Fairweather and 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-230 Final EIS

Graves Rock) but these locations are within Glacier Bay National Park. In light of 

the delisting of the Eastern DPS and listing of the Western DPS as endangered, 

as well as availability of new science, NMFS is currently conducting a review of 

critical habitat for this species.

Steller sea lions are sensitive to disturbance and harassment or displacement 

from haulouts and rookeries. Human activities such as boating, recreation, 

aircraft, LTFs, and log raft towing are concerns related to the long-term 

conservation of the sea lion in Southeast Alaska. Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines for Steller sea lions provide protection to sea lion habitats and regulate 

activities in proximity to this species.

Former Management Indicator Species

The 1982 Planning Rule directed the use of Management Indicator Species 

(MIS) in forest planning to help display the effects of forest management. The 

1997 Forest Plan selected 13 wildlife MIS which carried through to the 2008 

Forest Plan Amendment. Because this EIS is analyzing an amendment to the 

2008 Forest Plan done under the 1982 Planning Rule, these species are 

analyzed here even though the 2012 Planning Rule does not use MIS for 

evaluating effects. Most of these species are associated with POG forests of 

Southeast Alaska either directly or rely on prey species associated with these 

habitats.

A series of workshops were held in 2011 with representatives from the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), NMFS, USFWS, and the Forest 

Service to evaluate the current Tongass MIS and develop a set of proposed MIS 

that would more effectively serve the Tongass. After following a structured 

process used to revise MIS elsewhere on National Forest System (NFS) lands 

(Hayward et al 2001), the group recommended retaining deer, marten, brown 

bear, black bear, mountain goat, and bald eagle on the wildlife species MIS list 

(Hayward and Jacobson 2011); however, all original MIS are discussed below. 

Sitka Black-Tailed Deer

Sitka black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus sitkensis) are indigenous to the 

coastal regions of Southeast Alaska and northwest British Columbia. They are

an important game hunting and subsistence species. They are also an important 

prey species for the Alexander Archipelago wolf (discussed below).

Sitka black-tailed deer use lower elevation (below 800 feet elevation) POG forest 

habitats during the winter period. The quantity, quality, distribution and 

arrangement of winter habitat are considered the most important limiting factors 

for Sitka black-tailed deer in Southeast Alaska. However, spring, summer, and 

fall habitats (non-winter) are also important for deer reproduction and population 

recovery following severe winters, and for building up pre-winter body reserves. 

During these seasons, and during mild winters, deer will forage in young-growth

stands less than about 25 years old and other open non-forested habitats. 

For consistency with the 1997 Forest Plan revision FEIS and 2008 Forest Plan 

Amendment FEIS, the interagency deer habitat capability model was used to 

assess existing habitat capability within the planning area (USDA Forest Service 

1997b, 2008b). This model has a number of limitations, which are described in 

the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b). In particular, the 

model does not account for the biological value of young-growth stands or 

young-growth management in providing summer forage for deer because it 

assigns one value to all young growth (and one value to all types of timber 

harvest, whether even-aged or uneven-aged harvest). That is, it does not reflect 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-231 Wildlife

any benefits from commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, development of 

canopy gaps, or other treatments. Table 3.10-2 presents modeled deer habitat 

capability by biogeographic provinces. Forest-wide, approximately 89 percent of 

the original (1954) habitat capability remains, ranging from 72 to 100 percent 

depending on the biogeographic province. The greatest reductions in deer 

habitat capability have occurred in provinces where timber harvest has been 

concentrated (the North Central Prince of Wales, East Baranof, and Etolin Island

biogeographic provinces).

The Forage Resources Evaluation System for Habitat (FRESH) model developed 

by the USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station (Hanley et al. 

2012; http://cervid.uaa.alaska.edu/deer/Home.aspx) was also used to quantify 

the relative value of available deer forage under different alternatives in the 

planning area. 

The FRESH model is a food-based model that takes into account the quantity 

(biomass) and quality (digestible energy and digestible protein, two of the most 

common nutritional limiting factors for deer) of the estimated food resources in 

relation to user-specified metabolic requirements of deer (which depend on age, 

sex, season, and reproductive status). The model uses a linear algorithm to 

determine the suitable forage that can sustain deer at this metabolic requirement, 

and produces the number of deer days per unit area that the available food 

resources (within the habitat patch or landscape) are capable of supporting. One 

deer day represents the food required to support one animal for one day at the 

specified level of nutritional requirements. The output of the model is a 

“snapshot” of habitat conditions based on estimated food availability and quality

at one point in time which can be used to make a relative comparison of 

conditions within a habitat patch or landscape under different conditions (i.e., 

before and after implementation of a management activity).

Table 3.10-2

Existing Forest-wide Deer Habitat Capability Using the Interagency Deer Model (NFS 

Lands Only)

Biological Province

Existing 

Habitat 

Capability 

2015 (Deer 

per Square 

Mile)

Original (1954) 

Habitat 

Capability (Deer 

per Square 

Mile)

% Original 

Habitat 

Capability 

Remaining

No. WAAs with 

Modeled Deer 

Density of at least 

18 Deer per 

Square Mile1/

1 Yakutat Forelands 13.3 13.7 97% 2

2 Yakutat Uplands 2.3 2.4 98% 0

3 East Chichagof Island 11.7 13.7 86% 1

4 West Chichagof Island 14.5 14.5 100% 1

5 East Baranof Island 7.0 8.5 82% 0

6 West Baranof Island 12.2 13.7 89% 4

7 Admiralty Island 17.6 17.9 98% 10

8 Lynn Canal 5.5 5.8 95% 1

9 North Coast Range 6.2 6.2 100% 0

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 16.9 19.2 88% 7

11 Kuiu Island 25.5 28.1 91% 7

12 Central Coast Range 9.0 9.5 96% 1

13 Etolin Island 15.7 18.9 83% 3

14 North Central Prince of 

Wales

17.7 24.5 72% 11

15 Revilla Island/Cleveland 

Peninsula

13.5 15.0 90% 7

16 Southern Outer Islands 28.1 32.1 88% 9

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 30.4 30.6 99% 3
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-232 Final EIS

Table 3.10-2 (continued)

Existing Forest-wide Deer Habitat Capability Using the Interagency Deer Model (NFS 

Lands Only)

Biological Province

Existing 

Habitat 

Capability 

2015 (Deer 

per Square 

Mile)

Original (1954) 

Habitat 

Capability (Deer 

per Square 

Mile)

% Original 

Habitat 

Capability 

Remaining

No. WAAs with 

Modeled Deer 

Density of at least 

18 Deer per 

Square Mile1/

18 South Prince of Wales 21.8 22.2 98% 5

19 North Misty Fiords 3.7 3.8 99% 2

20 South Misty Fiords 8.4 8.4 100% 0

21 Ice Fields 0.7 0.8 94% 0

Forest-wide 10.1 11.3 89% 57 1 For WAAs that overlap a biological province boundary only the overlapping portion counted toward the total. 2 Note that the model treats harvested stands in the stem exclusion stage (25 years old or older) the same value regardless of 

thinning treatments that are implemented.3 Note that wolves very rarely occur on Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof Islands.

The FRESH model has not yet been reviewed by an interagency team for 

widespread use; however, it does provide a supplemental way to compare 

management activities for possible effects to deer. As with any model, it has a 

number of limitations, which are that (1) it is a calculator, rather than a simulation 

model, providing a snapshot analysis of habitat quality at a user specified point in 

time (i.e., habitat quality values do not represent annual or seasonal averages), 

(2) it does not take into account other factors on the landscape that affect habitat 

quality beyond forage (i.e., it assumes all habitat is available to the animal), and 

(3) it does not account for the more complex relationships between plants and 

herbivores such as mineral and micronutrient requirements or the effects of plant 

secondary chemistry (such as tannins) which may affect forage palatability and 

the preference/avoidance of certain forages (Hanley et al. 2012).

Values for the available forage biomass and its nutritional quality (digestible 

energy and digestible protein concentrations) on the Tongass were based on a 

variety of sources including the Tongass Wide Young-Growth Study (2007, 2008, 

2010, 2011, 2012, 2013), Prince of Wales Commercial Thin Study (Forest 

Sciences Lab Juneau 2014, unpublished), 2011 Tongass Young-growth 

Inventory (2011), Second Growth Management Project, Size-Density Accuracy 

Assessment and other unpublished studies from southeast Alaska (see the 

Project Record for more information). It is assumed that all available vegetation is 

potential food, and there is no accounting for long-term herbivore-plant dynamics 

(i.e., the effects of overbrowsing; Hanley et al. 2012). Thinning and logging slash 

have the potential to inhibit deer access; however, the current body of literature 

does not provide sufficient information for making adjustments to FRESH model 

output to reflect these limitations.

For this analysis, forage resources were analyzed with the GIS-based model 

application for a doe in the winter season. Deer metabolic requirements for 

winter were the following: dry matter digestibility 48 percent, digestible protein 1.8 

percent, and dry matter intake 525 grams/day (see Hanley et al. 2012 for 

rationale and sources).

The FRESH model requires an estimate of snow depth on February 1 at sea 

level in a level open area. To reflect the geographic variation in snow depth in

Southeast Alaska, the planning area was divided into six snow zones with 

average snow depth estimated for each under current climate conditions. 

Climate data from 1981-2010 were used to model PRISM-based “precipitation as 

snow” which was then converted to snow depth using the relationship of snow 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-233 Wildlife

depth and elevation in the FRESH model snow sub-model (see metadata in the 

project record for additional information). The FRESH model then reduces the 

biomass of each forage in proportion to its height profile that is “buried” in snow

(see Hanley et al. 2012 for details).

Table 3.10-3 provides the existing habitat conditions on the Tongass based on 

FRESH model output. Existing habitat quality on NFS lands ranges from 3.0

deer days per hectare in the Ice Fields biogeographic province to 153.9 deer 

days per hectare in the South Prince of Wales Island biogeographic province 

(Table 3.10-3). In the North Central Prince of Wales biogeographic province, 

where past harvest has been concentrated, existing habitat quality is 137.0 deer 

days per hectare.

The effects of timber harvest on deer may not be fully realized for decades.

During the first 25 years or so (stand initiation), openings created by even-aged

timber harvest (both old-growth and young-growth) provide abundant forage for 

deer as sunlight is allowed to penetrate to the forest floor enhancing growth of 

understory vegetation (Farmer and Kirchhoff 2007); however, access to forage 

may be limited during winter in moderate to high snow years, without the canopy 

of old-growth forest. However, as the forest grows, a dense canopy can form 

that shades out understory vegetation (stem exclusion) thereby reducing foraging 

habitat—a period which may last up to 150 years after harvest. Deer abundance 

has been shown to be lower in these forage-poor habitats (Brinkman 2009; 

Person 2010). Long-term young-growth management that includes intermediate 

treatments, which would maintain managed stands with more open canopies 

than unmanaged young-growth stands, may prolong the short-term beneficial 

effects of shrub and forb production used as forage. 

Table 3.10-3

Existing Habitat Conditions Using the FRESH Deer Model (NFS Lands Only)

Biological Province

Existing Habitat

Conditions in 2015

(Average Deer 

Days/Hectare)1/

Range of Habitat Conditions

Within Individual WAAs

(Average Deer 

Days/Hectare)1/

1 Yakutat Forelands 0.0 0.0-0.0

2 Yakutat Uplands 0.0 0.0-0.0

3 East Chichagof Island 35.7 0.0-127.4

4 West Chichagof Island 89.1 0.0-93.9

5 East Baranof Island 30.6 0.0-62.6

6 West Baranof Island 56.9 0.0-114.7

7 Admiralty Island 50.6 14.2-130.4

8 Lynn Canal 24.4 1.4-74.6

9 North Coast Range 19.3 0.0-20.5

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 96.8 0.0-146.7

11 Kuiu Island 64.8 0.0-119.9

12 Central Coast Range 31.8 0.0-78.7

13 Etolin Island 72.9 0.0-85.6

14 North Central Prince of Wales 137.0 0.0-133.0

15 Revilla Island/ Cleveland Peninsula 68.8 0.0-232.3

16 Southern Outer Islands 126.1 0.0-121.0

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 130.3 7.0-130.3

18 South Prince of Wales 153.9 6.9-126.5

19 North Misty Fiords 21.6 0.0-34.3

20 South Misty Fiords 56.3 0.0-88.9

21 Ice Fields 3.0 0.0-6.8

Forest-wide2/ 46.9 NA 1 Calculated as weighted averages based on WAA area (total or portion coinciding with the biogeographic province)

2 No snow zone was assigned to biogeographic provinces 1 and 2 due to very low use by deer; therefore, model not run
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-234 Final EIS

Mountain Goat

Mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) inhabit alpine and subalpine areas and 

adjacent POG forests on the mainland portions of the Tongass and have been 

introduced to several islands. Steep glacial valleys and peaks provide escape 

terrain from predation by wolves and bears. Adjacent meadows provide forage 

and, at lower elevations, POG forests provide cover as well as evergreen shrubs 

and forbs for winter forage (Porter 2010). 

Mountain goats are sensitive to human disturbance, which can cause the 

temporary or permanent abandonment of habitat, increased stress, altered 

behaviors, and potentially excess energy expenditure (Goldstein et al. 2005; Olliff 

et al.1999). Prolonged exposure to disturbance may have demographic 

consequences (e.g., effects to vital rates such as survival and reproduction), 

though this relationship is not completely understood. Industrial activities such 

as timber harvest, mining, road construction and hydroelectric development have 

the potential to have adverse effects on mountain goat populations through 

disturbance or removal of habitat. However, this species spend much of its time 

outside of areas where timber harvest has occurred or are likely to occur in the 

future. Existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines were developed to reduce 

the impacts of other activities (e.g., helicopter over-flights for recreation) and 

impacts associated with facilities.

Black Bear

Black bears are an important species for hunting, recreation and tourism. In 

Southeast Alaska, black bears are present throughout the mainland and on the 

islands south of Frederick Sound. Black bears in Southeast Alaska are part of a 

population (Alexander Archipelago black bears) endemic to coastal British 

Columbia and Southeast Alaska, except Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof 

islands (Stone and Cook 2000; Peacock et al. 2007). 

Black bears will use habitats from sea level to the alpine but appear to prefer 

estuarine, riparian, and forested coastal habitats (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Black bears use small openings, and areas such as wetlands, clearcuts, and 

subalpine meadows for foraging. 

Past timber harvest, especially in areas adjacent to salmon streams, has 

decreased black bear habitat suitability through the removal of POG forest. 

While early successional habitats may provide abundant food (berries), over the 

long term dense young-growth stands provide poor habitat for black bears due to 

the lack of forage and large hollow trees for denning. Also, over the long term,

reduction of den sites may result from a lack of availability of large tree root 

structures (Davis et al. 2012). There are approximately 43,300 acres of younggrowth within the beach and estuary fringe and 38,320 acres of young-growth 

within RMAs due to past timber harvest on the Tongass (Table 3.9-5). Small 

OGRs and other Non-development LUDs provide some connectivity on a local 

scale to shoreline and riparian habitats preferred by black bears.

Timber harvest may also impact black bears through increased human access on 

roads. This can result in increased harvest-related mortality; however it should 

be noted that black bear harvest risk is not tied to a particular road density level. 

River Otter

River otter (Lutra canadensis) are associated with coastal and freshwater aquatic 

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

habitats. River otters are distributed throughout Southeast Alaska, and across 

the Tongass National Forest, along coastal and inland waters (MacDonald and 

Cook 2007). 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-235 Wildlife

Old-growth forests have the highest habitat value for river otters, providing 

canopy cover, large-diameter trees and snags, and burrow and den sites. River 

otters rest in cavities or beneath the roots of large conifers or snags in POG 

forests with open understories (high-volume POG forest; Ben-David et al. 1996; 

Bowyer et al. 2003). Young-growth forests provide lower quality habitat. There 

are approximately 2.1 million acres of high-volume POG forest on the Tongass 

(Table 3.9-3). There are 43,300 acres of young-growth forest within the beach 

and estuary fringe and 38,320 acres of young-growth within RMAs (excluding 

TTRA buffers) resulting from past timber harvest on the Tongass (Table 3.9-5). 

Protection under the Forest Plan is provided through standards and guidelines 

for beaches, estuaries, and riparian areas (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

American Marten

The American marten (Martes americana) is an important furbearer that is

associated with old-growth forests. Although only one species of marten is 

formally recognized in Southeast Alaska two distinct lineages exist. Although 

there is some uncertainty, recent taxonomic evidence suggests the potential 

existence of two species (Dawson and Cook 2012). Within the Alexander 

Archipelago, the coastal form caurina is thought to occur only on Kuiu and 

Admiralty Islands, though a preliminarily identified specimen of this subspecies 

has been collected on Dall Island (USDA Forest Service unpublished data). The 

continental form occurs elsewhere in their range (Cook et al. 2006). 

Coastal habitats (beach fringe) and riparian areas have the highest habitat value for 

marten, followed by upland forested habitats below 1,500 feet in elevation (USDA 

Forest Service 2008a). Marten favor large- and medium-sized old-growth forests 

because they intercept snow, provide cover and denning sites, and provide habitat 

for marten prey species (Flynn and Schumacher 2001; Flynn et al. 2004). These 

forests are also used by deer during winter, and winter-kill carcasses of deer 

represented a significant portion of marten diet in winter (Ben-David et al. 1997). 

These forests have also experienced past timber harvest. Consequently, the 

quantity and quality of winter habitat is a limiting factor for marten in Southeast 

Alaska. Therefore, the availability of deep-snow marten habitat, defined as highvolume POG below 800 feet in elevation, provides a measure of habitat quality for 

marten. There are approximately 3 million acres of high-volume POG forest below 

800 feet elevation on the Tongass National Forest (Table 3.9-4). Young-growth 

forests provide lower habitat value but may be used if they support abundant forage 

and small mammal populations (Flynn et al. 2004). More recent research indicates 

more prevalent use of young-growth forests than once thought (Goldstein 2013), 

emphasizing these forest in the matrix and within the reserve system for providing 

structural connectivity for movement and dispersal.

Marten populations fluctuate greatly over time in response to habitat conditions, prey 

densities, and trapping pressure. Marten are easily trapped and can be 

overharvested. The ADF&G currently permits unlimited trapping of marten in all of 

the Game Management Units (GMUs) covering the Tongass National Forest (GMUs 

1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) with the exception of Kuiu Island, which is currently closed. 

Old-growth timber harvest reduces habitat quality for marten through the removal 

of forest cover, fragmentation of old-growth habitat (reductions in travel corridors 

and/or functional connectivity between spatially isolated populations), and 

reductions in habitat for some prey species. Increased human access 

associated with new roads may result in increased marten harvest-related 

mortality. Although closed roads still facilitate access (e.g., off-highway vehicle, 

pedestrian), open roads that receive the highest and most consistent use are

likely to have the greatest effect on marten. Existing road densities (all 

elevations included) on the Tongass are listed in Table 3.10-4. 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-236 Final EIS

Table 3.10-4

Existing Estimated Average Road Densities and Percentage of WAAs in Road 

Density Categories on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined for All Roads and 

Open Roads Only within the Tongass National Forest Boundary (All Elevations)

Road Density Category

(miles per square mile)

Existing Road Densities (percentage of WAAs)

NFS Lands All Lands1

All Roads

0 47.6% 43.5%

0 to 0.7 37.7% 35.1%

0.7 to 1.0 6.3% 5.8%

1.0 to 2.0 7.9% 12.6%

2.0 to 3.0 0.5% 3.1%

>3.0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100% 100%

Average Total Road Density – All WAAs 0.195 0.334 

Open Roads2

0 57.1% 49.7%

0 to 0.7 39.3% 37.7%

0.7 to 1.0 2.6% 4.7%

1.0 to 2.0 1.0% 6.3%

2.0 to 3.0 0.0% 1.6%

>3.0 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100% 100%

Average Open Road Density – All WAAs 0.089 0.218 1 Percentages are based on all 191 WAAs inside the Forest boundary, including Annette Island; includes roads 

and streets within municipalities

2 Open roads on NFS land were calculated using Maintenance Levels 2, 3, 4, and 5 (see Transportation section 

for maintenance level description)

Roadless areas and OGRs and other non-development LUDs provide refugia for 

marten from trapping pressure. However, marten home ranges are well 

distributed across the landscape and include areas with timber harvest and 

roads, emphasizing the importance of habitat within matrix lands. Legacy Forest 

Structure standards and guidelines, in combination with the beach fringe and 

riparian buffers, aid in providing habitat and connectivity for marten on NFS lands 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Brown Bear

Southeast Alaska is home to one of the highest concentrations of brown bears 

(Ursus arctos) in the world (ADF&G 2000). Brown bears are present on the 

mainland and on most the islands north of Frederick Sound. They are 

occasionally reported on Mitkof, Etolin, Revillagigedo, and Wrangell Islands 

south of Frederick Sound, but are not found on any of the other islands in 

Southeast Alaska. Admiralty, Baranof, Chichagof, Kruzof, Yakobi, and 

neighboring islands consistently support the highest densities of brown bears on 

the Tongass National Forest (GMU 4).

Brown bears are important both for hunting (including both outfitter guided and 

non-guided hunting) and to the recreation and tourism industry of Southeast 

Alaska. On the Tongass, ADF&G permits harvest of brown bears in GMUs 1, 3, 

4, and 5. As tourism grows in Southeast Alaska, there is increasing demand for 

more bear viewing opportunities such as those provided by Pack Creek and 

Anan Creek. 

Brown bears use areas from sea level to the alpine and are habitat generalists. 

The late-summer season has been identified as the most critical or limiting period 

for brown bears when they must build up energy reserves that are adequate to 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-237 Wildlife

survive the winter and successfully reproduce (Hilderbrand et al. 1999). During 

this season, many brown bears concentrate along low elevation valley bottoms 

and salmon streams, with most use occurring within 500 feet of streams (Schoen 

and Beier 1990; Titus and Beier 1999), where their efforts focus on consuming 

large quantities of fish in order rebuild their body condition and lay on essential 

fat reserves. These are often the same areas of highest human use and most 

intense resource development activities (Flynn et al. 2007). 

Flynn et al. (2007) found bears, particularly females, in heavily altered 

watersheds (i.e., with more road building and timber harvest) tended to occur 

farther away from salmon streams than bears in watersheds with more intact 

streamside vegetation suggesting that bears are not making optimal use of 

available salmon resources in heavily altered landscapes. A study on the Kenai 

Peninsula reported that female brown bears with cubs tended to avoid areas 

used by other bears and by humans, apparently in an effort to increase offspring 

survival, and used less productive salmon spawning areas despite having high 

nutritional requirements (Suring et al. 2006). Thus, even less productive streams 

may be important to brown bear population productivity (Wielgus and Bunnell 

1995). 

Roads and other human developments can also be detrimental to bears because 

they increase the opportunity for human-induced mortality of bears through legal 

hunting, defense of life or property kills, and illegal killing. Additionally, poorly 

maintained or constructed roads can affect water quality and productivity of 

salmon streams. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf

The Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) is thought to be a subspecies of 

gray wolf endemic to Southeast Alaska and British Columbia. It inhabits the mainland

of Southeast Alaska and coastal British Columbia west of the Coast Mountain 

Range, and larger islands (those south of Frederick Sound) except Admiralty, 

Baranof, Chichagof islands, and on all of the Haida Gwaii or the Queen Charlotte 

Islands (USFWS 2015). Approximately 38 percent of the range-wide population of 

Alexander Archipelago wolves inhabits Southeast Alaska, where population trends 

are largely unknown, except for the population on Prince of Wales Island and the 

surrounding islands (collectively GMU 2), which appeared to decline in abundance in 

the past 20 years. A portion of Prince of Wales Island was sampled and estimates 

expanded to the entire GMU 2 suggesting an apparent decline of potentially 75 

percent. Uncertainty in the apparent decline is most effectively considered through 

95 percent confidence intervals on the 1994 (CI=148-564) and 2014 (CI=50-159) 

estimates (USFWS 2015). However, because GMU 2 constitutes approximately four 

percent of the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf and six percent of the rangewide population, negative population impacts in GMU 2 likely do not affect the rangewide population significantly (USFWS 2015).The majority (62 percent) of the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf population occurs in coastal British Columbia and is 

thought to be stable (USFWS 2015). Although some research suggests that wolves 

inhabiting Prince of Wales Island may be genetically isolated from other populations 

in Southeast Alaska (Person 2001; Weckworth et al. 2005, 2010, 2011), there 

remains uncertainty about the degree of isolation (see the Alexander Archipelago 

Wolf Species Status Assessment (USFWS 2015) for more information). 

In August 2011, the 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 those wolves found on Prince of Wales Island 

and adjacent islands (including Kosciusko, Tuxekan, Heceta, Suemez, Dall, and 

others proximate to Prince of Wales) as a DPS based on unique genetic, physical, 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-238 Final EIS

and ecological characteristics. In March 2014, the USFWS issued a 90-day finding 

that the petition to list the subspecies presented substantial information indicating 

that listing may be warranted (79 FR 17993). A status review of the Alexander 

Archipelago wolf to determine if listing is warranted was published in November 

2015.In January 2016, the USFWS published a 12-Month Finding that listing of the 

subspecies was not warranted.

Wolves feed primarily on deer in certain areas, though waterfowl, beaver, spawning 

salmon, and marine mammals represent important prey when available (Lafferty et 

al. 2014; Darimont and Reimchen 2002; Szepanski et al. 1999). Wolves in 

Southeast Alaska also prey on moose and elk where available. Suitable habitats for 

wolves are those capable of supporting this prey base. Therefore, wolves in 

Southeast Alaska use a wide variety of prey habitats but spend most of their time in 

productive and unproductive old-growth forests at low elevations (below 270 feet); 

young-growth forests and clearcuts are typically avoided (Person 2001). Dens on 

Prince of Wales Island are located in root wads of large living or dead trees within 

old-growth forest stands less than 495 feet (150 meters) from freshwater (Person 

and Russell 2009).

Deer winter habitat was considered by Person et al. (1996) and Person (2001) to be 

a good measure of habitat quality for wolves in southern Southeast Alaska. Blacktailed deer are present in all Southeast Alaska GMUs where wolves occur. Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines state that where possible, the provision of sufficient 

deer habitat capability to first maintain sustainable wolf populations, and then to 

consider meeting estimated human deer harvest demands. This is generally 

considered to equate to the habitat capability to support a minimum of 18 deer per 

square mile (using interagency deer habitat capability model outputs; USDA Forest 

Service 2008a). However, other factors (e.g., local knowledge of habitat conditions, 

inherent capability of the landscape, spatial extent of the analysis) are to be 

considered by the biologist, as well, rather than solely relying upon model outputs

(USDA Forest Service 1997b, Appendix N). 

As required under the Forest Plan, the interagency deer habitat capability model was 

used to evaluate wolf habitat capability based on modeled deer habitat capabilities

(see the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS for discussion of model limitations and 

assumptions). Table 3.10-5 summarizes existing conditions by biogeographic 

province. Forest-wide approximately 89 percent of the original (1954) habitat 

capability remains, ranging from 72 to 100 by biogeographic province.

Wolves are also a furbearer in Southeast Alaska. Harvesting of wolves is 

regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board and the State of Alaska Board of 

Game. Harvest regulations, both subsistence and sport, are intended to help 

ensure sustainable wolf populations. The ADF&G works cooperatively with the

Alaska Board of Game and with federal land managers, including the Forest 

Service, to identify and address conservation concerns and propose regulation 

changes as needed for all wildlife in Southeast Alaska, including wolves.

Although wolves are often harvested by hunters and trappers working from boats 

(approximately 59 percent of harvest in GMU 2) harvest-related wolf mortality 

(both legal and illegal) is correlated with roads and other habitat features, which 

influence their vulnerability to harvest (Person and Russell 2008; Person and 

Logan 2012). Wolf mortality analyses (e.g., Person and Russell 2008, Person 

and Logan 2012) document the strong positive relationship between wolf 

mortality and road density. Person and Russell (2008) found that rate of harvest 

of both resident and non-resident (e.g., those dispersing or moving through 

unfamiliar territory) wolves increased with density of roads, which provide access 

to hunters and trappers; however, total road densities above 1.5 miles per square 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-239 Wildlife

Table 3.10-5

Modeled Deer Habitat Capability Using the Interagency Deer Model for Comparison to 

Forest Plan 18 Deer per Square Mile Standard and Guideline (NFS Lands Only)

Biological Province

Existing 

Habitat 

Capability

2015 (Deer 

per Square 

Mile)

Original 

(1954) 

Habitat 

Capability 

(Deer per 

Square 

Mile)

% Original 

Habitat 

Capability 

Remaining

No. WAAs with 

Modeled Deer 

Density of at least 

18 Deer per Square 

Mile1/

1 Yakutat Forelands 13.3 13.7 97% 2

2 Yakutat Uplands 2.3 2.4 98% 0

3 East Chichagof Island 11.7 13.7 86% 1

4 West Chichagof Island 14.5 14.5 100% 1

5 East Baranof Island 7.0 8.5 82% 0

6 West Baranof Island 12.2 13.7 89% 4

7 Admiralty Island 17.6 17.9 98% 10

8 Lynn Canal 5.5 5.8 95% 1

9 North Coast Range 6.2 6.2 100% 0

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 16.9 19.2 88% 7

11 Kuiu Island 25.5 28.1 91% 7

12 Central Coast Range 9.0 9.5 96% 1

13 Etolin Island 15.7 18.9 83% 3

14 North Central Prince of Wales 17.7 24.5 72% 11

15 Revilla Island/Cleveland Peninsula 13.5 15.0 90% 7

16 Southern Outer Islands 28.1 32.1 88% 9

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 30.4 30.6 99% 3

18 South Prince of Wales 21.8 22.2 98% 5

19 North Misty Fiords 3.7 3.8 99% 2

20 South Misty Fiords 8.4 8.4 100% 0

21 Ice Fields 0.7 0.8 94% 0

Forest-wide 10.1 11.3 89% 57 1 For WAAs that overlap a biological province boundary only the overlapping portion counted toward the total. 2 Note that the model treats harvested stands in the stem exclusion stage (25 years old or older) the same value regardless of 

thinning treatments that are implemented.3 Note that wolves very rarely occur on Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof Islands.

mile had little additional effect on harvest rates. This study did not differentiate 

between open and closed roads though the authors stated that road status likely 

had an important influence on wolf mortality. Similarly, wolves are more easily 

observed in open habitats such as muskegs, meadows, and young clearcuts; 

therefore, use of these habitats, particularly in areas accessible to humans (i.e., 

the beach and roaded areas), increases the risk of harvest-related mortality 

(Person and Russell 2008). Harvest vulnerability may limit dispersal, and thus 

the ability of wolves to recolonize territories that have been vacated by trapping 

and hunting or may diminish genetic interchange between separate populations. 

The 2008 Forest Plan states that a road density of 0.7 to 1.0 mile per square mile 

or less may be necessary to reduce harvest-related mortality risk where locally 

unsustainable wolf mortality has been identified through interagency analysis

(USDA Forest Service 2008, p. 4-95; Person 1996). Existing road densities are 

presented in Table 3.10-4. Approximately 15.8 percent of Wildlife Analysis Areas 

(WAAs) exceed this guideline (all roads included), and approximately 7 percent

exceed 1.5 mile per square mile.

Bald Eagle

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is associated with beach, estuary 

fringe, and riparian habitats. Bald eagles typically nest in large trees in sprucehemlock forest, and over 90 percent of the nests are within 500 feet of a 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-240 Final EIS

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 especially sensitive to disturbance early in the breeding season. 

Activities associated with timber harvest can result in reproductive failure or 

cause bald eagles to abandon their nests completely (Fraser et al. 1985 as cited 

in Isaacs et al. 2005). They are also susceptible to water quality impacts that 

adversely impact their prey populations (e.g., herring, flounder, pollock, and 

salmon). Under the 2008 Forest Plan, the availability of nesting habitat is not 

seen as a significant limiting factor, in part due to the current protection of the 

1,000-foot shoreline beach buffer on the Tongass National Forest (Hodges 

2011). Further protection to bald eagles is afforded by Forest-wide standards 

and guidelines that require the maintenance of estuarine and riparian buffers and 

the raptor standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2008a). Bald eagles 

are managed by the USFWS under the National Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act and through the Bald Eagle Take Permit Program (USFWS 

2009b). 

Red Squirrel

The red squirrel is an important prey species for American marten and goshawk 

and is a management indicator species because of its preference for coneproducing trees and tree cavities and snags, which they use for denning and 

nesting (USDA Forest Service 2008b). It is one of only two arboreal rodents in 

Southeast Alaska. Red squirrels are also a small game species. Red squirrels 

are abundant on many of the islands in the Alexander Archipelago and the

mainland. 

Red squirrels use POG forests, but may also use young-growth stands once

cone production begins about 40 years after timber harvest (USDA Forest 

Service 2008a). There are approximately 9.9 million acres of forested land 

(including all age classes and types of conifer forests) on the Tongass National 

Forest that provide potential habitat for red squirrels (Table 3.9-2). 

Old-growth timber harvest reduces habitat quality for red squirrels through the 

removal of forest cover and fragmentation of forest habitats. However, recovery 

of habitat capability after timber harvest is much faster for red squirrels than other 

species because although post-harvest formation of structures favored for 

nesting and food storage (cavities) takes longer, the majority of habitat capability 

(food availability) is restored quickly as cone production typically begins 40 years 

after harvest. Commercial even-aged young-growth harvest would return stands 

to an early seral condition so would delay development of habitat capability for 

red squirrels. Forest Plan Reserve Tree/Cavity-Nesting Habitat and Legacy 

Forest Structure standards and guidelines maintain habitat for this species 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

Red-breasted Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown Creeper

The red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber), hairy woodpecker

(Leuconotopicus villosus), and brown creeper (Certhia americana) are old-growth 

associated and snag dependent species. Hairy woodpeckers and red-breasted 

sapsuckers are primary cavity excavators that require snags and dying trees for 

foraging and nesting. Although they may be found in a variety of forested 

habitats, the brown creeper prefers large diameter old-growth trees (Hejl et al. 

2002). Although no historic population estimates exist, it is likely that timber 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-241 Wildlife

harvest and associated activities have reduced populations from historic levels 

(Raphael 1988; Hejl et al. 2002). North American Breeding Bird Survey data 

collected between 2003 and 2013 suggest populations of all three species are 

increasing within the Northern Pacific Rainforest region, though none of the 

trends were statistically significant (Sauer et al. 2014).

The hairy woodpecker is an uncommon, permanent resident throughout 

southeast Alaska. The hairy woodpecker is typically associated with high-volume 

POG. They generally feed on insects on the surfaces of snags, the dead parts of 

live trees, and occasionally live trees during the summer. Hairy woodpeckers 

nest in large dead and live trees. 

Red-breasted sapsuckers are the most common primary cavity excavators in 

southeast Alaska (Suring 1988 as cited in USDA Forest Service 2008b), and 

provide obligatory habitat for secondary cavity nesters including other birds and 

northern flying squirrels who are unable to create their own cavities (Wagner 

2011). However, red-breasted sapsuckers are weak excavators and therefore 

require rotted or soft substrates in order to create cavities for nesting and 

roosting. The red-breasted sapsucker inhabits all of southeast Alaska during 

spring, summer, and fall but typically winters in the coastal portions of its 

breeding range. The red-breasted sapsucker is an interior old-growth forest 

species typically associated with low-volume POG. Nest sites contain a lower 

volume of trees, trees intermediate in size, increased incidence of fungal 

infection, and older decay classes of coarse woody debris (Wagner 2011). 

Brown creepers are considered uncommon, permanent residents throughout 

southeast Alaska. They are an interior old-growth forest species and have been 

shown to abandon sites that have been subjected to even light tree clearing if it 

includes the removal of large, mature trees (Wiggins 2005). 

All three species are associated with interior old-growth forest conditions 

(Kissling and Garton 2008). In a study of the responses of forest-dwelling birds 

to varying forested beach buffer widths in southeast Alaska, hairy woodpeckers 

and brown creepers were absent from forest buffers less than 830 feet wide (250

meters wide), indicating that these species may avoid edge habitats; 83 percent 

of brown creepers were detected in undisturbed control plots (Kissling 2003;

Kissling and Garton 2007). Densities of red-breasted sapsuckers were positively 

correlated with buffer width, with the greatest densities occurring in buffers at 

least 1,000 feet wide (300 meters wide; Kissling 2003). 

Old-growth timber harvest activities that remove large, live trees and dead or 

dying trees reduce nesting and foraging habitat for these species (Hejl et al. 

2002). Timber harvest may also reduce local habitat quality by creating 

fragmented forest patches, reducing the amount of interior old-growth forest 

habitat with which these species are associated. Brown creeper and hairy 

woodpecker would be most affected by harvest activities that reduce the number 

of large diameter trees and snags. Commercial thinning activities as well as 

commercial young growth harvest may result in increased openness, tree 

“wounding,” and slash, creating habitats that could be used by these species for 

foraging (James 1984; Hagar et al. 1996, 1994). Hagar and Friesen (2009) 

found that the positive influence of thinning persisted for at least 10 years for 

some species including the red-breasted sapsucker. 

Past timber harvest has reduced and altered the habitat used by the redbreasted sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper. Of the 5.0 million

acres of POG forest on the Tongass National Forest, approximately 2.1 million

acres are high-volume POG, and 790,000 acres are low-volume POG that 

provide potential habitat for these species (Table 3.9-3). Maintenance of habitat 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-242 Final EIS

for these species under the Forest Plan is provided in the reserve tree and 

legacy standards and guidelines, beach and riparian buffers, and the OGR

system (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Vancouver Canada Goose

The Vancouver Canada goose (Branta canadensis fulva) is associated with 

wetlands (both forested and non-forested) in the estuary, riparian, and upland 

areas of the Forest (USDA Forest Service 2008b). The Vancouver Canada 

goose is primarily a non-migratory subspecies of Canada goose that occurs yearround throughout Southeast Alaska, with an estimated resident population of 

25,000 birds (Hupp et al. 2010). However, geese do move locally between 

nesting, brood rearing, molting, and wintering grounds. This species nests in 

forested habitats associated with beach and estuary buffers, and riparian 

habitats. Hupp et al. (2010) documented nests in forests adjacent to muskegs. 

During winter, marine grasses and salt marsh plants commonly found in intertidal 

areas are important forage resources, and Vancouver Canada geese exhibit 

strong fidelity, returning repeatedly to such winter sites.

Potential habitats for Vancouver Canada geese are located along the shorelines 

of lakes as well as in the forested riparian and estuarine areas. There are 

approximately 1.3 million acres of forested wetlands on the Tongass National 

Forest (see the Wetlands section for additional discussion). 

Timber harvest activities may result in disturbance to geese, particularly if they 

occur in the vicinity of nest sites or brood rearing areas, and habitat removal. 

However, timber harvest in these areas has generally been minimal because 

these sites are fairly unproductive. However, modifications to shoreline and 

riparian habitats can occur in association with young-growth harvest and roads 

and utility corridors if these habitats are crossed. Protection from direct impact to 

habitat is provided by Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for waterfowl and 

shorebird, wetland, and riparian standards and guidelines; overall goose habitat 

is provided by the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy (USDA Forest Service 

2008a). 

Other Species

Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186 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. The Executive Order directs 

agencies to take certain actions to further comply with the migratory bird 

conventions, the MBTA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other 

pertinent statutes. Agencies are required to support the conservation and 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 bird resources when 

conducting agency actions.

Birds protected under the MBTA include all common songbirds, waterfowl, 

shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native doves and pigeons, 

swifts, martins, swallows, and others, including their body parts (e.g., feathers, 

plumes), nests, and eggs. The Tongass National Forest is located in the 

Northern Pacific Rainforest Bird Conservation Region (BCR 5). The Northern

Pacific Rainforest BCR is one of five BCRs designated in Alaska to provide a 

framework to facilitate coordinated conservation efforts (U.S. NABCI Committee, 

September 2000; Rich et al. 2004). 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-243 Wildlife

Priority migratory bird species identified in the Landbird Conservation Plan (BPIF 

1999; Rich et al. 2004) for Southeast Alaska with the potential to occur on the 

Tongass National Forest are listed in Table 3.10-6. Of these species, 14 use 

hemlock/spruce/cedar forest (both old-growth and young-growth) as primary 

habitat for known or probable breeding; the remaining 6 use this forest as 

secondary habitat. These species include ground-nesting birds (blue grouse), 

cavity- and bark-nesting birds (woodpeckers, the brown creeper, swallows, forest 

owls, and wrens), tree- and shrub-nesting birds (flycatchers, warblers, forest 

raptors, crossbills, thrushes, kinglets, and corvids), and specialized nesters 

(dippers). Migratory birds are likely to be present in upland forest, riparian, and 

coastal habitat. There are 5.0 million acres of POG on the Tongass National 

Forest that provide primary or secondary habitats for these species (note that 

many of these species are also shrub nesters; Table 3.9-3). 

The main management issue for migratory birds in BCR 5 is the harvest of oldgrowth coniferous forests. Timber harvest directly removes perching, foraging, 

and nesting habitat and results in habitat fragmentation, which may reduce the 

suitability of remaining forest for species associated with old-growth interior forest 

conditions, such as the Pacific-slope flycatcher, varied thrush, golden-crowned 

kinglet, Townsend’s warbler, and brown creeper (BPIF 1999, Kissling 2003;

Sperry 2006). Fragmentation may increase the exposure of birds to edge-related 

predators and parasites, though there remain many unknowns about the effects 

of fragmentation on landbird populations in Alaska (Robinson 1992; Hoover et al. 

1995; BPIF 1999). As the landscape becomes more fragmented, forest buffers 

become increasingly important for migratory birds to mitigate the effects of 

habitat loss (Kissling 2003). There is already an existing level of fragmentation 

on the Tongass, both natural in association with the distribution of forested and 

non-forested cover types, and in association with past timber harvest and other 

development activities. Riparian forests are also important for many species, 

such as the American dipper, western screech owl, western wood-pewee, and 

Hammond’s flycatcher. This habitat has been altered by road construction and 

other human activities; however, the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy 

maintains these areas mitigating some of these effects. Timber harvest and 

related activities may also directly impact migratory birds through disturbances of 

adults or young through the removal of active bird nests or by causing nest 

abandonment. Protection under the Forest Plan is provided by beach fringe and 

riparian buffers and standards and guidelines for waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, 

and legacy forest structure.
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-244 Final EIS

Table 3.10-6

Migratory and Resident Birds Identified as Species of Concern in Southeast Alaska1

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name General Habitat

Preferred 

Habitat2

Abundance

and 

Occurrence

Sooty Grouse Dendragapus 

fuliginosus

Habitat affinities vary by season and region. 

Coastal birds tend to remain in old-growth or 

recently logged forests all year. Inland birds 

prefer forest edges in summer, coniferous 

forests in winter (Kaufman 1996). Found in 

coniferous and mixed forests in Southeastern 

Alaska; also in dwarf conifer forests at 

treeline.

2, 3

Rare; 

breeding, 

winter

Western 

Screech-Owl

Megascops

kennicottii 

Open coniferous and deciduous forests and 

along rivers, creeks, ponds and bogs. Also 

forest edges and in suburban areas in parks, 

orchards and gardens. Often nest near water

(Campbell et al. 1990). In southern part of 

range in mesquite groves and saguaros 

(Kaufman 1996). Probably non-migratory in 

Alaska due to sufficient habitat to meet yearround requirements (P. Schempf, pers. 

commun.). In Yakutat, appears to favor 

riparian spruce (B. Andres, pers. commun.). 

2

Uncommon; 

breeding, 

winter

Black Swift Cypseloides 

niger (borealis) 

Appear to be restricted to river valleys with 

steep unvegetated cliffs. Although nesting 

has not been confirmed in Southeastern 

Alaska, summer sightings in adequate habitat 

suggest Black Swifts are a probable breeder. 

5 Rare; 

breeding

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi

Nests in coniferous and mixed forests, 

especially old growth. Often observed 

foraging over lakes, rivers, open country and 

clearcuts. Many records from Southeastern 

Alaska are along rivers and estuaries. 

2

Uncommon; 

migration, 

breeding

Rufous 

Hummingbird

Selasphorus 

rufus

Found in a variety of habitats throughout 

breeding range including old growth, young

growth, thickets, and shrubby hillsides 

2

Common; 

migration, 

breeding

Red-Breasted 

Sapsucker

Sphyrapicus 

ruber

Often associated with mature stands, 

especially hemlock and/or spruce in Pacific 

Northwest and Southeastern Alaska, but may 

not be an obligate old-growth species.

2 Abundant; 

breeding

Olive-sided 

Flycatcher

Contopus 

cooperi

In Central Alaska, most often found in open 

conifer forest. Usually associated with 

openings (muskegs, meadows, burns, and 

logged areas) and water (streams, beaver 

ponds, bogs, and lakes). Apparently requires 

an uneven canopy or openings for aerial 

hawking, and wet areas productive of insect 

prey.

3 Uncommon; 

breeding

Western WoodPewee

Contopus 

sordidulus

In Southeastern Alaska, occurs along large 

mainland rivers, much less common on 

islands.

3 Uncommon; 

breeding

Hammond’s 

Flycatcher

Empidonax 

hammondii

In Southeastern Alaska, found in riparian 

deciduous forests. 2, 3 Uncommon; breeding

Pacific-slope 

Flycatcher

Empidonax 

difficilis

Prefers old-growth coniferous forests, 

especially near streams. 2, 3 Common; breeding

Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta 

stelleri

In Alaska, found predominately in coniferous 

forests 2

Abundant; 

breeding, 

winter
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-245 Wildlife

Table 3.10-6 (continued)

Migratory and Resident Birds Identified as Species of Concern in Southeast Alaska1

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name General Habitat

Preferred 

Habitat2

Abundance

and 

Occurrence

Northwestern 

Crow Corvus caurinus Coastal beaches, rocky shores, estuaries, coastal ponds and inshore islands. 2, 6, 7, 8

Abundant; 

breeding, 

winter

Chestnutbacked 

Chickadee

Poecile 

rufescens

In Southeastern Alaska, common in mature 

hemlock/spruce forests and also in pole and 

sawtimber stages of successional forests 

2

Abundant; 

breeding, 

winter

American 

Dipper

Cinclus 

mexicanus 

Dippers are a riparian-obligate species and 

are totally dependent on the productivity of 

streams and rivers. 

4, 5

Fairly

common; 

breeding

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Found mostly in thick, wet, coniferous forests 

of the coast. 1, 2, 3

Abundant; 

migration, 

breeding, 

winter

Townsend's 

Warbler

Dendroica 

townsendi

Largely restricted to mature forests with tall 

coniferous trees throughout its breeding 

range. Most abundant in large undisturbed 

tracts of contiguous forest, but will also use 

forests in late successional stages.

2, 3 Common; 

breeding

Blackpoll 

Warbler

Dendroica 

striata

Habitat preference variable, but usually found 

in tall shrubs (riparian woodland) or in 

coniferous or deciduous forest or woodland

2 Rare; 

migration

MacGillivray’s 

Warbler

Oporornis 

tolmiei

In southeastern Alaska, it is found in shrubs 

along hemlock/spruce edges, deciduous 

woodlands with shrubs, clearcuts, and 

riparian shrubs.

1 Uncommon; 

breeding

Goldencrowned 

Sparrow

Regulus 

satrapa

Prefers low to tall alder and willow scrub on 

hillsides and near tundra. Commonly found 

in proximity to lakes, streams, and bogs. In 

winter prefers uninterrupted brushland, 

streamside thickets, and chaparral.

1

Fairly

common; 

breeding, 

winter

Goldencrowned kinglet

Zonotrichia 

atricapilla

Found in coniferous forests (spruce, fir, and

hemlock) all times of year; also in mixed 

forests in south coastal and central Alaska. 

In winter and migration, can be found in other 

trees and shrubs. 

1, 3

Common; 

breeding, 

winter

1 Source: Boreal Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic Regions (1999) 2 1=shrub thicket; 2=hemlock/Sitka spruce/cedar forest; 3=mixed deciduous/spruce woodland; 4=fluvial waters; 5=cliffs, bluffs, 

and screes; 6=moraines, alluvia, and barrier islands; 7=beaches and tidal flats; 8=rocky shores and reefs.

Bats

There are seven species of bats that are known to occur in Alaska (Parker et al. 

1997, Olson et al. 2014). Little is known about the distribution, migration, habitat 

associations, and population status of these species (Loeb et al. 2014; Boland et 

al. 2009). ADF&G has established a network of year-round acoustic monitoring 

stations across Southeast Alaska to learn more about their seasonal activity 

patterns across the region. Of the bat species that occur in Southeast Alaska, the 

little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus) is the most common and wide spread. Others 

include the silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), Keen's myotis (M. 

keenii), California myotis (M. californicus), the long-legged myotis (M. 

californicus), Yuma myotis (M. yumanensis), and the big brown bat (Eptesicus 

fuscus). All species are associated with mature forested habitats which provide 

roosting, breeding, and foraging sites, and bat activity appears rare, for most 

species, in second-growth forest (Tessler et al. 2014; Walton et al. 2013a-e;

Parker et al. 1996). Tree-roosting species, such as the Keen’s myotis and silver-
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-246 Final EIS

haired bat often roost in mature forest patches with large numbers of suitable 

cavity trees. Other species, such as the little brown bat, roost in caves 

associated with the karst system. Foraging activities vary depending on 

vegetation density, and studies have found higher foraging activity from bats in 

intact forest patches and along the patch edges, with less activity in clear-cut 

areas (Patriquin and Barclay 2003). Throughout its range, the little brown bat 

has undergone dramatic declines due to white-nose syndrome (a fungal infection 

that affects bats while in hibernation), and is of particular management interest as 

white-nose syndrome has not yet been detected in Alaska. Bats are generally 

relatively rare in Alaska and reproductive rates for bats in higher latitudes are 

generally lower than farther south. These factors may make these species more 

susceptible to habitat loss and other factors, however further research is needed 

to better understand current bat populations and how they respond to habitat loss 

and other factors (Boland et al. 2009). Timber harvest, particularly even-aged 

harvest, has the potential to remove roosting and foraging habitat for bats.

Marbled Murrelet

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 distinct population segments: one 

in the central and western Aleutian Islands; one ranging from the eastern 

Aleutians to northern California; and one in central California. 

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; Kuletz et al. 1995; Ralph and Miller 1995). However, on some treeless 

islands in Southeast Alaska marbled murrelets lay eggs on bare talus slopes in 

mountainous areas (Piatt et al. 2007). 

Timber harvest, through the removal of POG forest, can directly remove nest 

trees, and also increases habitat fragmentation and associated edge effects, 

such as increased rates of nest predation (Andren 1994; Chalfoun et al. 2002). 

Some avian predators of murrelets, especially corvids (i.e., ravens, crows, jays), 

are known to increase both with forest fragmentation and proximity to human 

activity (Burger 2002). In a study of the edge effects and nest predation risk on 

marbled murrelets, Malt and Lank (2007) found that disturbances by avian 

predators at nests were significantly more frequent at hard edges (clearcuts) 

relative to interiors, but less frequent at soft edges (regenerating forest); there 

were no edge effects at natural-edged (riparian) sites. Thus, edge-associated 

predation risk may subside with the progression of forest succession. Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines pertaining to marbled murrelets include 

maintaining a 600-foot radius no-cut buffer zone around identified murrelet nests 

(Forest Service 2008a).

Amphibians

There are eight species of amphibians known to occur in Southeast Alaska; two 

of which, the Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) and the red-legged frog 

(Rana Aurora), are introduced (MacDonald and Cook 2007). Native species 

include the western toad (Bufo boreas), wood frog (Rana sylvatica), Columbia 

spotted frog (Rana luteiventris), rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa), longtoed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum), and northwestern salamander 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-247 Wildlife

(Ambystoma gracile). Within Alaska, most of these species are confined to the 

southeast, with the exception of the western toad which ranges as far north as 

Prince William Sound (MacDonald and Cook 2007), and the wood frog, which is 

widespread throughout Alaska, and persists north of the arctic circle (Lee-Yaw et 

al. 2008). Amphibians have specific requirements for both aquatic and terrestrial 

habitats in order to complete their life-cycle. This makes them useful indicator 

taxa of forest change and effects on habitat elements such as canopy shade, soil 

moisture, and coarse woody material. All factors that can be critical for 

maintaining populations within a forest stand (Olsen et al. 2014; Semlitch et al. 

2009; Bunnel et al. 1999). Clearing of trees can result in increased solar 

radiation to the forest floor, resulting in changes in moisture and soil 

temperatures; these effects can be reduced using selective thinning (Verschuyl 

et al. 2011). Amphibians are often vulnerable to road construction and increased 

road traffic as many species migrate from streams and other waterbodies to 

upland habitats. This often involves crossing of roads, and amphibians are often 

slow moving and behaviorally susceptible to vehicular mortalities (Trombulak and 

Frissel 2000). In addition, contaminants from roads, run-off and habitat changes 

(such as changes in hydrology and drier soils along the edge of the road) from 

construction can have deleterious effects on amphibian physiology and 

behavior, such as changes in migration (Jochimsen et al. 2004; Reeves et al. 

2010). Climate change has the potential to disproportionately affect amphibians 

due to their limited range sizes, dependence on both moist terrestrial and aquatic 

habitats, and ectothermic physiology (affecting larval development, oxygen 

availability in water, resistance to diseases and parasites, and general 

physiology) (Wake and Vredenburg 2008). 

The USFWS defines endemic as “a species native and confined to a certain 

region; having comparatively restricted distribution” 

(http://www.fws.gov/endangered/about/glossary.html). The 2008 Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines for endemic mammals direct the Forest to “maintain 

habitat to support viable populations and improve knowledge of habitat 

relationships of rare or endemic terrestrial mammals that may represent unique 

populations with restricted ranges.” Likewise, the NFMA directs that 

management prescriptions “shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and 

animal communities, including endemic(s).”

Due to its archipelago geography and highly dynamic glacial history, southeast 

Alaska has been found to be a region with an especially high degree of 

endemism (Demboski et al. 1998). Approximately 20 percent of the small 

mammal taxa (species and subspecies) known to occur in Southeast Alaska are 

endemic to an island or a group of islands (Dawson et al. 2007). There remain 

many uncertainties about the extent of endemism in Southeast Alaska because 

research to date has primarily focused on mammals, thus the level of endemism 

in other organisms such as plants, birds, amphibians, and invertebrates is largely 

unknown. Centers of endemism (areas with the presence of a high number of 

endemic species) have been identified in Southeast Alaska which are thought to 

have been refugia during the last glacial event (Cook et al. 2001, 2006). Some of 

these locations coincide with areas that have also experienced high levels of 

timber harvest and which may be ready for YG harvest.

Due to their restricted ranges, specific habitat requirements, and sensitivity to 

human activity, insular endemic species (i.e., those restricted to islands or groups 

of islands) are highly susceptible to extirpation and eventually extinction (Soule 

1983; Reid and Miller 1989; Burkey 1995). Species tied to island archipelagos 

are more sensitive to the effects of introduced non-natives, including pathogens 

and disease, and natural events, such as climate change, than other managed 

landscapes due to their limited mobility and isolation from other subpopulations 

Endemism
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-248 Final EIS

(Cook et al. 2006). The 2008 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b) 

provides a detailed discussion on endemism and its implications on the Tongass 

National Forest. 

There are 24 known endemic wildlife species (mammals and birds) on the Tongass 

National Forest (Table 3.10-7; ISLES 2013). The Alaska Natural Heritage Program 

(ANHP) is currently working on compiling a list of endemic species for Alaska and 

associated range maps. This information will be incorporated into the EIS if it 

becomes available. Two of the more well-studied species, the Prince of Wales 

flying squirrel and Prince of Wales spruce grouse, are endemic to portions of the 

Tongass National Forest where much of the past timber harvest has been 

concentrated and are described in more detail below. Other species such as the 

Coronation Island long-tailed vole, Admiralty Island ermine and vole, and the 

Warren Island red-backed vole occur where little to no past harvest has occurred. 

The Alexander Archipelago wolf and Alexander Archipelago black bear are also 

thought to be endemic taxa and are described above.

Table 3.10-7

Endemic Wildlife Species Documented on the Tongass National 

Forest

Species Known Distribution

Prince of Wales spruce grouse

(Falcipennis canadensis isleibi)

Prince of Wales Island and nearby island 

including Heceta, Suemez, Warren, 

Kosciusko, Zarembo, and Mitkof

Admiralty Island beaver (Castor 

canadensis phaeus)

Admiralty Island

Prince of Wales flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus griseifrons)

Prince of Wales Archipelago

Pacific marten (Martes caurina) In Southeast Alaska, restricted to 

Admiralty and Kuiu islands

Coronation Island long-tailed vole 

(Microtus longicaudus coronarius)

Coronation, Warren, and Forrester islands

Sitka root vole (Microtus oeconomus 

sitkensis)

Baranof and Chichagof islands complex

Admiralty Island meadow vole (Microtus 

pennsylvanicus admiraltiae)

Admiralty Island

Baranof Island ermine (Mustela ermine 

initis)

Baranof and Chichagof islands

Admiralty Island ermine (Mustela erminea 

salva)

Admiralty Island

Revillagigedo Island red-backed vole 

(Myodes gapperi solus)

Revillagigedo Island

Warren Island red-backed vole (Myodes 

gapperi wrangeli)

Wrangell and Sergief islands

Keen’s myotis (Myotis keenii) Records from Juneau south

Alexander Archipelago mink (Neovison 

vison nesolestes)

Admiralty Island

Forrester Island deermouse (Peromyscus 

keeni oceanicus)

Forrester Island

Sitka deermouse (Peromyscus keeni 

sitkensis)

Baranof, Chichagof, Warren, Coronation, 

and Duke islands

Insular dusky shrew (Sorex monticolus 

elassodon)

Alexander Archipelago and Haida Gwaii

Warren Island dusky shrew (Sorex 

monticolus malitiosus)

Warren Island

Alexander Archipelago black bear (Ursus 

americanus pugnax)

Throughout Southeast Alaska, except 

Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagoff 

islands
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-249 Wildlife

Table 3.10-7 (continued)

Endemic Wildlife Species Documented on the Tongass National 

Forest

Species Known Distribution

“Glacier bear” (Ursus americanus 

emmonsii)

Yakutat/Glacier Bay region

Yakutat brown bear (Ursus arctos dallli) North mainland from Yakutat to Glacier 

Bay

Sitka brown bear (Ursus arctos sitkensis) Alexander Archipelago and northern 

mainland

Source: ISLES 2013

Old-growth timber harvest has the potential to remove habitat used by some 

endemic species, such as snags and hollow trees used by the Keen’s myotis and 

the Prince of Wales flying squirrel, but may also create habitat for some species 

e.g., regenerating forest stands for spruce grouse. Fragmentation of habitat 

patches could limit the ability of some species, e.g., flying squirrels, to disperse 

between areas of suitable habitat. In addition, for those species that are hunted, 

roads have the potential to increase hunter access and thus may increase 

harvest rates along the road system and the areas that these roads access (note 

that there are no known road thresholds relative to road density for these 

species).

Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel

The Prince of Wales flying squirrel is endemic to the Prince of Wales Island 

complex (Demboski et al. 1998; Smith 2005). The flying squirrel plays an 

important role in the dynamics of coniferous forest ecosystems (Carey 2000a) 

because it, along with other animals, disperses ectomycorrhizal fungi (Maser and 

Maser 1988), a food source that is lacking in young-growth forest (Flaherty et al. 

2008). Due to its close association with old-growth forest structure and 

processes and because of its specific habitat requirements for efficient 

movement, some authors have expressed concern about the long-term viability 

of this species because much of its range overlaps areas that have been affected 

by old-growth timber harvest (Carey 2000a; Scheibe et al. 2006; Shanley et al. 

2013).

Prince of Wales flying squirrels are associated with POG forest and den sites are 

typically located in areas with lower levels of fragmentation than elsewhere on 

the landscape (Pyare et al. 2010). The Prince of Wales flying squirrel is capable 

of crossing open areas such as meadows or riparian zones; however, this 

subspecies has a limited gliding range (approximately 250 feet), a distance 

substantially less than the average clearcut width (Flaherty et al. 2008). Recent 

research also indicates that the Prince of Wales flying squirrel relies on its sense 

of smell, hearing, and vision for movement. These movements are limited in 

clearcuts and young-growth forests; Flaherty et al. 2008). Flaherty et al. (2008) 

speculated that Prince of Wales flying squirrels are unlikely to venture beyond 

their perceptual (i.e., smell, hearing, and vision abilities) ranges, and thus may 

become isolated by large clearings (i.e., those that exceed 250 feet). Thus,

successful dispersal of the species depends on the functional connectivity of the 

landscape (Smith et al. 2005).

Under the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, the system of small OGRs was 

designed to provide for the distribution of flying squirrels in every major 

watershed and facilitate functional connectivity between larger reserves (USDA 

Forest Service 1997a). However, some biologists suggest that many reserves 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-250 Final EIS

on Prince of Wales Island may be too small or spaced too far apart to support 

populations of Prince of Wales flying squirrels over the long term or maintain 

functional connectivity to support a back-and-forth exchange between flying 

squirrel populations (Pyare and Smith 2005; Smith et al. 2011). In addition to the 

system of OGRs, connectivity between reserves for flying squirrels is also 

provided by the legacy forest structure, stream, estuary, lake, and beach buffer 

standards and guidelines. These features represent significant structural 

elements providing functional connectivity among landscape elements.

Prince of Wales Spruce Grouse

The Prince of Wales spruce grouse (spruce grouse) is a subspecies endemic to 

Prince of Wales and nearby islands in southern Southeast Alaska. The spruce 

grouse is associated with muskegs, high-volume POG, and mixed conifer (scrub) 

habitats but will also use young-growth forest (15-30 years following timber 

harvest) with a well-developed middle story; they avoid clearcuts (Russell 1999). 

Though they are closely associated with conifer forests, the highest densities of 

spruce grouse are supported by areas with a mosaic of older coniferous habitats 

interspersed with regenerating patches of dense trees. Spruce grouse are poor 

long-distance flyers and are generally sedentary, with some limited migratory 

movement (typically less than a mile; Dickerman and Gustafson 1996) between 

summer and winter habitats (Boag and Schroeder 1992; Williamson et al. 2008).

Spruce grouse are an important prey species for goshawks and marten. Forest 

birds, including spruce grouse, comprised a larger proportion of goshawk diets 

during the breeding season on Prince of Wales Island than elsewhere in 

Southeast Alaska (Lewis et al. 2006). Thus, impacts to spruce grouse could also 

impact goshawk and marten populations. Spruce grouse are managed as a 

game species by ADF&G. 

Timber harvest and associated fragmentation may lead to population declines if 

open areas are too large or forested patches are spread too far apart to enable 

spruce grouse to move between them (greater than 1 mile). Clearcuts may also 

present a dispersal barrier to this species due to the thick logging debris often 

present which could inhibit walking, this species preferred method of movement 

(Russell 1999). 

Spruce grouse are a small game species that are particularly vulnerable to 

hunting along road systems, and thus are susceptible to overexploitation near 

roads and human populations (Williamson et al. 2008; Rabe 2009). Existing total 

road densities are provided in Table 3.10-4. The current season for grouse is 

August 1 through May 15 with a bag limit of five per day in GMU 2 (ADF&G 

2015d). The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy maintains connectivity within 

matrix lands that will help facilitate dispersal and interchange between spruce 

grouse populations. 

Species are considered invasive if they are not native to an ecosystem, and are 

likely to cause harm to human health, the economy, or the environment 

(Executive Order 13112). Due to its remote landscape and climate, Alaska has 

relatively few invasive species compared to the rest of the United States. 

However, factors such as altered disturbance patterns, climate change, and the 

expansion of the transportation network in Alaska are expected to increase the 

prevalence of invasive species. Global climate change also creates conditions 

suitable for new invasive by altering geographic range limits and by making 

habitats no longer suitable for native species.

Invasive species can affect native species by preying on them, competing with 

them, hybridizing with them, disrupting or destroying their habitat, or introducing 

Invasive Species
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-251 Wildlife

pathogens or parasites that sicken or kill them. At least eight terrestrial species 

have been introduced into coastal Alaska habitats: Norway rat (Rattus 

norvegicus), European black slug (Arion atter), garden slug (Arion spp.), leopard 

slug (Limax maximus), elk (Cervus elaphus), house mouse (Mus musculus), 

starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and rock dove (Columba livia). Raccoons and 

snowshoe hares have also been introduced; however, due to their small 

population size and limited distribution, these species are not currently 

considered a threat to coastal Alaska ecosystems (Schrader and Hennon 2005). 

At this time, only rats are considered to be causing substantial ecological harm in 

coastal ecosystems and thus invasive, though there is concern about the 

expanding elk population (Schrader and Hennon 2005). With the exception of 

elk, which were introduced intentionally as part of a collaborative effort between 

ADF&G and the USDA Forest Service and are a desired non-native in some 

areas, all other species were unintentionally introduced. 

Norway rats likely became established along the Alaska coast following 

shipwrecks of early European explorers and now occur in areas of human 

habitation and along coastal islands where food supplies are abundant (Schrader 

and Hennon 2005). The primary concern with this species is the adverse effects 

it may have on ground-nesting birds, as evidenced by rat populations on the 

Aleutian and Queen Charlotte Islands that prey on bird nests and have 

substantially impacted breeding bird colonies. 

Elk were introduced to Alaska to develop additional hunting opportunities. As 

recently as 1987, ADF&G introduced elk on Etolin Island. Since then, elk have 

spread to other islands and areas in the Southeast. A population occurs on 

Zarembo Island, and there have been reports of elk on other nearby islands 

including Onslow, Wrangel, Mitkof, Kupreanof, Kashevaroff, Prince of Wales, 

Brushy, Shrubby, and Farm islands. They have also been spotted on the 

mainland as far north as Cape Fanshaw, and one of the original transplanted and 

radio-collared elk was located at the mouth of the Stikine River (J. Brainard, 

retired USDA Forest Service biologist, Petersburg District, personal 

communication). Elk are considered a desired non-native species on Etolin and 

Zarembo islands, but there are still many unknowns about their presence and 

potential ecological effects elsewhere. The ADF&G Division of Wildlife

Conservation has prepared a draft elk management plan for Southeast Alaska to 

manage and better understand the elk population and its potential effect on 

native plants and animals (ADF&G 1999). The main concern is competition with 

native Sitka black-tailed deer due to the high degree of dietary overlap of the two 

species (ADF&G 1999). This is primarily an issue on deer winter range, where 

deer are most limited by resource availability. Elk may reduce the available 

winter forage for deer through browsing, physically displace deer, alter predatorprey dynamics, and directly compete for food. The degree of dietary overlap 

between the species is the highest reported in the literature, indicating a high 

potential for direct competition (Kirchhoff and Larsen 1998). Pellet-count surveys 

on Etolin Island between 1991 and 1998 documented a doubling of the elk 

population while deer population declined by 56 percent (ADF&G 1999). An 

associated issue is that a decline in deer numbers could lead to fewer deer 

hunting opportunities. One recommendation for managing the elk population 

outside Etolin and Zarembo islands is to increase harvest pressure on elk. 

There are also two invasive aquatic amphibian species that are present in 

coastal Alaska. The red-legged frog (Rana aurora), which is native to the Pacific 

Northwest, has established populations in several drainages on Chichagof Island 

and the Juneau area and recent surveys suggest that its range is expanding 

(MacDonald 2003). Effects of this species are currently unknown but potentially 

include the displacement of the endemic boreal toad (Bufo borealis) and wood 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-252 Final EIS

frogs (Rana sylvatica) (MacDonald 2003). The Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris 

regilla) has an established breeding population on Revillagigedo Island 

(MacDonald 2003). Currently, this population is thought to be having little effect 

on native amphibian species, as boreal toads and rough-skinned newts (Taricha 

granulose) have successfully reproduced in the same pond complex (Schrader 

and Hennon 2005). 

Environmental Consequences

This section describes effects to wildlife resources in the planning area. 

The NFMA, as interpreted in the context of the Tongass Forest Plan

Conservation Strategy, directs the Forest to manage wildlife habitat to maintain 

viable and well distributed populations to ensure continued existence in the 

planning area. Quantitative criteria for viability are not specified by the NFMA or 

associated regulations. For this analysis, the evaluation of viability includes 

considerations of the island archipelago environment as well as the best 

available science related to each species. 

This section begins with an analysis of effects to the overall Tongass 

Conservation Strategy, which is addressed in detail in Appendix D to this EIS. 

The use of the word “wildlife” occurs frequently in this discussion without 

referencing a particular species because the intent is to consider each of the 

contributing elements of the conservation strategy and their ability to function as 

intended with respect to old-growth associated species under the alternatives. 

Following this discussion, impacts to individual species are addressed. 

Old-growth Conservation Strategy

The Tongass Conservation Strategy was designed to maintain well-distributed, 

viable wildlife populations across the Forest in the context of past and anticipated 

old-growth timber harvest. Since 1997 timber harvest rates have been far below 

those assumed in the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS and 2008 Forest Plan Amendment

FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997a, 2008a). The transition from old-growth 

harvest to young-growth harvest under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would further 

reduce old-growth harvest levels, with the greatest amounts of POG maintained 

under Alternative 2, followed by Alternatives 3, 5, 4, and 1. Tables 3.10-8 and 

3.10-9 present the amount of POG forest and young-growth forest protected and 

scheduled for timber harvest under each of the alternatives. Ultimately, all of the 

action alternatives would enhance the Conservation Strategy as a whole over the 

long term compared to the current Forest Plan by reducing POG harvest and 

thus maintaining habitat for old growth-associated or -dependent wildlife species.

The total area and spatial distribution of POG forest on the landscape in the 

planning area are the foundation of the conservation strategy.

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-253 Wildlife

Table 3.10-8

Productive Old-Growth Acreage in Reserves, 

Protected/Unscheduled in the Matrix, and Scheduled for Timber

Harvest over 100 years (NFS lands only)

Alternative

POG in 

Reserves

POG in Matrix – Protected or 

Unscheduled

Total 

Protected 

POG

Total POG 

Scheduled

for 

Harvest2

Protected by 

Beach Fringe,

Riparian, & 

Other

Standards 

and 

Guidelines 

Suitable, But 

Not 

Scheduled 

for Harvest1

1 3,638,141 1,035,499 265,764 4,939,404 62,851

2 3,645,766 1,007,109 316,771 4,969,646 32,609

3 3,645,766 839,922 480,999 4,966,687 35,568

4 3,645,766 1,087,353 226,539 4,959,658 42,597

5 3,645,766 1,127,428 186,581 4,959,775 42,479 1 Productive old growth (POG) that is suitable, but is not estimated to be needed to achieve the old-grow 

portion of PTSQ over the next 100 years. 2 Represents the POG that would be harvested assuming harvest takes place at the full estimated rate 

100 years.

Table 3.10-9

Young-Growth Acreage in Reserves, Protected/Unscheduled in the 

Matrix, and Scheduled for Timber Harvest over 100 Years (NFS 

Lands Only)

Alternative

Protected 

YG in 

Reserves

YG in Matrix – Protected or 

Unscheduled

Total 

Protected 

YG

Total YG 

Scheduled 

for 

Harvest2

Protected by 

Beach Fringe,

Riparian, & 

Other

Standards 

and 

Guidelines

Suitable, But 

Not 

Scheduled 

for Harvest1

1 103,091 94,129 54,022 251,242 209,882 

2 53,515 32,895 39,370 125,780 335,343 

3 56,557 54,695 36,656 147,908 313,216 

4 104,586 92,828 28,825 226,239 234,885 

5 69,049 53,102 54,829 176,980 284,144 1 Young growth that is suitable, but is not estimated to be needed to achieve the young-growth portion o 

PTSQ over the next 100 years. 2 Represents the young growth that would be harvested assuming harvest takes place at the full estima 

rate over 100 years.

However, the alternatives differ in terms of how aggressively they approach the 

transition, and thus their effects on wildlife, by allowing young-growth harvest in

OGRs, non-development LUDs, the beach and estuary fringe, and/or RMAs, all 

of which are contributing elements of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy (see 

Table 3.9-11 in the Biodiversity section for a summary). The consequences of 

the differences in approach are two-fold. They influence the total area of oldgrowth forest harvested in the future and they influence the extent of harvest of 

young-growth in OGRs, non-development LUDs, the beach and estuary fringe, 

and/or RMAs. Appendix F provides a detailed comparison of Forest Plan 

direction proposed under each alternative. These contributing elements of the 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-254 Final EIS

Conservation Strategy (the overall extent of old-growth and integrity of OGRs,

non-development LUDs, the beach and estuary fringe, and/or RMAs) maintain 

wildlife habitat and provide connectivity across the landscape. Thus, younggrowth timber harvest proposed in these areas has the potential to affect the 

integrity of the Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy is addressed 

specifically in Appendix D.

Alternatives that would allow young-growth harvest in the Old-growth Habitat 

LUD (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5; Table 3.9-11) and other non-development LUDs 

(Alternatives 2 and 3) would delay the amount of young-growth allowed to mature 

to old-growth conditions by maintaining them in a managed state at least over the 

short term. Alternative 5 is intended to emulate the natural scale and distribution 

of disturbance patterns on the landscape, and over the long term would promote 

the development of old-growth characteristics in harvested young-growth stands

in Old-growth Habitat LUD, RMA, and beach fringe. This is because Alternative 

5 limits the size of created openings to 10 acres, includes stand retention limits 

(maximum removal of 35 percent of original harvest stand acres, and includes a

one-time entry stipulation (i.e., young-growth stands would only be harvested 

once) in these areas. After harvest, young-growth stands would be allowed to 

return old-growth conditions. In contrast, under Alternatives 2 and 3 the size of 

created openings is limited only by Scenery standards and multiple entries into

stands are allowed in all non-development LUDs. Some wildlife species would 

benefit in the short term from increased forage availability associated with growth 

of vegetation following young-growth timber harvest (e.g., deer and bears) under

Alternatives 2 and 3; however, the nutritional value of forage in clearcuts may be 

reduced due to the greater amount of tannins compared to forage in old-growth 

which reduces the amount of digestible protein (Happe et al. 1990); however, 

harvested stands would not develop the characteristics of POG forest such as 

snags, downed logs, diverse tree canopy layers that most POG-associated 

species (e.g., marten, goshawks, flying squirrels) prefer if reentered multiple 

times. Alternative 2 would harvest the most young-growth in the Old-growth 

Habitat LUD and other non-development LUDs (45,684 acres), followed by 

Alternatives 3 (41,671 acres) and 5 (1,796 acres); no harvest, except potentially 

salvage and personal use and habitat restoration projects, would occur in any

non-development LUDs under Alternatives 1 and 4.

Young-growth stands within the beach and estuary fringe and RMAs provide 

lower value to wildlife than old-growth stands; however, they can provide 

structural connectivity for movement and dispersal of some wildlife and serve as

buffers between areas of suitable habitat and human activity. Alternatives 2, 3, 

4, and 5 would allow young-growth harvest within the beach and estuary fringe; 

Alternatives 2 and 5 would also allow young-growth harvest within RMAs. Younggrowth harvest may decrease buffer width in some places, potentially reducing 

the effectiveness for wildlife species that are negatively affected by edge. 

Additionally, alternatives that allow even-aged management in the beach and 

estuary fringe (Alternative 2 and 5) and RMAs (Alternative 5) may increase 

habitat perforation and limit movements of some wildlife if openings are too large

to be crossed by species with limited dispersal capabilities and snow interception 

is decreased in the openings. Commercial thinning in these areas, which could 

occur under all of the action alternatives, have the potential to improve wildlife 

habitat quality over time by promoting the development of fewer, larger trees in 

thinned stands and increasing forage availability (Hanley et al. 2005). Although 

research has shown that the removal of commercial-sized trees can promote tree 

growth and understory vegetation development, there remains some uncertainty 

about the effectiveness of young-growth treatments in benefiting wildlife. Thus, 

the discussion of commercial thinning and its benefits here and below should be 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-255 Wildlife

interpreted in the context of the remaining uncertainty associated with its benefits 

to wildlife. Additionally, young-growth harvest in these areas has the potential to 

disturb species such as river otters, black bears, bald eagles and migratory bird

that use riparian and estuarine areas. 

Alternative 3 would harvest the most young growth in the beach and estuary 

fringe (41,489 acres), followed by Alternatives 2 (30,892 acres), 4 (14,865 acres), 

and 5 (3,546 acres); no harvest in the beach and estuary fringe would occur 

under Alternative 1 (Table 3.9-11). Alternatives 2 and 5 incorporate measures to 

maintain wildlife habitat and connectivity in the beach and estuary fringe through 

maintenance of a 1,000-foot-wide corridor adjacent to even-aged harvest units 

(i.e., effectively shifting the beach and estuary buffer inland; Alternative 2) and 

maintenance of a 200-foot-wide buffer from the shoreline (Alternative 5) which 

could provide some continued connectivity and reduce the impacts of commercial 

young growth harvest. Effects would be further reduced under Alternative 5,

which limits clearcutting to the first 15 years after plan approval, limits the size of 

created openings to 10 acres, and includes a one-time entry stipulation (i.e., 

young-growth stands would only be harvested once). Alternative 2 is less 

conservative in that the size of created openings is limited only by Scenery

standards and multiple entries into harvested young-growth stands would be 

allowed; however even-aged harvest would be limited to the first 15 years after 

plan approval (commercial thinning would be allowed thereafter). Commercial 

thinning would be allowed under Alternatives 3 and 4, but would occur through 

the life of the Forest Plan.

Alternative 2 would harvest the most young-growth in RMAs (36,092 acres), 

followed by Alternative 5 (882 acres); no harvest in RMAs would occur under 

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 (Table 3.9-11). Effects to wildlife habitat and connectivity 

would be minimized under Alternative 5 by limiting timber harvest to the first 15 

years after plan approval, limiting the size of created openings to 10 acres, and 

including a one-time entry stipulation (i.e., young-growth stands would only be 

harvested once). Commercial thinning would be allowed under Alternative 2, but 

would occur through the life of the Forest Plan.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 would also lower the Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) 

standard for young-growth stands, which would allow the removal of more trees 

from these stands. This would reduce the amount of trees retained that could 

provide habitat for wildlife.

Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary 

fringe and RMAs, as well as the reduction in SIOs, would result in long-term, 

minor, localized reductions in habitat for wildlife. Effects would last for decades in 

association with even-aged harvest, as treatments would effectively restart the 

forest successional process in harvested units, taking decades to return to their 

current state, and likewise the potential beneficial effects of thinning would occur 

over decades as stand development toward old-growth conditions is promoted. 

Protective corridors and other limitations on harvest would maintain wildlife 

habitat and connectivity in these areas over the long term. Additionally, over the 

long term, young-growth management would accelerate the development of oldgrowth characteristics in these areas. 

Although IRAs were not part of the original 1997 Conservation Strategy, they add 

value by providing large expanses of roadless refugia, which are important to 

wide-ranging wildlife species such as wolves, brown bears, marten, and less 

mobile species such as flying squirrels and amphibians. Under Alternative 2, no 

harvest would occur in IRAs that have not been roaded; however, the portions of 

IRAs that were roaded before the 2001 Roadless Rule and during the 2001 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-256 Final EIS

Roadless Rule exemption period for the Tongass would be available for younggrowth and old-growth harvest after rulemaking. Alternative 3 would permit oldgrowth and young-growth harvest in 2001 Roadless Areas, but only if the 

Roadless Rule changed or the Tongass Roadless Rule Exemption were 

reinstated. No harvest in Roadless Areas would occur under Alternatives 1, 4, 

and 5 (Table 3.9-11). Timber harvest in these areas and associated road 

construction or reconstruction has the potential to decrease the value of these 

roadless areas to wildlife through increased habitat fragmentation and reduce 

landscape connectivity. Additionally, species that are vulnerable to overharvest 

(e.g., wolf, marten, and spruce grouse) would be affected by potential increased 

hunter access along new or reconstructed roads, whether for young-growth 

harvest or renewable energy projects. (Note that new roads would only occur in 

currently roaded areas where reconstruction is not feasible and that in unroaded 

areas helicopters would be used to extract logs; see the Transportation section of 

this EIS for additional discussion on roads.)

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance. The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of wildlife habitats (e.g., POG 

forest, streams, and low elevation forest) within the reserve system. An 

interagency team reviewed these affected OGRs and proposed modified 

locations to meet Appendix K criteria for OGRs (see the Biodiversity section and 

Appendix E for additional discussion of the Biologically Preferred OGR locations 

proposed by the Interagency Review Team). The proposed modifications to the 

existing (i.e., post-conveyance) OGRs would result in the following net changes

within the reserve system:

• Net increase in 6,171 acres of OGR;

• Net increase of 7,148 acres of POG forest;

• Net increase of 31 stream miles;

• Net increase of 3,066 acres of rare/underrepresented features (large tree 

POG);

• Net increase of 3,648 acres of deep snow deer and marten habitat (highvolume POG below 800 feet elevation);

• Net increase of 4,466 acres of goshawk and murrelet nesting habitat (highvolume POG); and 

• Net increase of 6,696 acres of low-elevation POG (indicative of important 

areas of landscape connectivity).

These OGR modifications would result in greater protection of wildlife habitats 

and connectivity under the Conservation Strategy, than would occur as a result of 

the land conveyance without these changes. These OGR modifications would 

also result in a net increase in road miles (9 miles) and early seral habitat (2,408 

acres) included in the reserve system relative to post-conveyance OGRs, but 

these areas are distributed across the forest and were a tradeoff made in the 

interest of selecting the only available areas to add to the reserve system or 

increasing connectivity or inclusion of ecologically important features within the 

reserve system.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-257 Wildlife

Species-specific Effects

The following sections describe impacts to threatened and endangered species, 

former MIS, Alaska Region sensitive species, migratory birds, endemic species, 

and invasive species. 

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

Impacts from the Proposed Action to Threatened and Endangered species 

potentially occurring within the boundary of the Tongass are addressed in the 

BA, which is included in the planning record. All alternatives would require 

adherence to the MMPA, ESA, and NMFS guidelines for approaching sea 

lions and other marine mammals. The amount of human activity in the marine 

environment associated with Forest management activities is only a fraction of 

the total amount of human activity occurring in the marine environment.

Some of the other activities include commercial fishing, sport fishing, hunting,

subsistence, tourism, and mariculture. Many of these activities are not 

regulated by the Forest Service. The effect of such recreational activity on

marine mammals would depend on many factors such as size of the bay, 

depth of the waters in the bay, number of boats, individual behavior responses

to disturbance. At the present time, there is not a quantifiable way to

estimate these possible effects. Forest-wide standards and guidelines that

have been developed for application on all Forest Service permitted or

approved activities to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on marine 

mammals.

Humpback Whale, Fin Whale, Sperm Whale, and Steller Sea Lion Western 

DPS

These species could be exposed to disturbance and noise associated with LTF

activity, potential collisions with vessels, and fuel or oil spills associated with 

vessel traffic particularly if these activities occur in the vicinity of nearshore areas 

used by whales and major haul-outs or rookeries used by sea lions. Harassment 

or displacement of whales and Steller 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 2008 Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b). Exposure of whales and Steller sea lions to these 

impacts would be unchanged under all of the alternatives because a much 

greater volume of old-growth timber harvest was assumed to occur compared to 

the actual amount (see Appendix D); therefore, any of these nearshore activities 

associated with proposed young-growth timber harvest have been accounted for 

no increases in these uses are anticipated under this Amendment. All 

alternatives would require adherence to the MMPA, ESA, and NMFS guidelines 

for approaching sea lions and other marine mammals, as currently required 

under the Forest Plan. Young-growth timber harvest within the beach fringe, 

and potentially removal of timber for renewable energy development in these 

areas, has the potential to result in very localized, minor, temporary reductions in 

water quality to which whales and Steller sea lions could be exposed. For these 

reasons, the Forest Plan Amendment (all alternatives considered) may affect, but 

is not likely to adversely affect whales and Steller sea lions.

Short-tailed albatross

Short-tailed albatross occur in nearshore areas along the outer coast. Shorttailed albatross could be affected by reduced marine water quality due to 

activities in the nearshore environment, including LTF use, log raft towing, vessel 

traffic, and timber harvest within the beach fringe. However, vessel traffic, log raft 

towing, and LTF use are expected to remain comparable to that anticipated 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-258 Final EIS

under the current forest plan with use occurring periodically over the planning 

horizon. Moreover, the 2008 Forest Plan assumed a considerably greater 

amount of old-growth harvest than has actually occurred (see Appendix D) and 

therefore, any use associated with future young-growth harvest has been 

accounted for. Young-growth timber harvest, or removal of trees in association 

with renewable energy development, within the beach and estuary fringe also 

has the potential to reduce marine water quality (see the Fisheries section for 

additional discussion). However, effects would be minor and effects would likely 

be limited to nearshore areas. Therefore, the Forest Plan Amendment (all 

alternatives considered) may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the shorttailed albatross. Alaska Region Sensitive Species

In accordance with Forest Service Manual 2670, a BE covering federally listed 

threatened and endangered wildlife species and Region 10 sensitive species was 

prepared; this BE contains an evaluation and comparison of all alternatives on 

these species. The project record contains one BE for wildlife and fish, and a 

separate BE for plants. 

Queen Charlotte Goshawk

Impacts to goshawks are assessed in terms of the reduction in total and highvolume POG, which provides potential high quality nesting and foraging habitat. 

High-volume POG represents optimal nesting habitat due to the presence of largetrees and snags. Reductions in forest cover, and the subsequent progression of 

forest succession in young-growth stands, also have the potential to affect the 

abundance and availability of prey. At a landscape level, reductions in the amount 

of POG and mature young-growth forest may result in portions of the landscape 

becoming marginal or unsuitable for goshawks. Therefore, alternatives under 

which harvest of the most POG is proposed would be expected to have the 

greatest effect on goshawks (Tables 3.10-8 and 3.10-9). The greatest amount of 

POG harvest would occur under Alternative 1 (62,851 acres total; 26,275 acres 

high-volume), followed by Alternative 4 (42,597 acres total; 18,031 high-volume), 

Alternative 5 (42,479 acres total; 18,173 high-volume), Alternative 3 (35,568 acres 

total; 13,134 high-volume) and Alternative 2 (32,609 acres total, 12,636 highvolume). Refer to the Biodiversity section for a discussion of effects to POG by 

biogeographic province (Tables 3.9-12 and 3.9-13).

Young-growth forest provides marginal goshawk habitat, but over the long term if 

unharvested or thinned with an objective of accelerating old growth conditions

would return to old-growth conditions. Young-growth stands ready for 

commercial harvest may be reaching an age to provide some benefits to 

goshawk (foraging, occasional nesting, post-fledging areas) if adequate structure 

is developed (typically 45 to 100 years following harvest, depending on site 

productivity). The most young-growth harvest would occur under Alternative 2, 

followed by Alternatives 3, 5, 4, and 1 (Table 3.10-9). Impacts to goshawks 

would be greatest in the North Central Prince of Wales, Kupreanof/Mitkof Island, 

East Chichagof Island, and Revilla Island/Cleveland Peninsula biogeographic 

provinces where the most suitable young-growth forest is located (See Suitable 

Land maps in the Map Packet that accompanies this EIS). Of course, evaluation 

of the consequences of young-growth harvest must be considered in light of 

associated changes in harvest of old growth.

The beach and estuary fringe and RMAs provide connectivity for goshawks 

between reserve areas, and old-growth forest near beach, estuary, and riparian

habitats generally support greater prey diversity and net prey productivity for 

goshawk foraging (USDA 1996). Thus, young-growth stands in these areas have 

the potential to develop into highly productive habitats for goshawks. Precommercial and commercial thinning of young-growth stands, which would occur 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-259 Wildlife

under all of the alternatives, would promote the development of stand conditions 

that provide foraging habitat for goshawks. However, even-aged harvest or 

group-selection of young-growth in the beach and estuary fringe (Alternatives 2, 

3, 4, and 5), RMAs (Alternatives 2 and 5), and non-development LUDs 

(Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) would setback the stand development process 

(returning harvest units to the stand initiation stage). The creation of gaps several 

acres in size or more could result in localized reductions in goshawk foraging 

habitat quality, and would delay the development of old-growth habitat capable of 

providing higher quality foraging, nesting, and post-fledging habitat. Effects to 

connectivity for goshawks would be lessened under Alternatives 2 and 5, which 

maintain a 1,000 foot buffer immediately inland of the beach and estuary fringe 

young-growth units and a 200-foot buffer along the shoreline, respectively.

Despite these localized effects, the transition to young-growth proposed under 

the action alternatives is likely to benefit goshawks by reducing the amount of 

POG harvest that would occur over the planning horizon, thereby maintaining 

more old-growth forest that provides potential foraging, nesting, and post-fledging

habitat, compared to the current forest plan. Given the localized nature and 

extent of young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary fringe, RMAs, and nondevelopment LUDS (see Appendix D for a detailed discussion of effects to the 

Conservation Strategy), all of the action alternatives would be expected maintain 

the long-term viability of goshawks in the planning area and increase the 

probability of maintaining viability relative to Alternative 1.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 include the Legacy Forest Structure standard and 

guideline that protect habitat features that are important for goshawks on a stand 

level. The Legacy Forest Structure standard and guideline applies only to oldgrowth harvest, and is clarified under Alternatives 3 and 4 to indicate that in 

VCUs that have received concentrated past old-growth harvest the management 

approach would be to retain young-growth stand acres when implementing 

young-growth timber harvest projects greater than 20 acres to retain residual 

trees to diversity structural characteristics and promote future recruitment of 

snags. The proposed clarifications to the Legacy Forest Structure standard and 

guideline would continue to provide protection of forest structure in harvest units, 

maintaining foraging habitat and connectivity for goshawks (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b).

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 also propose a revision to the Goshawk standards and 

guidelines which address nesting habitat. These standards and guidelines 

expand the requirement to maintain 100 acres of POG forest surrounding a nest 

tree or nest site to include the largest diameter young-growth forest if POG alone 

is not sufficient. Therefore, the proposed modification would provide greater 

protection to goshawk nest sites.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of goshawk habitat (total 

POG) within the reserve system. The proposed modifications to the existing (i.e., 

post-conveyance) OGRs would result in a net increase of 4,466 acres of

goshawk nesting habitat included in the reserve system (Appendix E). These 

modifications would result in greater protection of goshawk habitat under the 

Conservation Strategy than would occur as a result of the land conveyance 

without these changes.

Renewable energy and transportation project development can affect goshawks 

directly during construction through disturbance and through habitat removal or 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-260 Final EIS

alteration. During operation, electrocution with powerlines and/or collisions with 

project structures is a potential risk. The proposed Forest-wide Renewable 

Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors standards and guidelines under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this species; however, they do 

specify consideration of the most current science, guidance (e.g., APLIC

guidelines; EEI et al. 2006), and methodologies related to avoiding and 

minimizing wildlife impacts. These measures would minimize impacts to 

goshawks and their habitats during project construction and operation.

Collectively all of the action alternatives would reduce the amount of old-growth 

timber harvest that would occur over the planning horizon which would maintain 

more suitable habitat for the goshawk than anticipated under the 2008 Forest 

Plan. This would offset to some extent the potential for loss of high quality habitat

associated with young-growth harvest within the beach and estuary fringe, 

RMAs, and old-growth reserves. Added measures under Alternatives 2 (the 

1,000-foot inland buffer) and 5 (the 200-foot no-harvest shoreline buffer) would 

further reduce effects to goshawks. Individual projects would be required to 

conduct goshawk surveys and implement the goshawk standards and guidelines 

which would minimize impacts to this species at the project level. For these 

reasons, the Forest Plan Amendment (all alternatives considered) may impact 

individuals but would not result in loss of viability of this species or a trend toward 

federal listing.

Kittlitz’s Murrelet

The Kittlitz’s murrelet is associated with glacial habitat and occupies areas 

outside of where timber harvest and associated activities and renewable energy 

development have occurred or are likely to occur. Consequently, implementing 

any of the alternatives would not directly or indirectly affect the Kittlitz’s murrelet. 

No changes are proposed to the 2008 Forest Plan standard and guideline to 

“provide for the protection and maintenance of known Kittlitz’s murrelet nesting 

habitats.” Moreover, none of the activities proposed under the Forest Plan 

Amendment would occur within the upland scree slope nesting habitat used by 

this species. If young-growth timber harvest within the beach fringe, or renewable 

energy development in these areas, were to occur with in the vicinity of tidewater 

glaciers on the Tongass where this species occurs (Yakutat District), foraging 

Kittlitz’s murrelets could be exposed to very minor, localized, temporary 

reductions in water quality. Therefore, the Forest Plan Amendment (all 

alternatives considered) may impact individual Kittlitz’s murrelets but would not 

result in loss of viability of this species or a trend toward federal listing.

Black Oystercatcher

The black oystercatcher is associated with rocky shorelines and tidal mudflats 

along the coast. They could be affected by oil or fuel spills associated with 

vessels in the vicinity of the LTFs and the transport of logs from harvested areas 

under all of the alternatives. They could also be affected by disturbance 

associated with management activities within the beach fringe. Effects would be 

greatest under the action alternatives that allow harvest within the beach and 

estuary fringe (Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5). Effects would be least under 

Alternative 5, which limits harvest in these areas to the first 15 years after plan 

approval and maintains a 200-foot-wide no harvest buffer along the shoreline. 

Alternative 5 is anticipated to have 3,546 acres of young-growth harvest within 

the beach fringe over a 100 year timeframe. Alternative 2 would allow even-aged 

harvest for the first 15 years, and then commercial thinning thereafter; it is 

anticipated to harvest 30,892 acres of young growth in the beach fringe. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would allow commercial thinning only with no time limit. 

Alternative 3 estimates 41,489 acres while Alternative 4 estimates 14,865 acres 

of young-growth harvest in the beach fringe. Therefore, the alternatives would 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-261 Wildlife

differ slightly in the intensity and time frame of harvest allowed near areas used 

by black oystercatchers.

However, black oystercatchers occur at low densities across the Tongass and the 

habitats it uses (intertidal areas) do not typically coincide with management 

activities, although there is the potential for ongoing effects associated with 

recreation and tourism activities on the Tongass and disturbance associated with 

young-growth harvest in the each fringe under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. A

Forest-wide standard was added to the Forest Plan to provide a minimum 330-foot 

buffer from human activities and concentration or nesting areas. Therefore, this 

species is unlikely to be affected by the activities proposed under the alternatives. 

Renewable energy and transportation development would have the potential to 

affect this species directly through disturbance or through loss or removal of 

habitat if facilities are proposed along the shoreline. The proposed Forest-wide 

Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors standards and 

guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this species; 

however, they do specify consideration of the most current science, guidance, 

and methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts and the 

new Forest-wide 330-foot buffer for nesting areas would also apply. These 

measures would minimize impacts to black oystercatchers and their habitats 

during project construction and operation.

Young-growth timber harvest and/or renewable energy development within the 

beach and estuary fringe and RMAs could impact nesting or foraging black 

oystercatchers due to disturbance or displacement or habitat degradation or loss 

within the intertidal areas used by this species. However, effects would be minor, 

localized, and temporary given the limited areas across the Tongass where black 

oyster catcher occur and where these proposed activities could occur, the mobile 

nature of the species, and the BMPs and other measures in place for maintain 

water quality. Therefore, the Forest Plan Amendment (all alternatives 

considered) may impact individual black oystercatchers but would not result in 

loss of viability of this species or a trend toward federal listing.

Aleutian Tern

Management activities proposed under all the alternatives would have the 

potential to affect this species through disturbance to nesting colonies or through 

water quality impacts to prey species. However, none of the alternatives propose 

young-growth or old-growth harvest or other management activities in the vicinity 

of Black Sand Spit, in the Yakutat Ranger District, where the largest known 

breeding colony occurs. Should renewable energy development be proposed in 

this area, adherence to the USFWS Land-based Wind Energy Guidelines 

(USFWS 2012d) and APLIC guidelines (EEI et al. 2006) would minimize impacts 

to this species. 

It is unlikely that any of the areas identified as habitat will be impacted by the 

currently proposed activities; if impacts do occur which create noise and 

disturbance (e.g., helicopter) the potential resulting disturbance would likely be 

minor and temporary. Additionally, this species would be afforded protection by 

standards and guidelines for shorebird colonies. Therefore, the Forest Plan 

Amendment (all alternatives considered) may impact individual Aleutian terns but 

would not result in loss of viability of this species or a trend toward federal listing.

Steller Sea Lion Eastern DPS

Steller sea lions may occur in the nearshore and pelagic waters throughout the 

Tongass. Steller sea lions have the potential to be exposed to disturbance and 

noise associated with LTF activity, potential collisions with vessels, and fuel or oil 

spills associated with vessel traffic particularly if these activities occur in the 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-262 Final EIS

vicinity of major haul-outs or rookeries. All of the identified rookery sites occur in 

the outside waters of the Tongass and none are located near any proposed 

activities. One site, Forrester Island, is a designated National Wildlife Refuge 

and is under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. Most of the known haulouts (Biali 

Rock, Cape Cross, Biorka Island, Cape Ommaney, Coronation Island, Timbered 

Island, and Cape Addington) occur in the outside waters of the Tongass and will 

not likely be impacted by any proposed activities. Of the known haulout sites, 

only Gran Point, Benjamin Island, Sunset Island, and Lull Point occur in the 

inside waters of the Tongass. Gran Point is an area in Chilkoot Inlet near 

Haines; Benjamin Island is a small island in Lynn Canal north of Juneau; Sunset 

Island is a small island located in Stephens Passage between Hobart and 

Windham Bay; and Lull Point located on the south end of Catherine Island on the 

east side of Baranof Island. It is unlikely that any of the areas identified as critical 

habitat would be impacted by the currently proposed activities; if impacts do

occur that create noise and disturbance (e.g., boating), the potential resulting 

disturbance would likely be minor and temporary.

The amount of human activity in the marine environment associated with Forest 

management activities is only a fraction of the total amount of human activity 

occurring in the marine environment. Some of the other activities include 

commercial fishing, sport fishing, hunting, subsistence, tourism, and mariculture. 

Most of these activities are not regulated by the Forest Service. Harassment or 

displacement of sea lions from preferred habitats by human activities such as 

boating, recreation, aircraft, LTFs, and log raft towing was identified as a concern 

with regard to long-term conservation in the BA conducted for the 2008 Forest 

Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2008b). Exposure of Steller sea lions to 

these impacts would be unchanged under all of the alternatives because a much 

greater volume of old-growth timber harvest was assumed to occur compared to 

the actual amount (see Appendix D); therefore, any of these nearshore activities 

associated with proposed young-growth timber harvest have been accounted for 

no increases in these uses are anticipated under this Amendment. All 

alternatives would require adherence to the MMPA, ESA, and NMFS guidelines 

for approaching sea lions, as currently required under the Forest Plan. Younggrowth timber harvest within the beach fringe, and potentially removal of timber 

for renewable energy development in these areas, has the potential to result in 

very localized, minor, temporary reductions in water quality to which Steller sea 

lions could be exposed. Therefore, the Forest Plan Amendment (all alternatives 

considered) may impact individual Steller sea lions but would not result in loss of 

viability of this species or a trend toward federal listing. 

Sitka Black-Tailed Deer

Extensive analysis on deer was done for the 1997 Forest Plan and subsequent 

2008 Forest Plan Amendment. Analyses included information on summer and 

winter forage and effects of roadbuilding. The expected ecological response of 

deer to old-growth and mature young-growth timber harvest , road building, and 

vegetation succession will be similar to those predicted in those analyses; 

however, the extent of future impacts would be expected to be reduced by the 

Forest Plan amendment because lower levels of old-growth harvest are 

proposed in all action alternatives. 

All of the alternatives would reduce deer habitat capability (based on Interagency 

Deer Habitat Capability model output) from existing conditions due to the harvest 

of mature young-growth and POG forest (Table 3.10-10). Model output by WAA 

is available in the project record. Immediately following young-growth and oldgrowth timber harvest there is an increase in the amount of forage available to 

deer during the summer and mild winter months in response to increased 

understory growth responding to sunlight associated with opening the forest 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-263 Wildlife

canopy, although it is may be of lesser quality compared to the same species of 

plants grown in the shade (Person and Brinkman 2013; Happe et al. 1990). 

Therefore, reductions in deer habitat capability in summer and mild winters would 

not be realized immediately after timber harvest due to the short-term increase in 

forage, but would be greatest in heavy snow winters during years immediately 

following harvest and after about 25 years, as forest succession progresses and 

harvested stands reach the stem exclusion stage. 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 would reduce 

carrying capacity, or the numbers 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 and two-aged harvest 

prescriptions (which would be determined at the project-level) would maintain

both some overstory cover to capture snow and understory forage in harvested 

stands resulting in fewer negative effects than even-aged management. 

Potential declines in the deer population resulting from reduced habitat capability 

may decrease the availability of deer to wolves (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 wolves (see 

discussion below) and subsistence hunters (see the Subsistence section). 

The transition to young-growth harvest under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would 

dampen the long-term decrease in deer habitat capability predicted for Alternative 

1 because fewer acres of POG forest would be harvested over the planning 

horizon, thereby maintaining more quality winter habitat for deer (Table 3.10-10). 

This is illustrated in the Interagency Deer Habitat Capability model results at both 

the 25-year and 100-year time steps, where Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 maintain 

approximately 1 to 4 percent more of the existing habitat capability than Alternative 

1 (the current Forest Plan). At the forest scale, all alternatives would maintain 99 

percent of the existing deer habitat capability over the long term. 

Additionally, intermediate stand treatments (pre-commercial and commercial 

thinning) in young-growth forest would result in increased understory growth 

which would improve forage resources for deer over the first 15-25 years 

following harvest. These treatments are not reflected in the Interagency Deer 

Habitat Capability model results, which only assign one value to harvested 

stands (i.e., this model does not account for the benefit of young-growth harvest

which would convert stands currently in the stem exclusion stage back into the 

stand initiation stage, or account for thinning treatments which open the forest 

canopy and promote the development of old-growth stand characteristics and 

understory plant growth). In contrast, the FRESH deer model (Table 3.10-11) 

accounts for, and assigns different biomass values (indicative of habitat quality) to, 

multiple young-growth forest age classes. Therefore, FRESH model results reflect 

the potential benefits to deer associated with young-growth management as well 

as the progression of older young-growth stands to POG forest. The results of the 

FRESH deer model indicate that all of the action alternatives would either maintain 

the level of habitat quality anticipated under the current Forest Plan (Alternative 1) 

or improve it by 1 to 2 percent at 25 years; 100 years after plan approval the action 

alternatives would maintain or result in an additional decline of 1 percent of the 

level of habitat quality anticipated under the current Forest Plan (Table 3.10-11). 

At the forest scale, all alternatives maintaining 100 percent of existing habitat 

quality in 25 years and 99 percent of the existing deer habitat quality in 100 years 

(Table 3.10-11). Details on model inputs are provided in the Deer subsection under 

Affected Environment and also included in the project record. 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-264 Final EIS

Table 3.10-10

Relative Changes in Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by Biogeographic Province by Alternative

in 25 years and 100 years based on the Interagency Deer Habitat Capability Model (NFS Lands

Only)

Biogeographic 

Province

Existing Deer 

Habitat Capability 

(Deer Habitat 

Capability Units)

Deer Habitat Capability By Alternative 

(% Existing Habitat Quality Remaining)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

25 

yrs

100 

yrs

25 

yrs

100 

yrs

25 

yrs

100 

yrs

25 

yrs

100 

yrs

25 

yrs

100 

yrs

1 Yakutat

Forelands 

6,187 98 94 100 94 100 100 100 100 100 100

2 Yakutat Uplands 3,259 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

3 East Chichagof 

Island

18,919 99 98 100 99 100 99 100 98 99 98

4 West Chichagof 

Island

6,172 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

5 East Baranof 

Island

4,167 99 100 101 100 100 100 101 100 100 100

6 West Baranof 

Island

14,085 100 101 102 101 101 101 101 101 101 100

7 Admiralty Island 28,416 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

8 Lynn Canal 5,461 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

9 North Coast 

Range

9,520 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island

19,823 99 98 101 99 101 99 100 99 100 99

11 Kuiu Island 18,861 100 101 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

12 Central Coast 

Range

9,910 101 100 101 100 101 100 101 100 101 100

13 Etolin Island 11,968 99 97 100 99 100 98 99 97 99 97

14 North Central 

Prince of Wales

31,134 97 95 101 97 101 97 100 96 100 96

15

Revilla Island/

Cleveland 

Peninsula

23,700 99 99 100 99 100 99 99 99 100 98

16 Southern Outer 

Islands

9,043 99 98 101 100 101 100 101 98 101 99

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity

5,272 100 100 101 100 101 100 100 100 100 100

18 South Prince of 

Wales

11,358 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

19 North Misty 

Fiords

5,562 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

20 South Misty 

Fiords

11,612 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

21 Ice Fields 3,401 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Forest-wide 257,830 99 99 101 99 100 99 100 99 100 99 1 Deer habitat capability model output by WAA, including habitat capability units, is available in the project record.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-265 Wildlife

Table 3.10-11 

Habitat Conditions Resulting from Each Alternative Using the FRESH Deer Model in 25 years and 100 years (NFS Lands Only)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Existing 

Habitat 

Quality (Deer 

Days Per 

Hectare)

Percent of Existing Habitat Quality Remaining

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs

1 Yakutat Forelands 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

2 Yakutat Uplands 0.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

3 East Chichagof Island 35.7 99 98 99 97 99 97 99 98 99 97

4 West Chichagof Island 89.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

5 East Baranof Island 30.6 99 99 100 100 100 99 100 99 100 99

6 West Baranof Island 56.9 100 100 101 100 101 100 100 100 100 100

7 Admiralty Island 50.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

8 Lynn Canal 24.4 100 100 102 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

9 North Coast Range 19.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 96.8 99 99 100 99 100 99 99 99 99 99

11 Kuiu Island 64.8 99 99 99 98 99 98 99 98 99 98

12 Central Coast Range 31.8 101 100 102 100 102 100 101 100 101 100

13 Etolin Island 72.9 99 98 100 98 100 98 99 98 99 98

14 North Central Prince of 

Wales 79.1 99 98 101 98 101 98 100 98 100 97

15 Revilla Island/ Cleveland 

Peninsula 68.8 100 99 100 99 100 99 100 99 100 99

16 Southern Outer Islands 96.4 99 99 100 99 100 99 100 99 100 99

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 76.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

18 South Prince of Wales 95.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

19 North Misty Fiords 21.6 100 100 100 100 101 100 100 100 100 100

20 South Misty Fiords 56.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

21 Ice Fields 3.0 100 100 101 100 101 100 100 101 100 100

Forest-wide 40.9 100 99 100 99 100 99 100 99 100 99

Note: No snow zone assigned to Biogeographic Province 1 and 2 due to very low use by deer; therefore, model not run.
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-266 Final EIS

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of deer winter habitat (highvolume POG less than 800 feet elevation) within the reserve system. The 

proposed modifications to the existing (i.e., post-conveyance) OGRs would result 

in a net increase of 3,648 acres of deep snow deer winter habitat included in the 

reserve system (Appendix E). These modifications would result in greater 

protection of deer habitat under the Conservation Strategy than would occur as a 

result of the land conveyance without these changes. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose to eliminate the TUS LUD, and implement a 

new series of Forest-wide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors standards and guidelines. Renewable energy and transportation

project development can affect deer during construction through disturbance and 

through habitat removal or alteration. Operational impacts due to disturbance 

would expected to be minimal. The proposed standards and guidelines include 

consideration of the most current science, guidance, and methodologies related 

to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. These measures would minimize 

impacts to deer and/or areas of important deer habitat during construction and 

operation. 

Mountain Goat

Mountain goats are associated with old-growth forest and are susceptible to 

over-hunting if road access is increased or improved, though most roads are 

located a long distance (both vertically and horizontally) from mountain goat 

habitat. The greatest amount of POG harvest would occur under Alternative 1 

(62,851 acres), followed by Alternatives 4 (42,597 acres), 5 (42,479 acres), 3 

(35,568 acres) and 2 (32,609 acres; Table 3.10-8). 

The amount of road access, quantified in terms of the amount of road 

construction and reconstruction proposed under each alternative, is

representative of the potential for over-hunting. New road construction on NFS 

lands after full implementation of the Forest Plan (100 years) for each alternative 

ranges from 871 miles (Alternative 4) to 1,056 miles (Alternative 2) (See Table 

3.12a-1 in the Transportation Section). The greatest amount of road to be 

constructed over decommissioned roadbeds or reconstruction would occur under 

Alternative 2 (1,191 miles), followed by Alternatives 3 (1, 129 miles), 5 (1,058

miles), 4 (900 miles), and 1 (887 miles). However, most of the roads, particularly 

accessing young-growth units, would be below 1,500 feet in elevation and 

outside of mountain goat habitat. Additionally, note that many new or 

reconstructed roads would be closed or decommissioned after use, further 

reducing effects on mountain goats. Risk of over-harvest due to human access 

along roads is mitigated to some extent by Transportation Forest-wide standards 

and guidelines that require travel access road objectives to be developed for all 

roads, and mountain goat standards and guidelines that would be implemented 

under all of the alternatives. 

Mountain goats are also susceptible to disturbance and displacement from 

helicopter overflights and landings. There are Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines in place that address helicopter use at the project level that would be 

maintained under all of the alternatives.

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect mountain goats 

through direct disturbance or through removal or modification of habitats. The 

proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors 

standards and guidelines proposed under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-267 Wildlife

directly address this species; however, they do specify consideration of the most 

current science, guidance, and methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing 

wildlife impacts. These measures would minimize impacts to mountain goats 

and their habitat during project construction and operation. 

Black Bear

Preferred habitats for black bears, which include coastal, estuarine, and riparian 

areas, are protected by the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy. All of the 

alternatives maintain these measures, although Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

propose guidelines for young-growth harvest that allow harvest in the beach and 

estuary fringe and RMAs (Alternatives 2 and 5 only; see discussion above under 

Tongass Conservation Strategy). Alternative 2 would result in the greatest 

amount of young-growth harvest in these black bear habitats (66,984 acres), 

followed by Alternatives 3 (41,489 acres), Alternative 4 (14,865 acres) and 

Alternative 5 (4,428 acres); no harvest in beach and estuary buffers or RMAs 

would occur under Alternative 1 (Table 3.9-11 in the Biodiversity section). 

Harvest of mature young-growth and old-growth timber (both even aged as well 

as thinning) would increase forage availability (berries) for black bears over the 

short term in the resulting early-successional plant communities. However, this 

food source typically lasts only about 25 years post-logging and decreases over 

time in association with canopy closure. Over the long-term, old-growth harvest 

would decrease habitat suitability for black bears, due to the reduced understory 

forage in young-growth stands and loss of denning habitat in upland areas (e.g., 

large woody structures such as hollow logs and hollow living trees; Davis et al. 

2012). This effect would be greatest under continued POG harvest (Alternative 

1). The transition to young-growth harvest under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would 

increase forage availability over the long term by reverting young-growth stand in 

the stem exclusion stage back to the stand initiation stage; however, 

development of old-growth stand characteristics used by bears for denning would 

be delayed. However, effects to the contributing elements of the Conservation 

Strategy would be localized, with the maximum proposed young-growth harvest 

affecting 2.4 percent, 3.3 percent, 1.2 percent, and 0.4 percent of forest land in 

the beach and estuary fringe under alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively; 6.7 

percent and 0.3 percent of the forest land within RMAs under Alternatives 2 and 

5, respectively; up to 3 percent of the forest land within old-growth reserves and 

other non-development LUDs (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) within the planning area 

(see Appendix D for additional discussion of the Conservation Strategy). 

Therefore, these areas would continue to function as habitat for black bears.

Reductions in deer habitat capability resulting from timber harvest (both oldgrowth and young-growth) could reduce fawn productivity, and therefore the prey 

base for bears in the spring in some portions of the Tongass. However, as 

discussed above over the long term the transition to young-growth harvest is 

expected to maintain or increase deer habitat capability and habitat quality over 

the long term under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 minimizing this effect to black 

bears.

Timber harvest (both old-growth and young-growth) may also indirectly increase 

the susceptibility of black bears to over-harvest if road access is increased or 

improved. An increase in open roads, particularly in open habitats such as 

clearcuts and muskegs, where bears forage and are easier to see, can increase 

the potential for human-bear interactions. The amount of road access, quantified 

in terms of the amount of road construction and reconstruction proposed under 

each alternative, is representative of the potential for over-hunting (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b; see discussion above under Mountain Goat for a comparison of 

the alternatives). Average total road density on NFS lands (across all WAAs) in 

100 years would be approximately 0.2 mile per square mile under all of the 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-268 Final EIS

alternatives, an increase of 0.03 to 0.04 mile per square mile above existing 

average road density; Table 3.10-12). Therefore, any potential increase in 

hunter access and risk of over harvest would be localized, and no measureable 

increase would be expected at the forest scale under any of the alternatives.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 would incorporate the Legacy Forest Structure 

standards and guidelines, which are intended to maintain old-growth structure in 

areas that are already highly developed, as well as areas that will experience 

increased harvest levels over the life of the Forest Plan. These components 

(large trees and snags) may provide potential den sites for black bears. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 include a proposed clarification that the list of VCUs 

where the Legacy Forest Structure standards and guidelines apply should be 

verified during project-specific planning and analysis. Alternatives 3 and 4 also 

include a new management approach for this standard and guideline to indicate 

that when implementing young-growth harvest projects larger than 20 acres in 

VCUs that have received concentrated past old-growth harvest it is intended that 

30 percent of the young-growth stand acres should be left to retain residual trees 

to diversify structural characteristics and promote future recruitment of snags. 

Therefore, the proposed clarification would provide greater protection of black 

bear denning habitat.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of shoreline and riparian 

habitats included in the reserve system. The proposed modifications to existing 

(i.e., post-conveyance) OGRs would help maintain connectivity to shoreline and 

protect riparian habitats preferred by black bears. Proposed OGR modifications 

would result in a net increase of 31 miles of Class I streams and 6,696 acres of 

low-elevation POG included in reserve system (Appendix E). These 

modifications would provide greater protection of black bear foraging habitat 

under the Conservation Strategy than would occur as a result of the land 

conveyance without these changes.

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect black bears through 

direct disturbance or through removal or modification of habitats. The proposed 

Forest-wide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors standards 

and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this 

species; however, they do specify consideration of the most current science, 

guidance, and methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. 

These measures would minimize impacts to black bears and their habitats during 

project construction and operation. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-269 Wildlife

Table 3.10-12 

Estimated Average Road Density and Percent of WAAs in Road Density Categories on NFS Lands and All Lands Combined1

for All Roads and for Open Roads Only within the Tongass National Forest Boundary by Alternative after 100 Years

Road Density Category 

(miles per sq. mi.)

Percentage of WAAs

Existing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

All Roads

0 47.6% 43.5% 35.1% 32.5% 33.5% 32.5% 35.6% 32.5% 43.5% 33.0% 39.3% 32.5%

0 to 0.7 37.7% 35.1% 47.6% 39.8% 49.2% 39.8% 47.1% 39.8% 40.3% 39.8% 43.5% 39.8%

0.7 to 1.0 6.3% 5.8% 6.3% 7.3% 5.2% 5.8% 5.2% 5.8% 5.2% 5.8% 5.2% 5.8%

1.0 to 2.0 7.9% 12.6% 7.9% 13.1% 8.9% 14.1% 8.9% 14.7% 7.9% 14.1% 8.9% 14.7%

2.0 to 3.0 0.5% 3.1% 3.1% 5.8% 3.1% 6.3% 3.1% 5.8% 3.1% 5.8% 3.1% 5.8%

>3.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Average Total Road Density –

All WAAs 0.195 0.334 0.231 0.450 0.235 0.454 0.233 0.453 0.228 0.448 0.232 0.452 

Open Roads

0 57.1% 49.7% 37.7% 33.5% 35.6% 33.5% 37.7% 33.5% 46.6% 34.0% 41.4% 33.5%

0 to 0.7 39.3% 37.7% 58.6% 51.3% 60.2% 51.3% 58.1% 51.3% 49.2% 50.8% 54.5% 51.3%

0.7 to 1.0 2.6% 4.7% 1.6% 5.8% 2.1% 5.2% 2.1% 5.2% 2.1% 5.8% 2.1% 5.8%

1.0 to 2.0 1.0% 6.3% 2.1% 8.9% 2.1% 9.4% 2.1% 9.4% 2.1% 8.9% 2.1% 8.9%

2.0 to 3.0 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

>3.0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Average Open Road Density 

– All WAAs 0.089 0.218 0.094 0.238 0.095 0.239 0.095 0.239 0.094 0.238 0.094 0.239 

1 Percentages are based on all 191 WAAs inside the Forest boundary, including Annette Island
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-270 Final EIS

River Otter

River otters prefer habitats, especially POG forest, immediately adjacent to 

coastal and fresh water aquatic environments, with most use occurring within 500 

feet of the these areas. These old-growth habitats are protected by Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines for the beach and estuary fringe, riparian areas, and 

lakes which would be implemented under all alternatives. Alternatives that 

propose young-growth harvest within habitats used by river otters would be 

expected to have the greatest effects to these species. Young-growth harvest 

within beach and estuary fringe (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) and RMAs 

(Alternatives 2 and 5 only) are presented in Table 3.9-11 and discussed above 

under Black Bear. Alternative 2 would result in the greatest amount of younggrowth harvest in these river otter habitats (66,984 acres), followed by Alternative 

3 (41,489 acres), Alternative 4 (14,865 acres), and Alternative 5 (4,428 acres); 

no harvest in the beach and estuary fringe or RMAs would occur under 

Alternative 1 (Table 3.9-11 in the Biodiversity section). 

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect river otters through 

direct disturbance or through removal or modification of habitats, particularly if 

activities affect water bodies. The proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and 

Transportation Systems Corridors standards and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 

3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this species; however, they do specify 

consideration of the most current science, guidance, and methodologies related 

to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. These measures would minimize 

impacts to river otters and their habitats during project construction and 

operation. 

American Marten

Through the removal of forest cover and old-growth ecosystem features such as 

decadent live trees and snags, timber harvest (POG harvest and young-growth 

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 (Buskirk and Zielinski 1997; Hargis et al. 1999; 

Flynn and Schumacher 2001). Forest fragmentation resulting from timber harvest 

may also alter patterns of occupancy by marten (Thompson and Harestad 1994; 

Bissonette et al. 1997; Chapin et al. 1998). Although more recent research 

indicates that marten use all forested stands relative to their ability, including 

young-growth stands mixed conifer and deciduous stands less than 40 years of 

age (Goldstein 2013), alternatives that result in the greatest reduction in deep 

snow marten habitat (high-volume POG at or below 800 feet elevation) would be 

expected to have the greatest negative effects to marten. Reductions in deep 

snow marten habitat may result in localized reductions in the capability of the 

remaining habitat to support marten. The greatest amount of deep snow marten 

habitat is scheduled to be harvested in the next 100 years under Alternative 1 

(16,116 acres), followed by Alternatives 4 (9,921 acres), 5 (9,844 acres), 2 (8,120

acres), and 3 (6,297 acres; Table 3.10-13).
Environment and Effects 3 

Final EIS 3-271 Wildlife

Table 3.10-13

Estimated Harvest (acres) of High-Volume (SD5N, SD5S, and SD67) 

and Large-Tree (SD67) Productive Old-Growth by Elevation Category 

and Alternative after 100 years (NFS lands only)

Elevation 

Category

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5 

High-Volume POG

< 800 feet 16,116 8,120 6,297 9,921 9,844

> 800 feet 11,349 5,901 7,420 8,328 7,972

Total 27,464 14,022 13,716 18,248 17,816

Large-Tree POG

< 800 feet 6,076 2,989 1,937 3,542 3,594

> 800 feet 3,227 1,640 1,748 2,478 2,211

Total 9,303 4,629 3,685 6,021 5,805

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 would incorporate the Legacy Forest Structure 

standards and guidelines which are intended to maintain old-growth structure in 

areas that are already highly developed, as well as areas that will experience 

increased harvest levels over the life of the Forest Plan. These components 

(large trees and snags) may provide potential den sites and foraging habitat for 

marten. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 include a proposed clarification that the list of 

VCUs where the Legacy Forest Structure standards and guidelines apply should 

be verified during project-specific planning and analysis. Alternatives 3 and 4 

also include a new management approach for these standards and guidelines to 

indicate that when implementing young-growth harvest projects larger than 20 

acres in VCUs that have received concentrated past old-growth harvest it is

intended that 30 percent of the young-growth stand acres should be left to retain 

residual trees to diversify structural characteristics and promote future 

recruitment of snags. Therefore, the proposed clarification would provide greater 

protection of marten habitat in managed forest stands. 

Increased human access associated with new roads may result in increased 

marten vulnerability to harvest, particularly along open roads (Flynn et al. 2004). 

All alternatives would result in minor increased average total road densities; 

however, the proportion of WAAs within various road density categories would 

not change under any of the alternatives (see the discussion under Black Bear; 

Table 3.10-12). Increased road densities have the potential to indirectly increase 

hunter access and associated trapping pressure; however these effects would be 

minor and would not differ among alternatives.

Marten were chosen as one of the design species in the development of 1997

Forest Plan Conservation Strategy (USDA Forest Service 1997b) because they 

exhibit a consistent close association with mature forests throughout their 

distributional range (Sturtevant et al. 1996). Under the current Forest Plan, the 

marten populations are supported by the Conservation Strategy which works to 

maintain old-growth forest cover and coarse woody debris to provide structure 

important to marten for resting, denning, escape from predators, trapping refugia, 

and facilitate marten dispersal. The beach and estuary fringe and RMAs provide 

travel corridors for marten, and old-growth reserves and other non-development 

LUDs provide refugia from trapping. Pre-commercial and commercial thinning of 

young-growth stands in these areas, which would occur under all of the 

alternatives, would promote the development of stand conditions that provide 

habitat structure for marten. However, even-aged harvest or group-selection of 

young-growth in the beach and estuary fringe (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5), RMAs 

(Alternatives 2 and 5), and non-development LUDs (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) 

would setback the stand development process (returning harvest units to the 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-272 Final EIS

stand initiation stage). The creation of gaps several acres in size or more could 

result in localized reductions in marten movement, local reductions in prey 

availability, and would delay the development of old-growth habitat conditions in 

harvested stands. Effects to connectivity for marten would be lessened under 

Alternatives 2 and 5, which maintain a 1,000 foot buffer immediately inland of 

young-growth harvest units in the beach and estuary fringe and a 200-foot buffer 

along the shoreline, respectively. Additionally, Alternative 5 includes a one-time 

entry stipulation for young-growth harvest in each of these areas (See the 

discussion above under Conservation Strategy and the analysis of effects to the 

Conservation strategy in Appendix D for more detail). 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of marten habitat (highvolume POG below 800 feet elevation) within the reserve system. The proposed 

modifications to the existing (post-conveyance) OGRs would result in a net 

increase of 3,648 acres of deep snow marten habitat included in the reserve 

system. Overall, these modifications would increase the amount of marten 

habitat protected by the Conservation Strategy, compared to the amount of 

protection that would occur as a result of the land conveyance without these 

changes. 

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect marten through direct 

disturbance or through removal or modification of habitat. The proposed Forestwide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors standards and 

guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this species; 

however, they do specify consideration of the most current science, guidance, 

and methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. These 

measures would minimize impacts to marten and their habitats during project 

construction and operation.

Brown Bear

Brown bears are associated with low-elevation POG forests, particularly along 

Class I salmon streams. These habitats are protected to some extent by Forestwide Standards and Guidelines for beach and estuary fringe and RMAs. 

However, young-growth harvest would occur in these areas under Alternatives 2, 

3, and 5. It can be assumed that the alternatives with the greatest amount of 

young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary fringe and RMAs would have the 

greatest effect to brown bears. Young-growth harvest within beach and estuary 

fringe and RMAs are presented in Table 3.9-13 and discussed above under 

Black Bear. Alternative 2 would have the greatest effects to habitats used by 

brown bears, followed by Alternatives 3, 4, and 5; no harvest in the beach and 

estuary fringe or RMAs would occur under Alternative 1 (Table 3.9-11 in the 

Biodiversity section). 

Road densities are another measure of the potential impact of the alternatives on 

brown bears. Primary concerns include increased hunting or poaching, and 

disturbance during critical life stages (e.g., late-summer feeding periods for bear). 

Habitat fragmentation, as well as habitat loss secondary to activities that are 

facilitated by vehicular access (e.g., timber harvest, mining, residential 

development, and renewable energy development) are other potential impacts. 

Open roads, which receive the highest and most consistent use, are likely to 

have the greatest effect on brown bears, although closed roads still facilitate 

access (e.g., off-highway vehicle, pedestrian) to roadless areas. There is no 

road density guideline for brown bears; however, it can be assumed that 

increased road density elevates the potential for human-bear interactions. All 
Environment and Effects 3 

Final EIS 3-273 Wildlife

alternatives would result in minor changes in total road density (see the 

discussion under Black Bear; Table 3.10-12). Increased road densities have the 

potential to indirectly increase human-bear interactions; however, these effects 

would be minor and would not differ among alternatives.

The reserve system serves as an important source of roadless refugia for brown

bears, reducing the possibility of human-bear interactions. Alternatives 2, 3 and 

5 allow young-growth harvest in old-growth reserves and other non-development 

LUDs (Alternatives 2 and 3 only). Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, maximum 

estimated young-growth harvest acres within these areas comprise less than 3 

percent of Old-growth Habitat LUD acres Forest-wide and less than 1 percent of 

other non-development LUD acres Forest-wide (see Appendix D for an analysis 

of the Conservation Strategy). Suitable young-growth stands within OGRs and 

other non-development LUDS are typically located along the shoreline or inland 

under existing road systems. These easily accessible stands, particularly when 

located near other suitable young-growth stands in development LUDs, would be 

selected to avoid effects to intact, relatively undisturbed POG forest within OGRs 

and other non-development LUDs. Therefore, young-growth harvest within the 

reserve system under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 would not be expected to reduce 

the functioning of these areas as refugia for brown bears. 

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect brown bears through 

direct disturbance or through removal or modification of habitat, particularly if 

developments affect Class I salmon streams. The proposed Forest-wide 

Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors standards and 

guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this species; 

however, they do specify consideration of the most current science, guidance, 

and methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. These 

measures would minimize impacts to brown bears and their habitats during 

project construction and operation. 

Alexander Archipelago Wolf

The 1997 and 2008 Forest Plan analyses contain extensive information on wolf 

ecology building on the wolf assessment (Person et al. 1996). As outlined in the 

1997 and 2008 plans and associated documents, scheduled harvest of POG 

forest has the potential to result in the reduction of the wolf prey base (deer 

through decreased deer habitat capability) and increased human access along 

project roads, which could reduce the wolf population through increased legal 

and illegal hunting and trapping. It is assumed that a decline in the deer 

population would likely result in a decline in the wolf population (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b). Resonating effects could include reductions in opportunities to 

hunt or trap wolves (see Subsistence section). These effects are of particular 

concern on Prince of Wales Island where the population has apparently 

undergone substantial declines over the last several decades; however, this 

population represents a small proportion (approximately 4 percent) of the overall 

Alexander Archipelago wolf population and this decline is not anticipated to affect 

the status of the population at large (USFWS 2015). 

One approach to examining potential effects of alternatives on wolves is

evaluating the reduction in modeled deer habitat capability (based on 

Interagency Deer Habitat Capability model outputs in terms of calculated deer 

density) in each biogeographic area and by WAA. Note that deer density 

expressed by the habitat capability model does not represent actual population 

numbers but represents a consensus at the time the model was developed 

regarding deer habitat capability at different structural / successional stages 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-274 Final EIS

which can be used to compare alternatives. Model assumptions, based on 

recent direction provided by the Forest Service include:

• For the direct and indirect effects analysis, deer habitat capability by WAA 

(including only NFS lands) was divided by the total square miles of NFS 

lands (all elevations included, but with acres above 1,500 feet elevation 

receiving a zero value) in the WAA.

• For the cumulative effects analysis, deer habitat capability from all land 

ownerships (NFS and non-NFS lands) was divided by the total square miles 

of all lands (all elevations included, but habitats on non-NFS land and land 

above 1,500 feet elevation receiving a zero value) in the WAA.

Evaluation of potential effects of timber harvest on wolves based on the 

Interagency Deer Habitat Capability Model relies on an understanding of the 

complex interactions between forest management and deer habitat, roads, 

snowpack, deer populations, deer hunters, wolves (as predators of deer), and 

wolf trappers/hunters. Particularly important is the idea that winter deer habitat 

(old growth forest, which intercepts snow and provides forage) is reduced 

through timber harvest to the point where a severe winter (or series of such 

winters) with deep snow results in high deer mortality. 

Evaluation employing the Interagency Deer Carrying Capacity Model suggests 

that harvest of POG forest will decrease carrying capacity for deer over the long 

term because of reductions in the amount of available winter habitat due to the 

ultimate development of forest in stem-exclusion (Table 3.10-11; see also 

discussion of effects to deer). However, this long-term decline in carrying 

capacity is less under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 than Alternative 1 due to the 

transition to young growth,. Current deer habitat capability based on the 

interagency habitat capability model is below the Forest Plan guideline of 18 deer 

per square mile in many WAAs. This results from several factors and varies 

among landscapes. Contributing factors include lower inherent capability of some 

landscapes and habitats, reduced habitat capability from past timber harvest and 

associated succession, and the static nature of how the model expresses habitat 

capability during succession (such as one value for young growth from 25 to 150 

years of age). Model results suggest that continued harvest of POG forest in 

some areas would result in higher risk that there will be insufficient deer to 

sustain predation by wolves and human deer harvest over the long-term (see 

existing modeled deer densities in Table 3.10-2). That concern exists despite the 

availability of alternative prey and current abundance of deer in some parts of the 

forest. 

Alternative 1 would reduce the existing percentage of WAAs with deer habitat 

capability of at least 18 deer per square mile by 14 percent at stem exclusion in 

approximately 25 years; there would be no change in the percentage of WAAs 

with at least 18 deer per square mile habitat capability over this time period under 

Alternatives 2, 3, or 4, but the decrease in number of WAAs would be 11 percent 

under Alternative 5 (Table 3.10-14)., After 100 years of Forest Plan 

implementation all alternatives would reduce the percentage of WAAs with at 

least 18 deer per square mile by 14 percent. WAAs with the greatest potential 

impacts are located in South Prince of Wales, North Central Prince of Wales, 

Kupreanof/Mitkof Islands, Revillagigedo Island, and Chichagof Island 

biogeographic provinces (Table 3.10-14). Deer Habitat Capability model output 

by WAA is included in the project record. Reductions in habitat capability are due

to both timber harvest as well as natural succession of stands harvested in the 

past. 
Environment and Effects 3 

Final EIS 3-275 Wildlife

Table 3.10-14 

Comparison of Alternatives in terms of their Long-term Ability to Meet the Wolf Guideline of Providing Sufficient Habitat to Support 18 Deer 

per Square Mile after 25 and 100+ Years of Forest Plan Implementation 1 (NFS Lands Only)

No.

Biogeographic 

Province

Existing 

Habitat 

Capability 

2015 (Deer per 

Square Mile) 

Existing No. WAAs 

with Modeled Deer 

Density of at least 

18 Deer per Square 

Mile1/

Model-generated Habitat Capability by Alternative (Deer Per Square Mile and Number of WAAs 

with Modeled Deer Density of at least 18 Deer per Square Mile)2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs 100 yrs

1 Yakutat Forelands 13.3 2 12.4(2) 11.9(2) 12.6(2) 11.9(2) 12.7(2) 12.7(2) 12.7(2) 12.7(2) 12.7(2) 12.7(2)

2 Yakutat Uplands 2.3 0 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0) 2.3(0)

3 East Chichagof Island 11.7 1 11.4(1) 11.3(1) 11.6(1) 11.4(1) 11.5(1) 11.4(1) 11.5(1) 11.3(1) 11.5(1) 11.4(1)

4 West Chichagof Island 14.5 1 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0) 14.0(0)

5 East Baranof Island 7.0 0 6.8(0) 6.8(0) 6.9(0) 6.8(0) 6.8(0) 6.8(0) 6.9(0) 6.8(0) 6.8(0) 6.8(0)

6 West Baranof Island 12.2 4 11.9(4) 11.9(4) 12.1(4) 12.0(4) 12.0(4) 11.9(4) 11.9(4) 11.9(4) 11.9(4) 11.9(4)

7 Admiralty Island 17.6 10 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10) 17.3(10)

8 Lynn Canal 5.5 1 5.4(1) 5.4(1) 5.4(1) 5.4(1) 5.5(1) 5.4(1) 5.4(1) 5.4(1) 5.4(1) 5.4(1)

9 North Coast Range 6.2 0 6.1(0) 6.1(0) 6.1(0) 6.1(0) 6.1(0) 6.1(0) 6.1(0) 6.1(0) 6.1(10) 6.1(0)

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 16.9 7 16.5(3) 16.4(3) 16.8(3) 16.6(3) 16.8(3) 16.6(3) 16.6(3) 16.5(3) 16.7(3) 16.4(3)

11 Kuiu Island 25.5 7 25.0(7) 25.1(7) 25.1(7) 25.1(7) 25.1(7) 25.1(7) 25.1(7) 25.1(7) 25.1(7) 25.0(7)

12 Central Coast Range 9.0 1 8.9(1) 8.8(1) 8.9(1) 8.8(1) 8.9(1) 8.8(1) 8.9(1) 8.8(1) 8.9(1) 8.8(1)

13 Etolin Island 15.7 3 15.2(2) 14.9(2) 15.5(1) 15.1(1) 15.5(1) 15.0(1) 15.4(2) 14.9(1) 15.3(2) 14.9(1)

14 North Central Prince of 

Wales 17.7 11 16.8(9) 16.5(9) 17.4(11) 16.7(10) 17.4(11) 16.7(10) 17.3(11) 16.6(10) 17.2(11) 16.6(10)

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Peninsula 13.5 7 12.9(6) 12.9(6) 13.1(6) 12.9(6) 13.1(6) 12.9(6) 13.0(6) 12.9(6) 13.0(6) 12.8(6)

16 Southern Outer Islands 28.1 9 27.4(9) 27.0(9) 27.8(9) 27.4(9) 27.8(9) 27.3(9) 27.9(9) 26.9(9) 27.9(9) 27.1(9)

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 30.4 3 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3) 29.5(3)

18 South Prince of Wales 21.8 5 20.9(5) 20.8(5) 21.0(5) 20.9(5) 20.9(5) 20.9(5) 20.9(5) 20.8(5) 20.9(5) 20.8(5)

19 North Misty Fiords 3.7 2 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1) 3.7(1)

20 South Misty Fiords 8.4 0 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0) 8.2(0)

21 Ice Fields 0.7 0 

0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0) 0.7(0)

Forest-wide 10.1 74 9.8(64) 9.7(64) 9.9(65) 9.8(64) 9.9(65) 9.8(64) 9.9(66) 9.8(64) 9.9(66) 9.8(64)

1 For WAAs that overlap a biological province boundary only the overlapping portion counted toward the total.

2 Note that the model treats harvested stands in the stem exclusion stage (25 years old or older) the same value regardless of thinning treatments that are implemented.3 Note that wolves very 

rarely occur on Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof Islands.
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-276 Final EIS

The transition to young-growth harvest under the action alternatives is not fully 

reflected in the interagency deer model results because the model does not 

assign different values to stands that have been pre-commercially or 

commercially thinned (i.e., it still treats them as stands in the stem exclusion 

phase with limited value for deer), or young-growth stands beyond the stem 

exclusion phase which become more suitable for deer. Harvest of young-growth 

stands would increase summer and low-snow winter forage availability for deer 

over the short term, providing temporary increases in habitat capability during 

most years, but reduced winter habitat capability in high-snow years. Over the 

long term as young-growth stands re-enter the stem exclusion phase, habitat 

capability for deer (and thus potential prey availability for wolves) would be 

expected to decrease (due to reduced forage availability) until the next stand 

treatment. 

The transition to young growth would revert stands in the stem exclusion stage 

back to the stand initiation stage, and therefore would extent the period of shortterm benefits to deer (in summer and low-snow winters) associated with 

increased habitat capability and thus also benefiting wolves. Ultimately, the 

continued harvest of old-growth and young-growth forest under all the 

alternatives has the potential to result in localized reductions in deer habitat 

capability which may reduce prey availability for wolves in portions of the 

Tongass where deer are their primary prey (e.g., Prince of Wales Island and 

surrounding islands [GMU 2]). 

All action alternatives involve the construction or reconstruction of roads. The 

roads associated with timber harvest (old-growth and young-growth) may also 

increase the risk of both legal and illegal hunting and trapping related wolf 

mortality by increasing human access. Estimated total road densities below 

1,200 feet (representative of low elevation habitats used by wolves and deer) 

would increase by 0.07 to 0.08 miles per square mile (NFS lands only) under all 

of the alternatives. Estimated open road densities would increase by 0.01 miles 

per square mile under all action alternatives (Table 3.10-15). Therefore, at most, 

localized increases in hunter access would be expected under the action 

alternatives with no substantial increase across the Tongass. Relative to 

Alternative 1, the action alternatives would result in a minor increase in open 

road miles below 1,200 feet under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 (an increase of 26 

miles, 20 miles, and 14 miles, respectively) and a minor decrease under 

Alternative 4 (5 miles; Table 3.10-15). These effects would be lessened through 

road closures after use, through storage or decommissioning. The effectiveness 

of closure and storage, or decommissioning and ultimately the extent of 

mitigation will depend on both enforcement and the approach to closure. These 

decisions are made at the island, district, and project level through Access Travel 

Management Plans based on an evaluation of all resources.

The old-growth reserve system of the Conservation Strategy serves as an 

important source of roadless refugia for wolves. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for effects associated with the 

Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity section and Appendix E for

additional discussion). The land conveyance removed portions of OGRs, 

decreasing the amount of deer winter habitat and areas identified as being 

important for landscape connectivity (low-elevation POG) in the reserve system. 

The proposed modifications to the existing (i.e., post-conveyance) OGRs would 

result in a net increase in the of 3,6,48 acres of deep snow deer winter habitat 

and 6,696 acres of low-elevation POG the reserve system, thus indirectly 

benefiting wolves (see the discussion under Deer above and Appendix E). 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-277 Wildlife

Table 3.10-15

Estimated Road Miles and Average Road Density below 1,200 ft. in Elevation on NFS Lands and 

All Lands Combined for All Roads and for Open Roads by Alternative after 100 Years

Category 

Existing Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

NFS 

Lands

Only

All 

Lands

Road Miles

All Roads 4,858 8,900 5,726 11,917 5,830 12,020 5,796 11,987 5,659 11,850 5,772 11,963 

Open Roads 2,201 5,777 2,327 6,264 2,353 6,290 2,347 6,283 2,322 6,259 2,341 6,277 

Road Density (mi/mi2)

All Roads 0.39 0.63 0.46 0.85 0.47 0.86 0.47 0.85 0.46 0.84 0.46 0.85

Open Roads 0.18 0.41 0.19 0.45 0.19 0.45 0.19 0.45 0.19 0.45 0.19 0.45

These modifications would result in greater protection of the wolf prey base and 

potential wolf travel corridors under the Conservation Strategy than would occur 

as a result of the land conveyance without these changes.

Renewable energy and transportation project development can affect wolves

directly during construction through disturbance at den and rendezvous sites and 

indirectly through effects to deer habitat and increased vulnerability to harvest. 

The proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors standards and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not 

directly address this species; however, they do specify consideration of the most 

current science, guidance, and methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing 

wildlife impacts. These measures would minimize impacts to wolves, their 

habitats, and their prey base during project construction and operation. 

Additionally, it is assumed that all projects would implement existing Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines for wolves to further minimize impacts.

Bald Eagle

Timber harvest (both old-growth and young-growth) and associated activities 

which create noise and disturbance (e.g., blasting and helicopter logging) have 

the potential to result in minor, temporary disturbance to individual bald eagles. 

As required by the Forest Plan, all alternatives would be conducted implemented 

in accordance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, including 

maintaining appropriate distances from active bald eagle nests. Riparian and 

beach and estuary standards and guidelines, as well as OGRs and other nondevelopment LUDs, protect bald eagle habitat on the Tongass. Alternatives 2, 3, 

4, and 5 propose young-growth harvest to varying extents in the beach and 

estuary fringe and/or RMAs (Alternatives 2 and 5 only). Management activities in 

these areas could disturb eagles and reduce the protection afforded to suitable 

bald eagle habitat. Alternative 5 allows commercial management of young growth 

(up to 10-acre openings) in the beach and estuary fringe and RMAs for the first 

15 years after plan approval, so would delay development of future trees/snags 

suitable for eagle nesting, perching, and roosting; it includes a minimum 200-foot 

forested buffer along the shore (beach) that would continue to protect some 

eagle perching or roosting trees during that time. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 allow 

commercial thinning of young growth in the beach buffer to continue into the 

future, beyond 15 years, so could have longer term effects on eagle habitat. In 

addition, Alternative 2 allows even-aged management for up to 15 years (harvest 

opening size limited by Scenery standards only) in the beach and estuary fringe 

and commercial thinning in RMAs (no time limit specified). Alternatives 3 and 4 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-278 Final EIS

would not allow even-aged management in the beach and estuary fringe and do 

not propose harvest in RMAs and would therefore have less impact on eagles 

than Alternatives 2 and 5. No harvesting in the beach and estuary fringe or RMAs 

would occur under Alternative 1.

Many of young growth trees harvested would be of insufficient size to be suitable 

for nesting or preferable for roosting. Harvest of young growth has potential to 

disturb eagles, especially if helicopter harvest methods are used. Timing 

restrictions would apply near active eagle nests in the vicinity of harvest activities 

to minimize disturbance to eagles or the abandonment of nests.

Renewable energy and transportation project development can affect bald eagles 

directly during construction through disturbance and through habitat removal or 

alteration. During operation, electrocution with powerlines and/or collisions with 

project structures are a potential risk. The proposed Forest-wide Renewable 

Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors standards and guidelines under 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this species; however, they do 

specify consideration of the most current science, guidance, and methodologies 

related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. This would include adherence 

to the MBTA, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and guidelines such as 

APLIC standards for transmission lines (EEI et al. 2006). These measures would 

minimize impacts to bald eagles and their habitats during project construction 

and operation.

Red Squirrel, Red-breasted Sapsucker, Hairy Woodpecker, and Brown 

Creeper

These species are associated with old-growth forest and extensive quality habitat 

is protected through the conservation system, particularly old-growth reserves 

and non-development LUDs. In the matrix, these species rely on legacy 

components (e.g., large diameter trees, snags) of the old-growth forest 

ecosystem for nesting and foraging. All of the alternatives would result in the 

removal of nesting and foraging habitat (POG forest; Tables 3.9-12, 3.9-13, and 

3.9-14). Red-breasted 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. Red squirrels are more versatile and 

will use young-growth stands as young as 40 years of age. Indirect effects to 

these species would be associated with fragmentation and the reduction in POG 

patch sizes. Fragmentation reduces the amount and effectiveness of interior oldgrowth forest habitat by creating habitat edges along which there may be 

increased rates of nest predation by avian predators (Kissling and Garton 2008). 

It is assumed that alternatives that harvest more POG would have greater effects 

to these species. The greatest amount of POG harvest would occur under 

Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 5, 4, 3, and 2 (Table 3.9-9). Harvest of

young-growth stands would have minimal fragmentation-related effects to these 

species because old-growth interior forest conditions preferred by these species

would not be affected. However, connectivity for red squirrels could be locally 

reduced because this species may use mature young-growth stands that are 

suitable for commercial harvest. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of red squirrel, red-breasted 

sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, and brown creeper habitat (total POG) within the 

reserve system. The proposed modifications to the existing (i.e., postconveyance) OGRs would result in a net increase of 7,148 acres of POG forest

included in the reserve system (Appendix E). These modifications would result in 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-279 Wildlife

greater protection of habitats used by these species under the Conservation 

Strategy than would occur as a result of the land conveyance without these 

changes.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 would incorporate the Legacy Forest Structure 

standards and guidelines which are intended to maintain old-growth structure in 

areas that are already highly developed, as well as areas that will experience 

increased harvest levels over the life of the Forest Plan. These components 

(large trees and snags) may provide nesting and foraging habitat for the redsquirrels, red-breasted sapsuckers, hairy woodpeckers, and brown creepers. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 include a proposed clarification that the list of VCUs 

where the Legacy Forest Structure standards and guidelines apply should be 

verified during project-specific planning and analysis. Alternatives 3 and 4 also 

include a new management approach for these standards and guidelines to 

indicate that when implementing young-growth harvest projects larger than 20 

acres in VCUs that have received concentrated past old-growth harvest it is

intended that 30 percent of the young-growth stand acres should be left to retain 

residual trees to diversify structural characteristics and promote future 

recruitment of snags. Therefore, the proposed clarification would provide greater 

protection of habitats used by these species in managed forest stands

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect red squirrels, redbreasted sapsuckers, hairy woodpeckers, and brown creepers during 

construction through direct disturbance or through removal or modification of 

habitats. During operation, the potential for collision with project structures is a 

risk. The proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors standards and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not 

directly address these species; however, they do specify consideration of the 

most current science, guidance (e.g., APLIC guidelines; EEI et al. 2006), and 

methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. These 

measures would minimize impacts to these species and their habitats during 

project construction and operation.

Vancouver Canada Goose

Vancouver Canada geese use wetlands (forested and non-forested) in the 

estuary, riparian, and uplands areas of the forest. Habitat needs for this

subspecies are specifically provided for under the waterfowl standards and 

guidelines, which apply to specific sites, and a 100-foot buffer around lakes or 

streams. The beach, estuary, and riparian Forest-wide standards and guidelines 

provide additional protection to habitats used by Vancouver Canada geese. 

Alternatives that propose the most harvest of forested wetlands and that would 

allow young-growth harvest within the beach and estuary fringe and RMAs would 

result in the greatest loss of suitable habitat for this species. After full 

implementation of the Forest Plan (100 years), the greatest effects to forested 

wetlands would occur under Alternative 1 (28,923 acres), followed by 

Alternatives 2 (28,681 acres), 5 (28,265 acres), 3 (28,142 acres), and 4 (26,305 

acres); see Wetlands section for additional discussion. Young-growth harvest 

within beach and estuary fringe and RMAs are presented in Table 3.9-13 and 

discussed above under Black Bear. Alternative 2 would have the greatest effects 

to habitats used by geese, followed by Alternatives 3, 4, and 5; no harvest in the 

beach and estuary fringe or RMAs would occur under Alternative 1.

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect the Vancouver 

Canada goose during construction through direct disturbance or through removal 

or modification of habitats. During operation electrocution and collision with 

project structures is a risk. The proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and 

Transportation Systems Corridors standards and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-280 Final EIS

3, 4, and 5 do not directly address this species; however, they do specify 

consideration of the most current science, guidance (e.g., APLIC guidelines; EEI 

et al. 2006), and methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife 

impacts. This would include adherence to the MBTA. These measures would 

minimize impacts to Vancouver Canada geese and their habitats during project 

construction and operation.

Other Species

Migratory Birds

All of the alternatives would result in a reduction of perching, foraging, and 

potential nesting habitat and the increase in fragmentation associated with timber 

harvest and road building. 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 would be 

expected as forest succession progresses. Habitat removal 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 nesting habitat 

during the nesting/fledging period, which generally begins in mid-April and ends 

about mid-July, when young birds have fledged. 

The migratory bird species most likely to be adversely affected by the harvest of 

POG forest under all of the alternatives are those that primarily nest in POG 

forests, including the Western screech-owl, rufous hummingbird, red-breasted 

sapsucker, Pacific-slope flycatcher, Steller’s jay, northwestern crow, chestnutbacked chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, Townsend's warbler, 

blackpoll warbler, northern goshawk and marbled murrelet. Alternatives that 

harvest more 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. The greatest amount of POG harvest would occur under 

Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (Tables 3.10-8, 3.9-12, 3.9-

13, and 3.9-14). However, species associated with early successional or scrub 

habitats such as the MacGillivray’s warbler, golden-crowned sparrow, and 

golden-crowned kinglet would benefit through increases in suitable habitat over 

the short- to mid-term from timber harvest. All migratory bird species would 

benefit from the transition to young-growth harvest proposed under the action 

alternatives due to the reduced long-term scheduling of POG harvest. 

At the project level, 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 2008c). Under all 

alternatives, migratory bird habitat would be maintained by the Forest Plan 

Conservation Strategy. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 include the Legacy Forest 

Structure standard and guideline that protect habitat features that are important 

for migratory birds on a stand level. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 include a 

proposed clarification that the list of VCUs where the Legacy Forest Structure 

standards and guidelines apply should be verified during project-specific planning 

and analysis. Alternatives 3 and 4 also include a new management approach for 

these standards and guidelines to indicate that when implementing young-growth 

harvest projects larger than 20 acres in VCUs that have received concentrated 

past old-growth harvest it is intended that 30 percent of the young-growth stand 

acres should be left to retain residual trees to diversify structural characteristics 

and promote future recruitment of snags. These clarifications would benefit 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-281 Wildlife

migratory birds by maintaining forest structural components (dead trees and 

snags) in managed stands.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of POG forest within the 

reserve system and used by many species of migratory bird species for nesting 

and foraging. The proposed modifications to the existing (i.e., post-conveyance) 

OGRs would result in a net increase of 7,148 acres of POG forest included in the 

reserve system (Appendix E). These modifications would result in greater

protection of habitats used by migratory birds under the Conservation Strategy

than would occur as a result of the land conveyance without these changes. 

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect migratory during 

construction through direct disturbance or through removal or modification of 

nesting habitats. During operation collision with project structures is a risk. The 

proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems Corridors 

standards and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not directly address 

migratory birds; however, they do specify consideration of the most current 

science, guidance (e.g., APLIC guidelines; EEI et al. 2006), and methodologies 

related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. This would include adherence 

to the MBTA. These measures would minimize impacts to migratory birds and 

their habitats during project construction and operation.

Marbled Murrelets

Marbled murrelets nest in structurally complex old-growth forest stands (Piatt et 

al. 2007). As a result, timber harvesting and road construction within POG forest 

stands (especially high-volume POG) can remove nest trees or disturb nesting 

birds. Indirectly, timber harvest and road building increase fragmentation, 

reducing the effectiveness of interior forest habitat and creating habitat edges 

along which there may be increased rates of nest predation by avian predators. 

Alternatives that harvest the most POG forest would be expected to have the 

greatest direct and indirect effects to marbled murrelets (Tables 3.9-12, 3.9-13, 

and 3.9-14). The greatest amount of POG harvest would occur under Alternative 

1, followed by Alternatives 5, 4, 3, and 2 (Table 3.9-9). Under all alternatives, 

marbled murrelet nesting habitat would be protected by the Forest Plan 

conservation strategy. 

The transition to young-growth harvest would benefit this species through the 

retention of a greater amount of POG forest on the landscape over the planning 

horizon. Moreover, many of young-growth trees harvested would be of 

insufficient size to be suitable for nesting. Additionally, harvest of young-growth 

stands would have minimal fragmentation-related effects to this species because 

old-growth interior forest conditions preferred by this species for nesting would 

not be affected.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, decreasing the amount of marbled murrelet habitat 

(total POG) within the reserve system. The proposed modifications to the existing 

(i.e., post-conveyance) OGRs would result in a net increase of 7,148 acres of 

POG forest included in the reserve system (Appendix E). These modifications 

would result in greater protection of habitats used by marbled murrelets under 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-282 Final EIS

the Conservation Strategy than would occur as a result of the land conveyance 

without these changes.

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 would incorporate the Legacy Forest Structure 

standards and guidelines which are intended to maintain old-growth structure in 

areas that are already highly developed, as well as areas that will experience 

increased harvest levels over the life of the Forest Plan. These components 

(large trees and snags) may provide nesting habitat for marbled murrelets. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 include a proposed clarification that the list of VCUs 

where the Legacy Forest Structure standards and guidelines apply should be 

verified during project-specific planning and analysis. The proposed clarification 

would provide greater protection of habitats used by marbled murrelets in 

managed forest stands

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect marbled murrelets 

during construction through direct disturbance or through removal or modification 

of habitat. During operation, the potential for collision with project structures is a 

risk. The proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and Transportation Systems 

Corridors standards and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 do not 

directly address this species; however, they do specify consideration of the most 

current science, guidance (e.g., APLIC guidelines; EEI et al. 2006), and 

methodologies related to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. These 

measures would minimize impacts to marbled murrelets and their habitats during 

project construction and operation.

Bats

All bat species known to occur in southeast Alaska are associated with mature 

forested habitats which provide roosting, breeding, and foraging sites, and bat 

activity appears rare in young-growth forest (ACCS 2016). Old-growth timber 

harvest would remove POG, thereby reducing the number of potential day-roosts 

available to tree-roosting bats and foraging habitat. Indirectly, timber harvest 

may also reduce the suitability remaining roosting habitat through increased 

fragmentation (and decreased patch sizes) as day-roosts are more likely to be 

selected for some species (e.g., Keen’s myotis and silver-haired bat) if they are 

located in stands with a higher number of trees in early to late decay stages 

(Boland et al. 2009).

Therefore, alternatives that harvest the most POG would be expected to have the 

greatest effect to the bats. The greatest amount of POG harvest would occur 

under Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (Tables 3.10-8, 3.9-12, 

3.9-13, and 3.9-14). However, it should be noted tree-roosting species may 

choose a large-diameter tree for roosting regardless of whether or not it is 

located in an area with past timber harvest (Boland et al. 2009). Habitat and 

landscape connectivity would be provided for these species by the Forest Plan 

conservation strategy.

Amphibians

Amphibians require both aquatic and terrestrial habitats in order to complete their 

life-cycle. Ponds, streams, and wetlands used by amphibians for breeding are 

protected by Forest Plan Riparian and Wetland standards and guidelines. 

However, increased sedimentation and the entry of contaminated run-off from 

roads resulting from timber harvest (both young-growth and old-growth) can 

reduce the quality of these habitats. Under all alternatives, standard BMPs for 

water quality would be implemented to minimize these effects (see the Fisheries 

section for additional discussion).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-283 Wildlife

Amphibians have very limited physiological mechanisms for preventing water

loss, and therefore require relatively cool, moist forested habitats, in conjunction 

with underground refuges or coarse woody debris to maintain high moisture 

levels (Semlitsch et al 2009). Timber harvest (both old-growth and young-growth) 

has the potential to result in the loss and/or degradation of terrestrial habitats 

through changes in microclimates, soil compaction, and leaf litter disturbance. 

Tree canopy removal increases solar radiation to the forest floor, resulting in 

changes in moisture and soil temperatures which can make terrestrial habitats 

unsuitable for amphibians. Thinning or uneven-aged harvest techniques may 

reduce these effects. 

Amphibians also possess small home ranges and relatively limited dispersal 

capabilities compared to other wildlife species. Therefore, timber harvest (both 

old-growth and young-growth) can affect the interchange between populations if 

harvest units do possess suitable microclimates or habitat features (e.g., course 

woody debris) for amphibians to cross. Likewise, road development can preclude 

amphibian movement and can also result in direct mortality to adults moving 

between breeding and upland terrestrial habitats.

The effects of specific harvest treatments on amphibians is complex. Some 

amphibians in the aquatic stage may be affected positively by even-aged harvest 

techniques (clearcutting), whereas effects of these treatments on juvenile and adult 

terrestrial stages are mostly negative (Semlitsch et al. 2009). Moreover, unevenaged (partial) harvest treatments have been shown to produce both positive and 

weaker negative responses than even-aged treatments. Therefore, it is assumed 

here that alternatives that propose the most total POG harvest, regardless of 

treatment, would have the greatest potential for adverse effects to amphibians, as 

these forest stands provide optimal habitat conditions for amphibians. The greatest 

amount of POG harvest would occur under Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives

4, 5, 3, and 2 (Tables 3.10-8, 3.9-12, 3.9-13, and 3.9-14). 

Renewable energy and transportation projects could affect amphibians through 

direct disturbance or through removal or modification of habitats, particular if 

activities affect water bodies. The proposed Forest-wide Renewable Energy and 

Transportation Systems Corridors standards and guidelines under Alternatives 2, 

3, 4, and 5 do not directly address these species; however, they do specify 

consideration of the most current science, guidance, and methodologies related 

to avoiding and minimizing wildlife impacts. These measures would minimize 

impacts to amphibians and their habitats during project construction and 

operation.

Endemism

By definition, endemic species occur in isolated populations and many have 

limited mobility or specific habitat requirements. Thus, they are vulnerable to the 

effects of habitat loss and fragmentation, introduced non-natives, pathogens and 

disease, natural events (i.e., climate change), and overharvesting (Dawson et al. 

2007). Therefore, the ability to disperse and recolonize is an important factor in 

how endemic species are able to respond to environmental changes.

Timber harvest and road construction/reconstruction proposed under all 

alternatives would directly affect endemic species through habitat loss (POG) 

and fragmentation (reduced patch size), 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. These effects would occur to a less extent in association with 

young-growth harvest as these stands provide lower quality habitat to most 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-284 Final EIS

endemic species. Timber harvest by alternative is presented in Tables 3.10-8

and 3.10-9; landscape connectivity and fragmentation are discussed in detail in 

the Biodiversity section. Most endemic species would benefit from the transition 

to young-growth harvest proposed under the alternatives due to the reduced 

amount of scheduled POG harvest over the long term. Effects would be greatest 

under Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 (ranging from most to 

least POG harvest over 100 years of Forest Plan implementation).

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 propose modifications to OGRs that compensate for 

effects associated with the Sealaska land conveyance (see the Biodiversity

section and Appendix E for additional discussion). The land conveyance 

removed portions of OGRs, reducing connectivity between reserves and 

decreasing the amount of POG forest and other important habitat features (e.g., 

streams, low elevation POG forest, and large-tree POG stands) within the 

reserve system and used by endemic species (Appendix E). The proposed 

modifications to the existing (i.e., post-conveyance) OGRs would result in a net 

increase of 7,148 acres of total POG (including 6,696 acres of low-elevation POG 

and 3,066 acres of large-tree POG) and 31 Class I stream miles included in the 

reserve system (Appendix E). These modifications would result in greater 

protection of habitats used by endemic species, as well as greater connectivity 

between reserves and to the shoreline, under the Conservation Strategy than 

would occur as a result of the land conveyance without these changes.

Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel

A thorough analysis of this species occurred during the 1997 and 2008 Forest 

Plan efforts and results documented that the conservation strategy was 

functioning adequately to maintain the viability of this species in the planning 

area (USDA Forest Service 1997b, Appendix N; 2008b, Appendix D). Prince of 

Wales flying squirrels are closely associated with old-growth structural 

characteristics and are limited by their dispersal capabilities. Densities of flying 

squirrels are linked to structural features common in POG forests such as largediameter downed woody debris, snags, and tall trees (Smith et al. 2004) and 

abundance has been shown to be reduced by forestry practices that influenced 

the structure or age of residual stands (Smith et al. 2011). Additionally, due to 

their gliding locomotion, forest openings resulting from timber harvest can act as 

dispersal barriers if flying squirrels are not able to traverse openings (Flaherty et 

al. 2008, 2010; Smith et al. 2011). This subspecies has a limited gliding range 

(approximately 250 feet), a distance substantially less than the average clearcut 

width (Flaherty et al. 2008). Fragmentation resulting from old-growth timber 

harvest has the potential to reduce the value of residual patches of old growth in 

the matrix if they become isolated from adjacent patches either by distance or 

habitat type (young growth). Old-growth timber harvest under all alternatives 

would reduce the quality and quantity of flying squirrel nesting, foraging, and 

denning habitat but effects would be expected to be greatest under alternatives 

that propose the most POG harvest (Table 3.10-8). Alternatives that harvest the 

most POG and result in the greatest increase in the fragmentation be expected to 

have the greatest effect to the Prince of Wales flying squirrel due to their limited 

dispersal capabilities. The greatest amount of POG harvest (and thus the 

greatest effects to this species) would occur under Alternative 1, followed by 

Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2. The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy would 

continue to maintain suitable old-growth habitat and provide landscape 

connectivity for flying squirrels.

Young-growth management proposed under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

(particularly commercial thinning) could benefit flying squirrels over the shortterm by increasing canopy height and creating more open space in the midstory -
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-285 Wildlife

conditions which facilitate efficient gliding (Scheib et al. 2006). Over the longterm, commercial thinning would promote stand development toward conditions 

capable of supporting breeding flying squirrels and improve the functional 

connectivity between old-growth reserves (Smith et al. 2011).

Prince of Wales Spruce Grouse

Prince of Wales spruce grouse are associated with muskegs, high-volume POG, and 

mixed conifer (scrub) habitats but will also use young-growth forest (15-30 years 

following timber harvest) with a well-developed middle story. Because they are 

associated with microhabitats within POG forests, old-growth timber harvest would 

alter habitat availability for this species, though effects would change over time. 

Prince of Wales spruce grouse avoid young (less than 5 years) clearcuts presumably 

due to the presence of large amounts of debris that inhibit movement, increased 

exposure to predators, and lack of food. However, as the understory vegetation 

develops, peaking after 15 to 30 years, grouse likely benefit from increased berry 

production and cover for chicks (Russell 1999). After this, forest conditions become 

unfavorable to spruce grouse, characterized by canopy closure, high stem densities, 

and little understory vegetation due to reduced light which reduces the overall 

structural and horizontal diversity of the stand (USFWS 2010). These conditions can 

persist up to 150 years after even-aged timber harvest. Thus, old-growth timber 

harvest under all action alternatives would have a short-term benefit to grouse due to 

increased forage availability, followed by an extended period in which habitat 

conditions in harvested units would not be suitable. Young-growth harvest would 

provide similar short-term benefits to this species in the years following stand 

treatments. However, even-aged harvest of both old-growth and young-growth 

forest would initially (i.e., within the first 5 years after harvest) result in habitat patches 

unsuitable for spruce grouse, which may result in local impediments to movement.

Due to their generally sedentary nature and preference for walking rather than flying, 

fragmentation due to old-growth and young-growth even-aged timber harvest can 

result in the isolation of local spruce grouse populations (i.e., if open areas are too 

large or forested patches are spread too far apart to enable spruce grouse to move 

between them). However, thinning and group selection treatments can promote the 

development of structural and horizontal diversity beneficial to grouse (Russell 1999).

Increased road densities associated with timber harvest (both young-growth and 

POG forest) could also adversely affect spruce grouse by increasing hunter 

access (USFWS 2010). None of the alternatives propose measurable increases 

in average WAA road densities and therefore would not be expected to result in 

increased harvest risk at the forest level. Localized increases in road densities 

would be managed through road closures and storage or decommissioning which 

would minimize the potential for increased harvest risk for spruce grouse over the 

long term.

Alternatives that harvest the most POG and result in the greatest increase in the 

fragmentation be expected to have the greatest effect to the Prince of Wales 

spruce grouse, due to their limited dispersal capabilities. The greatest amount of 

POG harvest, and thus the greatest effects to this species, would occur under 

Alternative 1, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2. The Forest Plan 

Conservation Strategy would continue to suitable habitat and provide landscape 

connectivity for spruce grouse.

Invasive Species

Although a number of non-native wildlife species have been accidentally 

introduced or deliberately transplanted in Southeast Alaska, the only species 

considered invasive (i.e., based on the definition that they cause harm to the 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-286 Final EIS

economy, environment, or humans) at the present time is the Norway rat. Elk in 

Southeast Alaska may be considered invasive in certain geographic areas due to 

their effects on habitat and competition with native species in areas where they 

were not intentionally introduced. None of the alternatives propose changes to 

the management of the Tongass in relation to invasive species and no invasive 

wildlife species are addressed under the Forest Plan Monitoring section or 

standards and guidelines. However, the Alaska Region of the Forest Service is 

currently developing an invasive species strategy that will apply the principles of 

prevention, early detection, control, and rehabilitation in cooperation with various 

agencies and partners.

Activities that create or enhance the habitats preferred by invasive species may 

facilitate range expansion. Timber harvest and associated management 

activities would occur under all alternatives, but would have no effect on the 

spread of Norway rats or elk. 

Activities that occur on other land ownerships within and adjacent to the Tongass 

have the potential to affect the overall context within which effects to wildlife are 

considered. Appendix C of this EIS provides a full list of all the projects 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis. Such reasonably foreseeable 

activities include, but are not limited to, timber harvest, residential development, 

mining, recreation and tourism, and road construction. Typically these activities 

have the potential to negatively impact wildlife populations through habitat 

conversion, fragmentation, and disturbance associated with road building, though 

some activities can have short-term or long-term beneficial impacts, depending 

on the species. Prediction of the future extent and intensity of such activities has 

a high degree of uncertainty associated with it on a Forest-wide basis over a 

broad time scale. This analysis is conservative in that it assumes harvest of all 

non-NFS lands over the planning horizon. 

Many private lands in Southeast Alaska are already highly developed in terms of 

roading and timber harvest and are likely to experience a continuing decline in 

old-growth forest in the future. Therefore, the cumulative long-term trend within 

the Forest boundary under all alternatives is likely to be a decline in optimum 

habitat for most old-growth associated species, with non-NFS land contributing to 

this trend. Additionally, future land exchanges and conveyances (e.g., Mental 

Health Trust) have the potential to remove some lands from protection under the 

Conservation Strategy. The Forest Service would continue to evaluate 

opportunities to compensate for these losses by evaluating additional OGR

modifications when these land exchanges or conveyances are implemented. 

The transition to young-growth harvest on the Tongass would benefit wildlife 

species by reducing the overall amount of POG forest harvested over the 

planning horizon. Activities such as pre-commercial and commercial thinning 

would have both short-term (increased forage availability) and long-term 

(promotion of the development of old-growth forest stand characteristics) to 

wildlife species that use POG forests on the Tongass. The young-growth harvest 

proposed under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would contribute to similar beneficial 

effects of ongoing young-growth management activities (e.g., restoration efforts 

and other forest thinning activities) on the Tongass, although effects under 

alternatives that allow commercial thinning would be delayed if stands are 

actively managed throughout the life of the Forest Plan. The following discussion 

addresses the effects of cumulative old-growth harvest resulting under the 

alternatives, with the transition to young-growth harvest proposed more 

aggressively under the action alternatives.

When combined with other management activities occurring on non-NFS lands, 

all alternatives would produce additional impacts (noted above) associated with 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-287 Wildlife

continued old-growth harvest to species for which this forest type is optimal 

habitat, such as goshawks, marten, mountain goats, red squirrel, red-breasted 

sapsucker, hairy woodpecker, brown creeper, marbled murrelets, and bat 

species. However, these declines in habitat (and associated effects such as 

fragmentation) would be lessened to some extent through the transition to younggrowth harvest on NFS lands under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. Cumulative 

effects are anticipated to be the greatest under Alternative 1, which proposes the 

highest amount of POG timber harvest, followed by Alternatives 4, 5, 3, and 2 

(i.e., cumulative effects would be least under the alternatives that propose the

shortest transition from old-growth to young-growth harvest), and would be most 

evident in areas where timber harvest is concentrated. Tables 3.9-16, 3.9-17,

and 3.9-18 in the Biodiversity section summarize the maximum long-term 

cumulative percent of the original total, high-volume, and large-tree POG that 

would be harvested in Southeast Alaska on all ownerships by biogeographic 

province by alternative. After 100 years of Forest Plan implementation, 

cumulative POG harvest levels on all lands of Southeast Alaska would maintain 

approximately 83 percent of the original (1954) total POG under Alternative 1. 

Cumulative harvest levels would be less under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 but 

would also maintain approximately 83 percent of the original total POG (Table 

3.9-16).

Cumulative effects to modeled deer habitat capability under the alternatives

would range from maintenance of 78 percent of the original level under 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 and slight increase to 79 percent of the original level 

under Alternatives 2 and 3 in 25 years; at 100 years, the current Forest Plan 

would maintain 77 percent of the original level whereas the alternatives would 

result in a slight increase, maintaining 78 percent of original levels (Table 3.10-

16). WAAs with the greatest impacts under the alternatives are located in GMU 

2 (Prince of Wales and surrounding island) where concentrated past timber 

harvest has occurred (see the Project Record for detailed information on 

interagency deer model analysis results by WAA). Thus each of the alternatives 

may result in local declines in the deer population, due to reduced habitat 

capability which could affect wolves and thus hunters and trappers, but less so 

than under the current Forest Plan due to the reduction in old-growth harvest. 

However, commercial thinning proposed under the action alternatives, in 

combination with ongoing and foreseeable thinning conducted various watershed 

restoration plans would mitigate these effects to some extent. The USFWS 

Alexander Archipelago wolf species status assessment concluded that assuming 

continuation of current land use trends, the GMU 2 wolf population is anticipated 

to decline by another roughly 8 to 14 percent of current levels over the next 30 

years (USFWS 2015). Although this could result in gaps in wolf distribution within 

GMU 2, given that it comprises just 6 percent of the population range wide, 

impacts to the overall distribution in Southeast Alaska or to species viability are 

not expected (USFWS 2015).
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-288 Final EIS

Table 3.10-16

Relative Changes in Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by Biogeographic Province by Alternative in 25 years and 100 years based on the 

Interagency Deer Habitat Capability Model (All Lands)

Biogeographic Province

Original 

Deer 

Habitat 

Capability 

(Deer/mi2)

Existing Deer 

Habitat 

Capability as 

% Original

Deer Habitat Capability By Alternative

(% Original Habitat Quality Remaining)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

25 yrs 100 yrs 25 yrs

100 

yrs 25 yrs

100 

yrs 25 yrs

100 

yrs 25 yrs

100 

yrs

1 Yakutat Forelands 13.6 84% 82% 79% 84% 79% 84% 84% 84% 84% 84% 84%

2 Yakutat Uplands 2.3 98% 97% 97% 98% 97% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%

3 East Chichagof Island 14.4 74% 73% 72% 74% 73% 74% 73% 74% 73% 73% 73%

4 West Chichagof 

Island 14.0 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

5 East Baranof Island 8.3 81% 81% 81% 82% 81% 81% 81% 82% 81% 81% 81%

6 West Baranof Island 13.7 83% 83% 84% 84% 84% 84% 84% 83% 83% 84% 83%

7 Admiralty Island 18.3 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

8 Lynn Canal 6.2 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83%

9 North Coast Range 7.2 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76% 76%

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof 

Island 19.6 76% 76% 75% 77% 76% 77% 76% 76% 76% 76% 75%

11 Kuiu Island 27.7 88% 88% 89% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88% 88%

12 Central Coast Range 9.5 92% 92% 92% 93% 92% 93% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

13 Etolin Island 18.7 79% 77% 76% 79% 78% 79% 77% 78% 76% 78% 76%

14 North Central Prince 

of Wales 24.7 54% 53% 52% 55% 53% 55% 53% 54% 52% 54% 52%

15 Revilla Island/ 

Cleveland Peninsula 13.6 79% 79% 78% 79% 79% 79% 78% 79% 78% 79% 78%

16 Southern Outer 

Islands 31.8 81% 81% 80% 82% 81% 82% 81% 82% 80% 82% 80%

17 Dall Island and 

Vicinity 25.4 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66% 66%

18 South Prince of 

Wales 22.6 82% 82% 81% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 81% 82% 81%

19 North Misty Fiords 3.8 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

20 South Misty Fiords 8.2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

21 Ice Fields 0.8 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%

Forest-wide 11.8 78% 78% 77% 79% 78% 79% 78% 78% 78% 78% 78%
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-289 Wildlife

Populations are threatened with extinction for a variety of reasons and habitat 

loss is recognized as an important threat (Pimm et al 1988; Wilcove et al. 1998). 

When habitat conditions represent the primary threat to persistence, the 

likelihood of a wildlife population persisting over time has been suggested to be 

related to some threshold level of habitat loss on the landscape (Fahrig 1997, 

1999, 2003; Flather et al. 2002; Andren 1994). After reaching this threshold, the 

rate of population decline, and thus the likelihood of extinction, may increase 

(Haufler 2006). Reported threshold levels (percentage of habitat maintained on 

the landscape) range from 20 percent (Fahrig 1997) to 50 percent (Soule and 

Sanjayan 1998), depending in part on the dispersal capability of the species 

under consideration. No specific threshold has been determined for the 

Tongass; however, all of the biogeographic provinces on the Tongass would 

maintain at least 57 percent of the original (1954) POG after 100 years of Forest 

Plan implementation. Moreover, all of the action alternatives would maintain 80 

percent or more of the original (1954) total POG forest in 18 of 21 biogeographic 

provinces over this period (Table 3.9-16). 

However, there are portions of the Tongass where cumulative effects become 

more important due to the level of past harvest that has occurred. Specifically, 

the North Central Prince of Wales and Kupreanof/Mitkof Islands biogeographic 

provinces have experienced some of the highest reductions in original (1954) 

POG forest on the Tongass and are also where much of the young-growth 

suitable for commercial timber production is located (see the Suitable Land maps 

in the Map Packet that accompanies this EIS). Additional timber harvest (younggrowth and POG forest), particularly when located adjacent to previously 

harvested areas, has a greater potential to result in localized reductions in 

landscape connectivity and gaps in species distributions in these more heavily 

harvested areas compared to portions of the Tongass that have less cumulative 

past timber harvest. These cumulative effects would be most likely to occur for 

species with very limited ranges (endemic species limited to individual islands or 

island groups such as the Prince of Wales flying squirrel, Prince of Wales spruce 

grouse) or with limited dispersal capabilities or dispersal capabilities that are 

dependent on certain mature forest structural characteristics (e.g., goshawks, 

amphibians, flying squirrels, spruce grouse).

Species with limited dispersal capabilities (i.e., flying squirrels and spruce 

grouse, which are also endemic species) are likely to be more sensitive to habitat 

loss and fragmentation than species with greater dispersal capabilities (i.e., 

goshawks, wolves, and brown bears; D’eon et al. 2002). Natural fragmentation 

of habitats can also affect the level of additional fragmentation that can be 

supported. The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy would continue to provide for 

extensive areas in reserves, distributed across the Forest. The Legacy Forest

Structure and other standards and guidelines that retain POG forest in harvested 

areas (e.g., beach and estuary fringe, RMAs, and Scenic Integrity Objectives) 

would also ensure the maintenance of a functional and interconnected old-growth 

ecosystem on the Tongass. These features are important for species associated 

with shoreline and riparian habitats such as river otters, black bears, brown 

bears, bald eagles, and Vancouver Canada geese, These measures, particularly 

when implemented in areas that have experienced concentrated past harvest 

increase the likelihood that these landscapes will continue to provide the full 

range of matrix functions that support viable and well-distributed populations of 

wildlife species. 

As discussed in detail in Appendix D, the alternatives that propose young-growth 

harvest in the beach and estuary fringes (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5), RMAs 

(Alternatives 2 and 5), and old-growth reserves and/or other non-development 

LUDs (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) all have the potential to affect the functioning of 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-290 Final EIS

these contributing elements of the Conservation Strategy. However, due to the 

scale and distribution of suitable young growth in these areas (see Appendix D 

and the Suitable Land maps in the Map Packet that accompanies this EIS) all of 

the alternatives have the potential to result in localized reductions in intactness 

and effectiveness of these areas in providing habitat and facilitating movement of 

wildlife across the landscape; however, all alternatives are expected to maintain 

the integrity of the conservation strategy as a whole and its ability to maintain 

viable and well-distributed wildlife populations across the Tongass. Viability 

associated with individual wildlife species is discussed in more detail below.

Additional effects, associated with the cumulative timber harvest described 

above, include road construction, which has the potential to impact wildlife 

species through habitat fragmentation especially migratory birds, amphibians,

and other interior-forest associated species, and access-related disturbance

(increased harvest risk especially for wolves, marten, and spruce grouse) and 

human-bear conflicts. Table 3.10-12 summarizes existing and proposed total 

(open and closed roads) cumulative road densities (all land ownerships included) 

by the proportion of WAAs within road density categories. Generally road 

densities on non-NFS lands are greater than those found on adjacent NFS lands. 

In addition, there are no road closure/access management restrictions in place 

on these lands to reduce effects to species sensitive to access provided by

roads. Forest-wide cumulative total and open road densities (NFS and non-NFS 

lands) would increase by 0.11 to 0.12 miles per square mile above current 

conditions (Table 3.10-12). When taking only lands below 1,200 feet elevation 

into account, representative of low elevation habitats used be wolves and deer, 

Under the action alternatives Forest-wide cumulative total and open road 

densities (NFS and non-NFS lands) would increase by 0.04 miles per square 

mile, and between 0.21 and 0.23 miles per square mile above current conditions, 

respectively (Table 3.10-15).

All of the alternatives would result in vessel traffic and marine activity associated 

with LTF use and log transport, which would occur irregularly over the life of the 

Forest Plan (in association with individual old-growth and young-growth timber 

harvest projects as they are proposed). Therefore all of the alternatives would 

make a minor contribution to the existing potential for oil or fuel spills associated 

with existing vessel activity and bark accumulations near the LTFs to which 

marine and shoreline-associated species such as black oystercatchers, Aleutian 

terns, short-tailed albatrosses, humpback whales, and Steller’s sea lions would 

be exposed. However, levels of marine activity are expected to remain within 

levels anticipated for the current Forest Plan (Alternative 1) under all of the action 

alternatives given that the 2008 Forest Plan assumed a level of old-growth timber 

harvest far greater than what has occurred (see Appendix D). Therefore, any 

marine activities associated with young-growth harvest have been accounted for.

Furthermore, all activities at the project level would be conducted in accordance

with Alaska Water Quality Standards under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act 

for log transfer facilities (ADEC 2011). These standards place restrictions on the 

types, quantities, and extent of discharges (including bark) to the marine 

environment and would limit the effects of the project on water quality. Therefore, 

very minor contributions to cumulative effects in the marine environment are 

anticipated under all of the alternatives.

Climate change may also contribute to cumulative effects. Warmer temperatures 

and decreased precipitation are anticipated to result in changes to vegetation 

and thus, the suitability of wildlife habitat, among other impacts (Haufler et al. 

2010, Shanley et al. 2015; see Climate and Air section). Although many species 

may benefit (e.g., greater overwinter survival of deer, and thus a greater prey 

base for wolves, resulting from warmer winter temperatures during normal 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-291 Wildlife

years), habitat changes resulting from a longer growing season, wind, fires, 

insect infestations, and disease may have variable effects on others. The 

greatest concerns for wildlife populations in relation to climate change, however, 

are the weather extremes that can be expected to occur periodically (Haufler et 

al. 2010). Periodic severe winter snowfalls, which may seem counterintuitive 

given the general warming trend, are anticipated (SNAP 2010). These stochastic 

events would be of greatest concern for populations that are limited in number or 

distribution. The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy was designed to maintain a 

resilient old-growth forest ecosystem in the face of this uncertainty. The potential 

for contributions to climate change from continued old-growth timber harvest on 

the Tongass, which could indirectly affect wildlife species such as the Kittlitz’s 

murrelet, is described in detail in Section 3.1 – Climate and Air Quality.

Wildlife Viability

A series of wildlife panel assessments were conducted to evaluate the likelihood 

that plan alternatives for the 1997 Forest Plan would maintain habitat sufficient to 

support viable and well-distributed populations of select wildlife species across 

the planning area over a 100-year horizon. Panel assessments were conducted 

for goshawks, wolves, marten, brown bears, marbled murrelets, and “other 

terrestrial mammals” (including endemic species such as the Prince of Wales 

flying squirrel). These species or species groups were selected because 

collectively their ecologies were thought to incorporate the breadth of forest 

habitat features and other attributes of environmental variation represented 

across the Forest (Shaw 1999). They were also thought to be representative of 

species that are sensitive to disturbance and potentially at risk of either becoming 

locally extirpated or jeopardizing cultural or subsistence uses. 

The 1997 Forest Plan wildlife panel assessments were conducted under the 1982 

Planning Rule. Federal regulations for implementing the National Forest 

Management Act (USDA Forest Service 1982 [36 CFR 219.19:43048]) state: “Fish

and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing 

native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” A viable 

population was defined for planning purposes as “one which has the estimated 

numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued 

existence is well distributed in the planning area.” Furthermore, “habitat must be 

provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and 

that habitat must be well distributed so that individuals can interact with others in 

the planning area (USDA Forest Service 1997b, Appendix N).

The panel assessment process was designed to provide the context for, and 

guide the development of, the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy. Through each 

panel’s evaluation, habitat conditions and/or management components (e.g., 

reserves, beach buffers) emerged as being important to providing sufficient 

habitat to maintain well-distributed, viable populations of each species or species 

group. The results of the panel assessments are included in Appendix N to the 

1997 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997b) and summarized (and 

supplemented with new information) in Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS

(USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

Although the panel assessments do not directly address the alternatives 

evaluated in this EIS, the ability of the proposed Forest Plan Amendment to 

continue to maintain viable, well-distributed wildlife populations can be assessed 

based on two related premises. First, it can be assumed that if the integrity of the 

Forest Plan Conservation Strategy is maintained, there is a high likelihood that 

the Forest Plan Amendment would continue to provide habitat sufficient to 

support viable well-distributed wildlife populations and therefore maintain the 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-292 Final EIS

diversity of plant and animal communities. Second, if the Forest Plan 

Amendment maintains the key habitat factors identified as important to 

maintaining viability by the panel assessments for each species or species 

group, then there is a high likelihood that the Forest Plan Amendment would be 

at least as likely as the current Forest Plan to maintain viable, well-distributed 

populations of these species or species groups in the planning area. 

A detailed analysis of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, indicating that none 

of the alternatives would compromise its integrity, is included in Appendix D of 

this EIS. Therefore, this topic is not discussed further here. The following 

discussion focuses on the key factors that formed the basis for the conclusions 

drawn in the 1997 Forest Plan panel assessments in relation to the proposed 

Forest Plan Amendment. 

The transition to young-growth harvest proposed in the action alternatives would 

have a beneficial effect to wildlife species associated with old-growth forest by 

reducing the amount of old-growth timber harvest that would occur over the 

planning horizon. When developed for the 1997 Forest Plan, the Conservation 

Strategy was based on an assumed initial old-growth timber harvest rate of about 

83,400 acres per decade. Over a period of 100 years (1996 to 2095), 

approximately 474,000 acres would be harvested. In contrast, the actual area

harvested from 1996 to 2015 plus the projected harvest of old-growth through 

2095 under each of the alternatives would result in a total of 70,300 to 100,500

acres of old-growth harvest. Thus, the transition to young-growth harvest,

together with other changes to Tongass forest management (especially the 2001 

Roadless Rule), would result in between 373,500 and 403,700 acres of oldgrowth forest remaining in 2095 that was projected to have been harvested by 

the panels assessing viability for the 1997 plan (see Appendix D for additional 

discussion). Therefore, many OGRs and non-Development LUDs would be

surrounded by additional unharvested areas of POG forest and matrix lands 

would contain a substantially greater amount of POG forest than the amounts

assumed during the development of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy.

Thus, panel assessment conclusions were based on assumptions that the 

Tongass would support far less old-growth forest than will be realized under the 

no action or any of the action alternatives.

For goshawks, the following were highlighted as important factors in maintaining 

a viable well-distributed population on the Tongass (2008 Forest Plan FEIS 

Appendix D, p. D-55-58; Iverson 1996a, 1997a)

• the amount and distribution of old-growth forest resulting from the reserve 

system together with the matrix, that is retained under maximum assumed 

harvest levels, was determined to be important for maintaining the

distribution, persistence and habitat suitability for goshawks than the reserve 

system by itself, due to the wide-ranging nature of the species; 

• the implementation of longer harvest rotations (100-200 years) to maintain 

forest structure sufficient to support prey populations and goshawk foraging

(this is replaced by the substantial amount of unharvested POG under the 

current plan and alternatives);

• the implementation of additional measures for retaining POG in VCUs where 

more than 33 percent of the original POG had been harvested and where 

goshawk habitat had been highly fragmented (e.g., currently the Legacy 

standard and guideline); and 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-293 Wildlife

• the maintenance of POG within the beach and estuary buffers and RMAs to 

provide foraging and nesting habitat in the matrix, to support well-distributed 

populations across the planning area.

As noted above, all of the alternatives would maintain more POG within the 

matrix than the 1997 Forest Plan. This would likely outweigh the effects of 

increasing the harvest rotation (less than 100 years) in commercial young-growth 

stands, particularly because the harvested land base under these alternatives 

would be much less than assumed during development of the Conservation 

Strategy. Additionally, commercial young-growth harvest within the beach and 

estuary fringe (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5) and RMAs (Alternatives 2 and 5) would 

be minor and localized. Forest-wide approximately 2.4 percent, 3.3 percent, 1.2

percent, and 0.4 percent of the forest land within the beach fringe consists of

young-growth that would be harvested, under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, 

respectively (Table 6 in Appendix D of this EIS). Likewise, Forest-wide 0.3 to 6.7 

percent of forest land within RMAs consist of young-growth that would be 

harvested, under Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (Table 8 in Appendix D of this 

EIS). Moreover, the retention of TTRA buffers along streams, the provision under 

Alternative 2 to maintain a 1,000-foot corridor inland adjacent to shoreline 

harvest units, and the provision under Alternative 5 to maintain a 200-foot buffer 

along the shoreline would provide alternate low-elevation forested corridors 

which would maintain goshawk foraging habitat and reduce the likelihood of 

creating gaps in goshawk population distribution. At the project level, the extent 

of localized effects to goshawk habitat would be minimized through the 

implementation of Goshawk, Landscape Connectivity, and Legacy standards and 

guidelines which would help ensure that habitat components important to 

goshawks are maintained. For these reasons, all of the action alternatives would 

be expected to be at least as likely as the current Forest Plan to maintain a 

viable, well-distributed goshawk population on the Tongass.

For wolves, the following were highlighted as important factors in maintaining a 

viable well-distributed population on the Tongass (2008 Forest Plan FEIS 

Appendix D, p. D-63-65 Iverson 1996b, 1997b):

• the presence of large reserves to maintain roadless refugia (as a means of 

providing deer habitat capability and minimizing mortality risk by managing 

human access);

• the maintenance of deer habitat capability, particularly during winter, given its 

close link to wolf persistence; and

• the maintenance of demographic interchange among wolf packs to avoid 

gaps in distribution.

Large reserves (Old-growth Habitat and other non-development LUDs) would 

continue to function as roadless refugia for wolves under all action alternatives. 

None of the alternatives propose changes in the size or spacing of the reserve 

system or POG forest management (thereby maintaining deer habitat capability) 

within these areas. Although some alternatives propose young-growth harvest in 

the Old-growth Habitat LUD (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) or other non-development 

LUDs (alternatives 2 and 3), these suitable young-growth stands are typically 

located along the shoreline or adjacent to existing road systems. Therefore, little 

change in wolf mortality risk due to increased road access in non-development 

LUDs is anticipated. Additionally, road densities (all LUDs considered) would 

remain comparable under all alternatives (see Wolf discussion above); therefore, 

at most, localized increases in hunter access would be expected under the action 

alternatives with no substantial increase across the Tongass.
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-294 Final EIS

Another important factor is related to the road development that was projected 

under the 1997 Forest Plan vs. what is projected under the current no action and 

action alternatives (see Appendix D). Under any of the alternatives, total road 

development on NFS lands is expected to be more than 2,000 miles less than 

that was projected to have been developed by the panels assessing viability for 

the 1997 Plan.

Under the current Forest Plan there would be a continued decline in deer habitat 

capability in some biogeographic provinces as a result of future POG harvest. 

However, this decline would be reduced under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 due to 

the transition to young-growth harvest. Therefore, the action alternatives would 

not be expected to affect the likelihood of wolf population persistence in the 

planning area. In GMU 2 where past harvest has been concentrated and where 

there are already concerns about wolf viability, any decline in deer habitat 

capability could result in localized gaps in wolf distribution. However, the recent 

USFWS Alexander Archipelago Wolf Species Status Assessment notes that, 

even with the anticipated continued decline in the GMU 2 wolf population, a 

viable population is still expected to be maintained in Southeast Alaska (USFWS 

2015). With the transition to young-growth harvest, the likelihood of creating 

gaps in the wolf population in GMU 2 under the action alternatives is less than 

under the current Forest Plan. Therefore, all of the Action Alternatives would be 

expected to be at least as likely as the 2008 Forest Plan to maintain a viable, 

well-distributed wolf population on the Tongass.

For marten, the following were highlighted as important factors in maintaining a 

viable, well-distributed population on the Tongass (2008 Forest Plan FEIS 

Appendix D, p. D-59-63; Iverson 1996c, DeGayner 1997):

• The maintenance of late-seral forest and POG within beach and riparian 

zones for connectivity and prey diversity;

• The presences of large and medium reserves to provide roadless refugia for 

marten; and

• The implementation of other management measures to maintain habitat for 

marten within the matrix.

As noted above, all of the Action Alternatives would maintain more POG forest 

on the landscape than the current Forest Plan. Although commercial younggrowth harvest within the beach and estuary fringe (alternatives 2 through 5) and 

RMAs (Alternatives 2 and 5) has the potential to reduce prey diversity and 

landscape connectivity for marten, effects would be minor and localized and 

would not be expected to result in gaps in the marten distribution (see discussion 

above for goshawks). Provisions under the alternatives including the retention of 

TTRA buffers along streams, a 1,000-foot corridor inland adjacent to shoreline 

harvest units (Alternative 2 only), and a 200-foot buffer along the shoreline 

(Alternative 5 only) would provide alternate low-elevation forested corridors which 

would maintain marten prey diversity and facilitate connectivity between 

reserves. At the project level, the extent of localized effects to marten habitat 

would be minimized through the implementation of Landscape Connectivity and 

Legacy standards and guidelines which would help ensure that connectivity and 

habitat components important to marten are maintained. 

The effects of young-growth harvest within the reserve system (Alternatives 2, 3, 

and/or 5) would also be minor and localized. Forest-wide under all alternatives 

less than 3 percent of Old-growth Habitat LUD acres consist of projected younggrowth harvest under all action alternatives. Likewise, Forest-wide less than 1 

percent of other non-development LUD acres consist of projected young-growth
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-295 Wildlife

harvest (Tables 3 and 4 in Appendix D of this EIS). Moreover, suitable younggrowth stands within the reserve system are typically located along the shoreline 

or adjacent existing road systems. Therefore, no change in the ability of the 

reserve system to provide roadless refugia from trapping for marten is anticipated

under any of the action alternatives. For these reasons, all of the action 

alternatives would be expected to be at least as likely as the current Forest Plan 

to maintain a viable, well-distributed marten population on the Tongass.

The Prince of Wales flying squirrel was identified by the panel assessment as the

greatest viability concern among endemic species and is representative of 

species with limited ranges and dispersal capabilities. The following were 

highlighted as important factors in maintaining viable, well-distributed populations

of Prince of Wales flying squirrels and other endemic species on the Tongass 

(2008 Forest Plan FEIS Appendix D, p. D-68-73; Julin 1995, Iverson 1997c):

• the overall level of old-growth timber harvest proposed,

• the presence of a reserve system (particularly medium and large reserves) to 

support individual populations of flying squirrels;

• the maintenance of POG within the beach and estuary fringe and RMAs to 

retain structural components used by flying squirrels (e.g., snags and logs) 

and facilitate dispersal through the matrix, allowing flying squirrel populations 

within reserves to function as a metapopulation; and

• the removal of islands less than 1,000 acres from the timber base and the 

requirement to conduct surveys for endemic species on islands less than 

50,000 acres (or in areas with a high likelihood of species presence).

None of the alternatives propose changes in the size or spacing of the reserve 

system or the management of POG forest within these areas, and as noted 

above under goshawks, young-growth harvest within the Old-growth Habitat LUD

(Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) and other non-development LUDs (Alternatives 2 and 3)

would have minor, localized effects. However, research suggests that many 

reserves on Prince of Wales Island may be too small or spaced too far apart to 

support populations of Prince of Wales flying squirrels over the long term, or 

maintain functional connectivity to support a back-and-forth exchange between 

flying squirrel populations (Pyare and Smith 2005, Smith et al. 2011). These 

findings emphasize the importance of matrix management in maintaining viable, 

well-distributed Prince of Wales flying squirrel populations under all alternatives. 

Prince of Wales flying squirrel movement capabilities can be limited by localized 

matrix conditions and harvested stands (both young-growth and old-growth) can 

preclude the movement of individuals across the landscape. The current Forest 

Plan and the action alternatives would continue to allow some level of POG 

harvest, although as noted above the amount projected over the planning horizon 

is far less than the amount anticipated during the development of the 

Conservation Strategy, retaining more POG forest adjacent to and connecting

reserves. Projected POG harvest would be further reduced under the action 

alternatives through the transition to young-growth harvest. On Prince of Wales 

Island where past timber harvest has been concentrated, any additional oldgrowth and commercial young-growth harvest has the potential to result in 

localized gaps in distribution if clearings are too large or too dense for flying 

squirrels to cross. However, with the transition to young-growth harvest, the 

likelihood of creating such gaps in the Prince of Wales flying squirrel population

is less than under the current Forest Plan due to the overall reduction in oldgrowth harvest. Therefore, all of the Action Alternatives would be expected to be 
3 Environment and Effects

Wildlife 3-296 Final EIS

at least as likely as the current Forest Plan to maintain a viable, well-distributed 

Prince of Wales flying squirrel population on the Tongass.

For brown bears, the following were highlighted as important factors in 

maintaining a viable, well-distributed population on the Tongass (2008 Forest 

Plan FEIS Appendix D, p. D-65-67; Iverson 1996d, Meade 1997):

• the overall level of old-growth timber harvest proposed (due to the presence 

of clearcuts, road construction, and risks to salmon populations);

• the presence of large reserves for providing roadless refugia to brown bears 

(due to risks associated with hunting and defense of life and property 

mortality); and

• the maintenance of riparian habitat capable of sustaining salmon habitat and 

populations over time and providing sufficient forest cover to maintain 

important brown bear foraging and loafing areas.

As noted above, all of the Action Alternatives would maintain more POG forest 

on the landscape than the current Forest Plan, and none of the alternatives 

proposed changes in the size or distribution of reserves. As noted above under 

the discussion of marten, young-growth harvest within old-growth habitat 

reserves and other non-development LUDs would have minor, localized effects 

to habitat and would not preclude these areas from providing roadless refugia. 

Although commercial young-growth harvest in RMAs (Alternatives 2 and 5) would 

remove riparian habitats potentially used by brown bears, effects would be minor 

and localized (see the discussion under goshawks regarding the scale of effects) 

and the retention of TTRA buffers along streams would maintain salmon habitat 

as well as brown bear foraging and loafing sites. For these reasons all of the 

action alternatives would be expected to be at least as likely as the current 

Forest Plan to maintain a viable, well-distributed brown bear population on the 

Tongass.

For marbled murrelets, the following were highlighted as important factors in 

maintaining a viable, well-distributed population on the Tongass (2008 Forest 

Plan FEIS Appendix D, p. D-73-76; Smith 1996):

• the presence of large, contiguous blocks of high-volume, low-elevation oldgrowth forest to provide nesting habitat (interior forest habitat) and provide 

protection from predation (along forest edges); and

• the implementation of long forest rotations (more than 200 years) to allow the

development of suitable marbled murrelets habitat.

As noted above, all of the action alternatives would maintain more high-volume 

old-growth forest within the matrix, and thus more interior forest nesting habitat 

suitable for marbled murrelets, than the current Forest Plan. This would likely 

outweigh the effects of increasing the harvest rotation (less than 100 years) in 

commercial young-growth stands which would delay the development of suitable 

marbled murrelets habitat, particularly because the harvested land base under 

these alternatives would be much less than assumed during development of the 

Conservation Strategy. Therefore, all of the action alternatives would be 

expected to be at least as likely as the current Forest Plan to maintain a viable, 

well-distributed marbled murrelet population on the Tongass.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-297 Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments

Human Uses and Land Management

Lands Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments

Affected Environment...................................................................................3-297

Land Ownership Adjustment ....................................................................3-297

Land Use Authorizations ..........................................................................3-302

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................3-304

Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................................................3-304

Cumulative Effects....................................................................................3-304

Affected Environment

This section addresses land ownership administration and adjustments and special 

uses of Tongass National Forest System (NFS) lands. Transportation and mineral 

uses are discussed in other sections. Adjustment of land ownership within the 

Tongass boundaries can occur through congressionally mandated conveyances, 

exchanges, and acquisitions, or through Forest Service administrative activities. 

Authorized non-recreation special uses on the Tongass include industrial and

commercial uses, such as commercial fishing camps, powerlines, communications 

sites, and a variety of other uses. The Recreation section of this Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) addresses recreation special uses. 

Appendix E in the Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

lists approved communications sites on the Tongass.

The exterior boundary of the Tongass National Forest established by Congress 

includes varied land ownership patterns of non-federal ownership. Table 3.11-1

shows the acreage by ownership type within the exterior boundary. 

Table 3.11-1

Land Ownership Distribution, Tongass National Forest1

Ownership Type Acres Percent of Total

Federal/Forest Service administered2 16,720,000 93.4

State of Alaska3 296,000 1.7

Local Governments 45,000 0.3

Native Regional Corporation (Sealaska) 363,000 2.0

Native Village Corporations 292,000 1.6

Private Owners and Unknown 190,000 1.1

Total 17,906,000 100 1 Table indicates calculated ownership of total acreage within the exterior boundary of the Tongass 

National Forest. Acreages have changed since 2008 due to land adjustments, refinement of GIS 

mapping, the Sealaska land conveyance, and other transfers. 2 Figure includes 296 acres administered by other federal agencies. Figure includes lakes 

surrounded by NFS lands. 3 Figure does not include lakes surrounded by NFS lands.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2015 GIS data.

A number of land adjustments have occurred since the 2008 Forest Plan. Some 

lands have been conveyed from federal to other ownership, and these 

adjustments are documented on the Forest Plan Land Use Designation (LUD)

map. Some lands have been acquired and become National Forest System

lands during this period.

Land Ownership 

Adjustment
3 Environment and Effects

Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments 3-298 Final EIS

Most of these land adjustments were conveyances to the State of Alaska and 

Native corporations as authorized by the Statehood Act and the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA), as amended, and conveyances of 

Alaska Native Allotments as authorized by the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 

May 17, 1906 (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1634, 34 Stat. 197, as 

amended). Parcels conveyed through land exchanges, a Small Tracts Act sale, 

and the disposal of two lighthouse reserves have also modified the Forest. 

Through land exchanges, purchases, and donations, the United States also 

acquired new lands for inclusion within the Tongass. 

Legislated Alaska Conveyances

Land ownership status within the Tongass is complicated by ongoing land 

conveyances created under various federal legislation. 

The Alaska Native Allotment Act of May 17, 1906, provided for Native individuals 

who had occupied lands prior to their designation as national forest to apply for 

conveyance of up to 160 acres, under conditions prescribed by the Act and 

federal regulations. As of August 2015, approximately 45 Native allotment cases

on the Forest are pending adjudication by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). This number could change by unknown circumstances by either quite

title action, re-instatement applications, or new legislation proposals.

The Alaska Statehood Act of July 7, 1958 (Public Law 85–508, 72 Stat. 339, as 

amended) authorized the State of Alaska to select 400,000 acres of vacant and 

unappropriated land from within the Tongass and Chugach National Forests in 

Alaska, to further the development and expansion of Alaskan communities. To 

date, under this provision of the Statehood Act, the state has received title to 

approximately 256,150 acres located in the Tongass National Forest. 

Approximately 12,000 acres remain to be conveyed to the state on the Tongass 

National Forest. 

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of December 18, 1971 (ANCSA), (Public 

Law 92-203, 43 United State Code [USC] 1601, et seq.) as amended, was 

legislated, in part, to extinguish aboriginal land claims in Alaska in exchange for 

monetary compensation and conveyance of specified land entitlements to eligible 

Native Corporations and individuals. Thirteen (13) Regional Corporations were 

created and two hundred thirteen (213) Village Corporations. Section 16 of 

ANCSA, as amended, also known as the “Tlingit-Haida Settlement,” identified ten 

(10) villages entitled to select land entitlements of 23,040 acres each in Southeast 

Alaska across the Tongass National Forest. As of 2015, only four village 

corporations have not yet received land entitlements under Section 16 of ANCSA. 

As of the current day, only four ANCSA Village Corporations on the Tongass 

have remaining entitlements under ANCSA, pending adjudication by the BLM. 

Those village entitlements are:

• Kake Tribal Corporation (Kake, AK) – Approximately 100 acres 

• Kootznoowoo (Angoon, AK) – Approximately 20 acres under Section 506(a) 

of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA)

and 54 acres under Section 506(a)(5) of ANILCA 

• Cape Fox (Saxman) – Approximately 180 acres 

• Yak-Tat Kwaan (Yakutat, AK) – Approximately 40 acres 

ANCSA also provided that the subsurface estate for any village or urban 

entitlement would be conveyed to the regional corporation.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-299 Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments

In addition to the remaining village land entitlements depicted above, Section 

14(h)(1) of ANCSA allows regional corporations fee title to existing cemetery, 

cultural, and historic sites. There are three remaining original 14(h)(1) 

applications pending adjudication by BLM on the Tongass under ANCSA. Title 

XXX, subtitle A, sec. 3002 of the Carl Levin and Howard P ‘Buck’ McKeon 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) 

(hereafter referred to as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015), will allow Sealaska Regional Corporation an additional land entitlement of 

not more than 490 acres for cemetery sites and historical places under Section 

14(h)(1) of ANCSA.

Section 14(h)(3) of ANCSA established four urban corporations, including Sitka

and Juneau on the Tongass. Section 14(h)(8) of ANCSA established land 

entitlements and allocations to the regional Corporations. Only Sealaska 

Regional Corporation had a Section 14(h)(8) land entitlement in Southeast 

Alaska. Sealaska Regional Corporations’ final land entitlement under Section 

14(h)(8) of ANCSA was fulfilled in 2014; with the passage of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 , amended ANCSA 

and provided Sealaska Regional Corporation final land entitlement under Section 

14(h)(8) ANCSA entitlement. On March 9, 2015, Sealaska Corporation received

its final ANCSA entitlement and conveyance of 69,585 acres. This law also 

amended Section 508 of ANILCA by adding eight LUD II areas, containing 

152,000 acres. Additional actions to be finalized under the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 include negotiations with Sealaska 

Regional Corporation regarding reservations for public access under section 

17(b) of ANCSA and road use agreements.

Potential Future Conveyances

In recent years there have been other formal and informal proposals that, if 

authorized, might result in the transfer of Tongass National Forest System (NFS)

lands out of federal ownership. Several of these conveyance proposals are 

summarized below:

• Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition and 

Compensation Act. In March 2015, United States Senator Lisa Murkowski

re-introduced a bill for the “Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native 

Communities Recognition and Compensation Act.” An Identical bill was 

introduced by House Representative Don Young in May 2015. This 

proposed legislation would amend ANCSA to permit the Native residents of 

each of the Native Villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and 

Wrangell to organize as Urban Corporations and to receive certain 

settlement land pursuant to this Act. The entitlement would consist of one 

township of land (23,040 acres) for each Alaska Native community (115,000

total acres), and require the conveyance of all roads, trails, log transfer 

facilities, leases, and appurtenances on or related to the land conveyed to 

the new urban corporations.

• Alaska Natives Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act. In May 2015, House 

Representative Don Young introduced the “Alaska Veteran Native Allotment 

Land Equity Act.” An Identical bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator 

Dan Sullivan in August 2015. The proposed legislation includes a clause 

regarding approval of formerly rejected Native Allotment Cases (Shields v. 

USA, 698 F.2d 987, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1983). If 

this were to become law, approximately 200 closed Native allotment cases 
3 Environment and Effects

Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments 3-300 Final EIS

applied for under the 1906 Native Allotment Act could be approved, including 

many allotments on the Tongass. Native Allotment applications are 160 

acres each. These allotments would become the private property of the 

original applicants or their heirs. 

• Alaska State Forest Proposal. State officials or interests have at times 

advocated the establishment of an additional Alaska State Forest to be 

managed to provide income for state government programs. To date, no 

federal legislation to implement such a proposal has been introduced in 

Congress.

Land Disposal

Federal agencies responsible for administering public lands sometimes dispose 

of lands to other governments or private parties. Such disposals typically involve 

relatively small land parcels that have been determined to be “surplus” or 

“excess” property under federal property regulations.

The Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act of 2005 (Public 

Law 109-54), as amended, authorizes a program for the conveyance of a limited 

number of excess Forest Service structures and associated administrative lands. 

The Tongass has used this program to excess and dispose of facilities and lands 

to reduce administration costs. 

Additional real property disposal authorities include those under the Small Tracts 

Act and Townsite Act, and other special authorities.

Land Exchanges

Administrative land exchanges, in which NFS lands can be conveyed to another 

entity in exchange for lands of equal value, are another form of land ownership 

adjustment. Complex land exchanges are sometimes authorized by Congress 

through special legislation. In addition to the conveyances discussed above, the 

Forest Service has completed several land exchanges involving Tongass NFS 

lands. These adjustments are summarized below:

• Under the Kake Tribal Corporation Land Transfer Act of October 6, 2000, 

(Public Law 106-283), amended ANSCA directing the Forest Service to 

convey 1,389 acres of Tongass NFS lands (which had previously been 

selected by the State of Alaska) in the Jenny Creek area near Kake to the 

Kake Tribal Corporation. Public Law 106-283 also provided for transfer of 

1,430 acres of land owned by the Kake Tribal Corporation and Sealaska

Regional Corporation to the City of Kake, an exchange of the subsurface 

estate (mineral rights) for two areas (each of over 1,100 acres) between the 

Forest Service and Sealaska. Public Law 106-283 was enacted to provide 

protection and management of the Kake municipal watershed.

• Under the Hood Bay Land Exchange, the Forest Service received a 54-acre 

parcel that had formerly been a private inholding within Admiralty Island 

National Monument and the Kootznoowoo Wilderness (USDA Forest Service 

2006b). The United States conveyed and relinquished all reversionary 

interests on 144 acres of land at Sitka to the Alaska Pulp Corporation.

• Through an exchange with the Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company, 

Inc., the Forest Service received one 50-acre parcel within the Misty Fiords 

National Monument Wilderness and two parcels totaling approximately 139 

acres within Admiralty Island National Monument Kootznoowoo Wilderness 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-301 Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments

(USDA Forest Service 2006b). The United States conveyed the subsurface 

mineral estate on 7,301 acres at Hawk Inlet/Young Bay on Admiralty Island.

In 2007, the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority proposed an equal value land 

exchange with the Forest Service. The proposal included approximately 18,000 

acres of non-federal lands in scenic backdrops surrounding the communities of 

Juneau, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Meyers Chuck, and Ketchikan in exchange 

for NFS lands on Prince of Wales Island near Naukati and Hollis, and Shelter 

Cove near Ketchikan, Alaska. In April 2015, a Feasibility Analysis and Study 

was completed by Forest Service. On June 30, 2015, an Agreement to Initiate

was signed by both parties. The agreement provides a roadmap to exchange

land and is one of the first steps in a multi-year process. 

Alaska’s unique land laws and land patterns continually change the landscape, 

and stimulate discussions regarding potential future land exchanges between the 

Forest Service, Tribal and Native corporations, and other local entities on the 

Tongass. 

Land Acquisition

Land ownership adjustments can also occur through the outright purchase of 

lands or the acceptance of land donations for inclusion in the Forest. Purchases 

typically involve small inholdings, always involve a willing seller, and usually 

involve parcels surrounded by designated wilderness or other sensitive resource 

lands. 

In 2012, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that the Forest Service will 

dedicate funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire the 

surface estate at Cube Cove, which is almost entirely surrounded by Admiralty 

National Monument and Kootznoowoo Wilderness. The 22,890-acre surface 

estate within the Admiralty Island National Monument and Kootznoowoo 

Wilderness would be purchased from Shee Atiká, Incorporated. The purpose of 

this acquisition is to conserve and enhance significant scenic, recreation, 

cultural, wildlife, and plant resources within National Monument and Wilderness 

and to protect wilderness values from development. 

In addition to the acquisition of the surface estate at Cube Cove between the 

Forest Service and Shee Atiká Incorporated, the subsurface estate owner, 

Sealaska Regional Corporation, has expressed interest in exchanging the 

underlying subsurface estate at Cube Cove for other surface estate on the 

Tongass National Forest. 

Withdrawals/Encumbered Areas

Withdrawals and encumbrances are other key aspects of land ownership 

administration. Withdrawal is the withholding of an area of federal land from 

settlement, sale, mineral location, or entry under some or all of the general land 

laws for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws in order to maintain 

public values in the area. In general, an encumbrance is a claim, lien, charge, or 

liability attached to and binding real property (Black 1979, as cited in USDA 

Forest Service 2003b). In the context of the Tongass, an encumbrance is a land 

claim of some type that removes NFS lands from the full range of Forest Service 

administrative functions. 

The largest withdrawal action applies to the more than 5.7 million acres in 

designated wilderness areas, which are withdrawn from entry under the mining 

laws. Many of the administrative withdrawals date back several decades and 
3 Environment and Effects

Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments 3-302 Final EIS

include withdrawals around lighthouse and light station sites, and a large number 

of power site withdrawals intended to preserve options for hydroelectric 

development. 

The land conveyance processes established by ANCSA delineated areas of 

federal lands within which Native village corporation land selections were to be 

located. These areas, totaling an estimated 1.8 million acres (on the Tongass, 

were withdrawn and will likely remain encumbered in the land status records until 

all lands to which the Native corporations are entitled have been conveyed The 

BLM is still processing several thousand acres of NFS lands that were overselected by Sealaska Regional Corporation, and Southeast village corporations. 

Approximately 1,000 additional acres of NFS lands will be conveyed to nonfederal parties under the Native Allotment Act, ANCSA, and ANILCA. The 

adjudication process and conveyances are initiated by the BLM, Alaska State 

Office. 

Uses of NFS lands by individuals or entities other than the Forest Service can be 

authorized under a special use authorization, subject to applicable regulations 

found in 36 CFR 251. Generally, permits are issued for 10 years or less. 

Complex authorizations for uses such as hydroelectric projects may be issued for

up to 50 years. 

The demand for uses of NFS land within the planning area has grown since 2008 

and is expected to continue to grow over the life of the approved Plan. The 

challenge for the Forest Service would be to accommodate lands and realty 

needs for community development, rights-of-way, easements, leases, and other 

permitted uses while minimizing adverse effects on, or conflicts with, other 

resources.

The number of permits fluctuates between 700 and 750. In August 2015, there 

were about 720 special use authorizations issued on the Forest. About 380 of 

these are land uses such as, but not limited to, communications sites, roads, 

certain cabins, aquatic farming activities, research, military training areas, and 

fish camps. About 235 of these are outfitting and guiding permits, and about 105 

are other recreational uses, such as organizational camps, isolated cabins, and 

recreation events. 

Communications and Other Electronic Sites

A communications or electronic site is an area of National Forest System land 

designated for telecommunication uses. These sites are characterized by 

antennas, electronic transmitters, equipment shelters, passive microwave 

reflectors, and a wide variety of electronic communication support equipment

such as those listed in Forest Service Handbook 2709.11, Chapter 90. These 

uses of federal land are authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

As of May 2015, there were 75 approved communications sites on the Tongass 

(see Appendix E of the Forest Plan). Most of the sites are authorized to private 

and public entities (such as Alaska Power & Telephone, and the City of 

Wrangell). Some sites are operated by other federal agencies, such as the 

United States Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Forest 

Service.

The majority of sites are occupied by a single user but some sites have multiple 

users. All sites are currently open to more than one user if the need arises. 

Applicants for new communications uses will be encouraged to co-locate their 

Land Use 

Authorizations
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-303 Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments

facilities at approved sites. This approach to communication site development 

could reduce the impacts associated with the proliferation of sites by reducing 

the number of sites.

Roads, Trails, and Rights-of-Way

Landowners are allowed reasonable access across NFS lands to their land 

under provisions of ANILCA and other federal laws. Easements are issued to 

the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) 

for state-managed highways. The Forest Service administered about 40 road, 

trail, and rights-of-way authorizations in 2015. The types include one railroad 

right-of-way, one ADOT&PF easement, 14 Forest Road and Trail Act easements, 

three FLPMA easements, and 21 FLPMA right-of-way permits.

In August 2005, Congress enacted Section 4407 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act – A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 

(Public Law 109-59), which states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

the reciprocal rights-of-way and easements identified on the map numbered

92337 and dated June 15, 2005, are hereby enacted into law.” Public Law 109-

59 is presented in the Transportation section.

In December 2015, the President signed a transportation bill (Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act, or “FAST Act”) that amended Section 4407 of 

SAFETEA-LU to now read:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the reciprocal rights-of-way and 

easements identified on the map numbered 92337 and dated June 15, 2005, 

are hereby granted.”

Hydroelectric Projects 

There are 22 operating hydropower projects on or adjacent to the Tongass

(Table 3.12b-1). Fifteen of those are under license from the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC), with most of those also under special use 

permit from the Forest Service and authorized under the FLPMA. As of 

September 2015, there are an additional 11 proposed renewable energy projects 

(Table 3.12b-3). Six of the 11 projects are FERC hydroelectric projects. The 

remaining five projects consist of three non-FERC projects (Angoon

Hydroelectric, Tenakee Springs/Indian River, and Little Port Walter), one wave 

project (Yakutat Wave), and one geothermal project (Bell Island Geothermal). 

See the Renewable Energy section for additional information.

Recreation Permits

As of August 2015, the Forest Service administers 341 special use permits for 

recreation uses. These include 234 outfitter/guide permits, 63 isolated cabins, 

and 14 recreation residences. Isolated cabins and recreation residences, 

although similar in many ways, are managed differently because of the different 

authorities used to grant use and occupancy. Construction of new cabins is 

regulated by ANILCA. New cabins can only be permitted for administration of 

the unit or continuing an authorized use. Over time, national policy, in 

combination with the provisions of ANILCA (section 1303), will result in a 

decrease in the number of privately owned cabins on the public lands in Alaska.
3 Environment and Effects

Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments 3-304 Final EIS

Environmental Consequences

No significant environmental consequences within the Lands category are 

anticipated for any of the alternatives. The NFS land base is the same for all five

alternatives, at just over 16.7 million acres. The five alternatives would not 

change the Forest boundary or how the Forest Service acquires or disposes of 

land. Changes to the land base may occur as a result of ongoing conveyance 

processes, or from future land exchange, disposal, and acquisition actions. If 

future changes to the land base are not legislated (i.e., legislated land 

conveyances or exchanges) and are deemed major federal actions, they would

require preparation of an environmental impact statement. None of the 

alternatives incorporate any specific land adjustment that is unique to the 

alternative.

The Forest Service would continue land use and land adjustment activities under 

the Forest-wide standards and guidelines presented in Chapter 4 of the Forest 

Plan. Only administrative changes were made to Chapter 4 direction to correct 

clerical errors, to address conformance of the Forest Plan to new statutory or 

regulatory requirements, or to delete repeated direction where standards and 

guidelines referenced directives (Forest Service Handbook or Manual) and 

repeated the existing direction. . 

The only material change in the standards and guidelines as they relate to lands

is the removal of the Transportation and Utility System LUD under the action 

alternatives and creation of the new direction for Renewable Energy and 

Transportation Systems Corridors to be applied to existing LUDs. See the 

Renewable Energy and Transportation sections in this chapter. As presented in 

Chapter 2, lands suitable for timber production vary by alternative and new 

young-growth direction has been developed. While these changes and 

variations between the alternatives would affect how the land is managed, the 

boundaries of the Forest would not be affected.

Administration of special use authorizations would continue under all 

alternatives. The number of communications and other electronic sites on NFS 

lands under special use authorization has increased in recent years, and 

additional sites may be authorized. Increases in land uses for recreation 

purposes, rights-of-way, and other special uses are possible.

Each request for a special use authorization receives individual consideration 

and evaluation. Special use authorizations may be granted in the future, and the 

environmental impacts of those actions would be evaluated through site-specific 

project analyses. The Forest Service can assign terms and conditions to an 

authorization to address impacts. Special use authorizations generally apply to 

small, specific areas and activities that have limited impacts. Impacts from 

permitted activities cannot be predicted at a Forest wide level, would not vary 

among the alternatives, and are not likely to be significant. The addition of 

communication sites could help improve electronic signal coverage Forest-wide

improving health and safety for all forest users.

Appendix C in this FEIS describes the existing, proposed, and reasonably 

foreseeable future land adjustments considered in the cumulative effects

analysis. Forest Service land use and land adjustment activities under the 

Forest Plan do not have the potential to create or contribute to significant 

cumulative effects. To the extent that special use authorizations increase in 

number and affected acreage, environmental effects from future authorizations 

would add to those of use and occupancies already in effect. As noted above,

however, those effects are not likely to be significant. 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-305 Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments

In general, land ownership adjustments executed by the Forest Service are 

made in response to direction from others, primarily Congress through legislated 

land conveyances or exchanges. There have been transfers of federal lands in 

Southeast Alaska to other ownership since statehood (Public Law 85–508, 72 

Stat. 339, enacted July 7, 1958). Most recently are the 70,075 acres transferred 

to Sealaska under Public Law 113-291.

No land ownership adjustments are proposed under any of the Forest Plan 

alternatives. The proposed Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange, the Cube 

Cove land acquisition, and possible land exchange of the underlying subsurface

estate at Cube Cove for other surface estate with the Sealaska Regional

Corporation are considered reasonably foreseeable actions (see Appendix C for 

a complete list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions considered.) 

Each of these actions would have a cumulative effect on the NFS land base 

within the Tongass if they were to occur.
3 Environment and Effects

Land Uses, Ownership, and Adjustments 3-306 Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-307 Transportation 

Transportation 

Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-307

Regional Transportation System................................................................ 3-307

National Forest System Roads................................................................... 3-309

Log Transfer Facilities ................................................................................ 3-310

Transportation and Utility Systems in the Current Forest Plan.................. 3-310

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3-311

Direct, Indirect, Effects ............................................................................... 3-311

Cumulative Effects...................................................................................... 3-314

Affected Environment

There are three principal types of travel in Southeast Alaska: air, water, and 

ground. Historically, marine transportation has been the major method of moving 

freight and passengers; however, during the last several decades, air services 

have developed to serve the growing demand for rapid transportation between 

communities within Alaska and to the contiguous United States. Residents of the 

region are dependent on air and water transportation for travel between most 

communities, rather than roads or rail. A roaded transportation system has 

developed on National Forest System (NFS) lands, largely in support of timber 

harvesting but for the most part does not connect communities except on Prince 

of Wales Island.

Currently, air carriers are the primary transporter of long distance passenger 

traffic in the Southeast. Commercial jet service connects the communities of 

Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat (and Gustavus in 

the summer) and provides service outside of Southeast Alaska. Other 

communities are connected by air through air taxis, scheduled commuter flights 

and chartered flights. Angoon is the largest community in the state without a land

airport (Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities [ADOT&PF]

2014). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) evaluating development 

of an airport in Angoon was published in January 2015, and the Federal Aviation 

Administration is working internally through comments received from the public 

and agencies. 

Southeast Alaska relies on a “marine highway system” to augment its limited 

roads and highways. The ADOT&PF issued the Final Southeast Alaska 

Transportation Plan (SATP) in 2004 (ADOT&PF 2004). The 2004 SATP called

for transitioning away from the long line ferries to a system of expanded roads 

and shuttle ferries to fill the gaps in the road network. The 2004 SATP also 

identifies 34 essential highway and utility corridors and requested they be 

reserved and incorporated into the Tongass Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Forest Plan). These corridors were incorporated into the Forest Plan in 

2008. 

A Draft SATP was published in June 2014 (ADOT&PF 2014). The Draft SATP 

includes the same 34 essential corridors and identifies two priority highway 

transportation projects which could be developed within the next 20 years: East 

Lynn Canal Highway (Juneau Access Project) and a road (with ferry segment)

between Kake and Petersburg. The Draft SATP also identifies a road between 

Sitka and Warm Spring Bay on the east side of Baranof Island as a priority, but 

not likely to be developed within the next 20 years.

Regional

Transportation 

System
3 Environment and Effects

Transportation 3-308 Final EIS

Three cities in Southeast Alaska are connected to the continental road system: 

Haines, Skagway, and Hyder. Several cities in Southeast Alaska are linked to 

Bellingham, Washington, via the Alaska Marine Highway and the Canadian 

community of Prince Rupert, British Columbia. In addition, several ferries 

connect communities on a daily, weekly or twice-weekly basis. Prince of Wales 

Island has the only road system in Southeast Alaska that interconnects island 

communities. Several possibilities exist for state highways that could connect 

some communities of Southeast Alaska to the continental road system. Several 

new internal corridors are also possible. 

Because the ADOT&PF’s Southeast Region lies largely within the Tongass 

National Forest’s boundaries, many of the proposed road projects cross National 

Forest System (NFS) lands and require Forest Service easements. The 

proposed linkages for the East Lynn Canal Highway (Juneau Access 

Improvement Project), the Kake to Petersburg road, and the Sitka to Warm 

Spring Bay road cross NFS land. 

In August 2005, Congress enacted Section 4407 of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU; 

Public Law 109-59), which states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

the reciprocal rights-of-way and easements identified on the map numbered 

92337 and dated June 15, 2005, are hereby enacted into law.”

The ADOT&PF and Alaska Department of Natural Resources entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Forest Service that established a

framework and process for granting the reciprocal rights-of-way and easements. 

The MOU provides for two types of easements to be granted by the Forest 

Service to the State. The first is an easement for highway and utility planning 

purposes (the D-1 easement). Attachment D of the MOU identifies 19 

transportation and utility corridors, all but one of which is also in the 2004 SATP. 

The Whale Pass to Exchange Cove corridor on Prince of Wales Island is not 

included in the 2004 SATP. The Forest Service has granted the State's D-1 

planning easements, with one exception, the Lynn Canal East easement 

involved in the Juneau Access Improvement Project litigation. The second 

easement is for the actual construction, operation, and maintenance of a 

highway and utility system (the D-2 easement) to be issued once the planning 

and permitting is complete.

On December 4, 2015, the President signed into law Public Law 114-94, Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation Act, or the FAST Act. This law amended 

Section 4407 of SAFETEA-LU by striking “hereby enacted into law” and inserting 

“granted”. The Forest Service and the State of Alaska are in discussions as to 

how this may affect the MOU.

The State grants to the United States tideland easements for the 126 log transfer 

facilities identified in the MOU. These easements are necessary to ensure 

appropriate infrastructure and access exists to support the Forest Service timber 

program in Southeast Alaska. The Forest Service has received 66 out of 126 

easements from the State thus far.

In the MOU, the State agreed that the United States, as an upland landowner, 

may, without written authorization from the State, construct, operate, and 

maintain 231 marine access points identified through the map numbered 92337. 

These marine access points allow the Forest Service and its permittees to

provide public access to NFS lands and facilities without obtaining a permit or

written authorization from the State. Marine access points may include facilities 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-309 Transportation 

such as docks, boat ramps, floats, buoys, anchors, breakwaters, boat haulouts, 

and similar improvements and facilities.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a Record of Decision (ROD)

in 2006 approving a road on the east side of Lynn Canal from the current 

terminus of State Highway 7 to the Katzehin River. From there, shuttle ferries 

would continue to Haines and Skagway. Following legal challenges, the District 

Court found that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was not valid and 

this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals. In September 2014, the 

FHWA published a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

for the Juneau Access Improvement Project and is currently reviewing the 

comments received on the draft. 

Other transportation facilities within Southeast Alaska include more than 300 

marine facilities (docks, small boat harbors, refuge floats, and boat launch 

ramps), 12 major airports, approximately 35 seaplane bases or floats, and 

numerous heliports and airstrips (ADOT&PF 2004).

NFS roads are constructed to provide access to NFS lands and are included in 

the Forest Development Transportation Plan (see Transportation Standards and 

Guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan [USDA Forest Service 2008a]). They 

are NFS roads, as are other roads that are wholly or partially on NFS lands and 

are intended to be maintained for the long term. They are functionally classified 

as arterial (serving large land areas and usually connecting to public highways), 

collector (serving smaller areas, usually connecting to arterials or public 

highways), and local (terminal roads, may connect to any other type). 

NFS roads are also managed by a system of maintenance levels, depending on 

their intended use and suitability for various types of vehicles. These levels 

range between level 1 (closed), level 2 (suitable for high-clearance vehicles), 

level 3 (suitable for passenger vehicles, rough surface), level 4 (suitable for 

passenger vehicles, smooth surface), and level 5 (suitable for passenger cars, 

dust free, possibly paved). Maintenance can include reconditioning the original 

road grading the road surface, cleaning roadside ditches, and removing 

vegetation that may encroach upon the road or block vision. Grading and other 

maintenance would generally take place more often on a maintenance level 4 

road than on a level 3 road, and would be expected to occur less often on a level 

2 road. Level 1 roads are left to a self-maintaining condition that requires little or 

no maintenance.

With the exception of a few administrative sites and campgrounds, most NFS

roads are single lane, constructed with blasted quarry rock, and designed for offhighway loads. Typical collector and local roads are 14 feet wide with a rough 

gravel surface. Higher standard arterial roads are normally 16 feet wide, may 

have a smooth gravel surface, and are designed for speeds of up to 30 miles per 

hour. Travel speed on lower standard roads is often controlled more by surface 

roughness than by horizontal alignment or road gradient.

On the Tongass, the demand for roads has primarily been for access to timber 

resources. The maintenance and reconstruction requirements of the existing 

system depend mainly on the volume of timber hauled and, to a lesser extent, on 

recreational use. Future construction is anticipated to continue to be largely 

determined by the need to access timber resources. Currently, there are 

approximately 5,000 miles of roads on NFS lands, approximately 3,100 miles of 

which are not maintained for highway vehicles (maintenance level 1 and 2). 

There are another 3,660 miles of roads that are on non-NFS lands. Over half of 

the roads suitable for highway vehicles are connected to communities. 

National Forest 

System Roads 
3 Environment and Effects

Transportation 3-310 Final EIS

The steep, densely vegetated terrain of Southeast Alaska limits the use of typical 

off-highway vehicles (OHVs) such as four-wheelers and all-terrain vehicles to 

beaches, communities, road systems, braided river channels, and frozen or 

snow-covered areas. Most trails in Southeast Alaska do not lend themselves 

well to the use of such vehicles because of wet ground conditions that often 

necessitate the use of boardwalks. With the exception of a few specific areas, 

the Tongass has not experienced the kinds of resource damage typically 

associated with OHVs elsewhere. 

In 2001, the Forest Service adopted a road management policy that requires the 

agency to maintain a safe, environmentally sound road network that is 

responsive to public needs and affordable to manage. The policy includes a 

science-based roads analysis process designed to help managers make better 

decisions on roads. The Forest completed a Forest-wide roads analysis for 

maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads in 2003.

Prior to 2005, the Forest was designated open to OHVs except for Wilderness, 

National Monuments, and Research Natural Areas. Site-specific closures were 

considered in specific locations where conflicts with other uses, public safety 

problems, or damage to resources could occur. The goal of OHV management 

is to ensure resource protection and public safety, minimize user conflicts, and 

provide diverse opportunities for Forest users. 

In November 2005, the Forest Service adopted a final rule for managing motor 

vehicle use, including OHV use, on national forests throughout the United States

(36 Code of Federal Regulations 212). Under this rule, the travel management 

plans designate a system of roads and trails for OHV use, and identify areas for 

cross country travel that are appropriate and do not cause resource damage.

Annually, each unit prepares an updated Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The 

MVUM displays NFS routes (roads and trails) or areas designated as open to 

motorized travel. The MVUM also displays allowed uses by vehicle class (ex. 

highway-legal vehicles, vehicles less than 50 inches wide and motorcycles), 

seasonal allowances, and distance allowances, and provides information on 

other travel rules and regulations. Routes not shown on the MVUM are not open 

to public motor vehicle travel. Driving off of routes designated on the current 

MVUMs is prohibited with limited exceptions. District and Monument Access and 

Travel Management Plans were completed between November 2007 and 

September 2009. These Plans determined which unauthorized roads were

incorporated into the Forest transportation system and which would be closed as 

funding became available.

The transport of harvested timber from isolated islands in Southeast Alaska 

requires both land and water routes to reach processing facilities. Log transfer 

facilities (LTFs) are used to transfer logs to barges or rafts for towing. Over 100

LTFs exist on the Tongass. The MOU discussed above grants the Forest 

Service easements to use the 126 LTFs on state lands listed on Map 92337. 

Currently, there are 55 LTFs with active permits.

The 2008 Forest Plan applies the Transportation and Utility Systems (TUS) Land 

Use Designation (LUD) to the potential right-of-way corridors and associated 

uses for selected potential and existing transportation systems and utility 

corridors. These systems include state and federal highways, power lines of 66 

kilovolt capacity or greater, and pipelines 10 inches or more in diameter, if they 

are a public utility. This LUD was intended to minimize potential conflicts, such 

as over-determining the appropriate visual quality objective, should development 

of any of these projects occur. With minimal exceptions, transportation and utility 

systems are allowed throughout the Tongass.

Log Transfer 

Facilities

Transportation 

and Utility 

Systems in the

Current Forest 

Plan
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-311 Transportation 

The 2008 Forest Plan identifies three types of areas related to TUS on the 

Tongass based on the existing LUDs: windows, which represent areas potentially

available for energy development; avoidance areas; and exclusion areas. 

Avoidance areas are those LUDs in which development of energy projects is 

allowed when there is no feasible alternative. Exclusion areas preclude TUS. 

There are no exclusion areas on the Forest due to special authorities provided in 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title XI. 

Environmental Consequences

The following discussions address the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 

the alternatives on the transportation infrastructure of Southeast Alaska. 

Analyses examine both the existing system and reasonably foreseeable 

changes.

Effects on the National Forest Transportation Road System 

The total number of existing roads on NFS lands tend to overestimate total road 

miles because they include unauthorized roads, most of which are either 

decommissioned or are likely to be decommissioned. New road construction 

estimates are directly related to proposed timber harvesting; they are based on 

the maximum harvest levels projected for each alternative. These estimates are 

primarily based on the logging system and transportation analysis (LSTA) 

completed in 2007 for the majority of the mapped suitable lands on the Tongass 

(refer to the Timber section). Where suitable lands were not covered by the 

LSTA (primarily in portions of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 where harvest would occur 

in LUDs that are currently considered not suitable), they were estimated using 

the ratio of road miles to suitable acres based on the LSTA by Value Comparison 

Unit. As shown in Table 3.12a-1, which displays the existing road miles and 

maximum anticipated road construction by alternative over the next 100 or more 

years, new road construction on NFS lands for each alternative ranges from 871 

miles (Alternative 4) to 1,056 miles (Alternative 2). 

Table 3.12a-1

Estimated Number of Road Miles (includes Decommissioned Roads) 

on All Lands within the Tongass Forest Boundary for Each 

Alternative after Full Implementation of the Forest Plan for 100

Years1

Road Categories

Alternative

Existing 1 2 3 4 5

Total New Miles on NFS 

Lands 0 944 1,056 1,020 871 994

Total Miles on NFS 

Lands 5,093 6,036 6,148 6,113 5,964 6,086

Total Miles on Non-NFS 

Lands2 4,258 6,593 6,593 6,593 6,593 6,593

Total Miles on All

Lands 9,351 12,629 12,741 12,705 12,556 12,679

1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan plus future non-NFS harvest. 2 Assumes an increase of 2,335 road miles on non-NFS lands by state, private, and municipality interests, 

over 100 years. Annette Island is included because it is surrounded by areas within the Forest

boundary.

Roads have the potential to affect fish habitat, soils, and water quality by 

increasing erosion and landslide potential, changing recreation settings and 

Direct, Indirect, 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Transportation 3-312 Final EIS

opportunities, altering scenery, and increasing wildlife harvest. These types of 

effects are discussed in the subject resource sections of this chapter, as 

applicable. Under all alternatives, Best Management Practices would be 

implemented to protect water quality (see USDA Forest Service 2012b and 

2006a).

Based on current practices, most new roads would be closed to motorized traffic 

once their initial use is over. These roads are built for silvicultural purposes 

under exemptions granted under Section 404(f)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The 

construction or maintenance of forest roads used for established silvicultural 

activities is exempt from regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

Roads constructed and maintained specifically for recreation or other uses do not

qualify under this exemption (USACE 2004). Roads built under the Section 404 

exemption should be closed following completion of silvicultural activities. The 

roads would either be decommissioned or placed in storage. Bridges and 

culverts may be removed (or culverts may be bypassed), erosion control 

measures would be applied as needed, and the roadbeds would be allowed to 

revegetate naturally. 

In addition to typical maintenance that would accompany all alternatives, each 

alternative would result in reconstruction of a portion of the existing road system 

in each decade, primarily roads that have been placed in storage (maintenance 

level 1) or reconstructed roads. Estimates range from 1,315 miles under 

Alternative 1 to 1,790 miles under Alternative 2 (Table 3.12a-2). Reconstruction 

of a road maintains the original investment and makes the road suitable and safe 

for intended use. Reconstruction involves the rehabilitation of the original 

roadbed, and can include cleaning ditches, replacing drainage structures, reinstalling bridges, and grading and shaping. 

Table 3.12a-2

Estimated Miles of Road Construction and Reconstruction by 

Alternative after 100 Years1

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

New Road Construction 944 1,056 1,020 871 994

Roads Constructed over 

Decom. Roadbeds 428 600 566 445 527

Road Reconstruction2 887 1,191 1,129 900 1,058

Total Road Work 

(includes reconstruction) 2,259 2,846 2,716 2,216 2,579

1 Assumes full implementation of Forest Plan at PTSQ levels. Includes adjusted road miles estimated to 

needed to harvest all scheduled timber in the alternative

2 Estimated existing road miles that would need to be reconstructed.

Effects on Log Transfer Facilities

The effects of operation at LTFs are likely to be similar under all alternatives. 

Generally, effects would be somewhat proportional to the amount of harvest 

under each alternative, with Alternative 2 having the greatest volume of harvest 

over the next 25 years followed by Alternatives 3, 5, 4, and 1 with the least 

volume of harvest during this period. Guidelines for LTF siting, construction and 

operation, and monitoring are provided in Appendix G of the Forest Plan.

See the Fish section for a discussion of the effects of LTFs.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-313 Transportation 

Effects on Off-Highway Vehicle Access

Access and travel management plans designate roads and trails for OHV use, 

and identify if any areas for cross country travel are appropriate and do not 

cause resource damage. The proposed alternatives would not affect this

process. Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 include only the roaded land base. Where 

young growth would be harvested in roadless areas under Alternative 3, access 

would be by helicopter or from the beach; no new roads would be developed in 

these roadless areas that would affect OHV access, unless the Tongass 

exemption to the Roadless Rule is reinstated.

Effects on Regional Transportation Opportunities 

None of the alternatives would affect other regional transportation opportunities. 

No new Wilderness or LUD II areas are proposed under any of the alternatives. 

None of the alternatives proposes changing any of the currently roaded areas to 

LUDs that would not allow road construction, or road expansion. 

Alternative 1

The existing TUS LUD included in the current Forest Plan would be maintained. 

This includes the transportation corridors covered by Public Law 109-59 and the 

subsequent MOU with the State. There would be no difference in how these 

corridors are currently managed. Under Alternative 1, the TUS LUD would be 

given priority over all underlying LUDs, including LUDs that do not typically allow 

road construction.

Wilderness, Non-wilderness National Monument, Research Natural Areas, 

Special Interest Area, Remote Recreation, Municipal Watershed, Old-Growth 

Habitat, Wild River, Scenic River, Recreational River, Experimental Forest, 

Minerals, and LUD II lands are identified in the current Forest Plan as TUS

“Avoidance Areas.” 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, the existing TUS LUD would be removed from 

the Forest Plan. Proposed new plan components for Transportation Systems 

Corridors (TSC) would replace the direction currently found in the Transportation 

and Utility System LUD. TSC plan components apply only to major road systems 

such as state and federal highways, railroads, and those identified by the State 

of Alaska in the current version of the SATP and applicable laws (for example, 

Section 4407 of Public Law 109-59, Title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands

Conservation Act, Public Law 96-487).

The purpose of the plan direction for TSC is to facilitate the availability of NFS

land for the development of existing and future transportation systems. These 

components would apply to existing and proposed major transportation 

developments. When planning future transportation projects, these plan 

components would apply. Prior to this, all other applicable Forest Plan LUD

direction would remain in effect. Proposed new plan direction includes goals, 

objectives, standards, guidelines, and management approaches for the 

protection of forest resources. With this amendment, the existing transportation 

and utility LUD and avoidance areas would be removed from the Forest Plan. 

TSC plan components (e.g., standards and guidelines to the Forest Plan) would

take precedence over other Forest-wide and LUD-specific standards and 

guidelines (subject to applicable laws) where TSC are proposed or exist. 
3 Environment and Effects

Transportation 3-314 Final EIS

Cumulative road miles projected for the next 100 years for each alternative are 

displayed in Table 3.12a-1, which includes roads on state land, lands owned by 

Native corporations, and other lands (including towns and cities) within the 

Forest boundary; and Table 3.12a-2, which includes roads that would be 

constructed over decommissioned roadbeds and reconstructed roads over the 

same period. The total road miles are likely to be an over-estimate because 

these numbers include existing unauthorized roads on NFS lands, most of which 

are expected to be decommissioned. 

The road construction projected for non-NFS lands primarily includes roads 

needed for timber harvest, but also includes roads likely built to serve 

communities, such as the road on the east side of Lynn Canal from the current 

terminus of State Highway 7 to the Katzehin River. This road and other road 

corridors covered by Public Law 109-59 would, if developed, connect additional 

areas in Southeast Alaska to the continental highway system and improve 

transportation between communities. 

There is considerable uncertainty concerning the future development of 

Southeast Alaska’s road system. As stated above, the ADOT&PF has prepared 

a Draft SATP, and a Draft SEIS has been prepared for the Juneau Access 

Improvement Project. New roads linking communities and linking Southeast 

Alaska to the continental highway system would be expensive to build and 

maintain, and funds have yet to be approved for their construction. The 2004 

SATP estimated in 2004 that the cost would be $1.8 billion over 20 years. Most 

of the funding was anticipated to come from the federal government. To date, 

there has been no commitment for this level of funding from either the state or 

federal governments.

Roads associated with timber harvest are based on the projected harvest for 

each alternative; therefore, they represent a maximum estimate. If new wood 

processing facilities and markets are not developed, especially for young-growth 

products, these levels of harvest are unlikely to occur and new road construction 

would be less than projected in Table 3.12a-1. There is also uncertainty 

concerning the funds to maintain the existing forest road network, to place 

existing roads into storage status, and to decommission roads that are no longer 

needed. Risks associated with inadequate funding include adverse effects to 

fish, water quality, and wildlife and increased safety hazards as older roads and 

stream crossings deteriorate.

Appendix C in this EIS describes of all the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Renewable Energy 

Affected Environment...............................................................................3-315

Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan........3-317

Current Trends......................................................................................3-319

Renewable Energy Resources .............................................................3-321

Environmental Consequences ................................................................3-324

Direct and Indirect Effects.....................................................................3-324

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-326

Affected Environment

Water is everywhere in the Tongass National Forest, originating as rainfall and 

melting snow and ice. Increasingly, it is this plentiful water that is the focus of 

communities, utility companies, and developers. The water resources of the 

Tongass are a potential source of reliable and relatively inexpensive renewable 

energy. 

Twenty-two operating hydroelectric projects are located either on National Forest

System (NFS) lands or on adjacent state or private land. These projects have a 

total installed capacity of 216.9 megawatts (MW) and range in size from less than 

1 MW to 78 MW in size (Table 3.12b-1). 

Project proponents have filed permit applications with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) for about seven new or amended hydroelectric 

projects on the Forest, such as Sweetheart Lake, Soule River, Crooked 

Creek/Jim’s Lake, and Swan Lake. Each of these new hydroelectric projects is

within inventoried roadless areas (IRAs), with one located in Wilderness. Three 

additional projects (Little Port Walter, Tenakee Springs/Indian River, and Angoon

Hydroelectric) are not under FERC jurisdiction. The Forest Service special use 

permit will be the authorizing document for these three proposed projects. 

Other active proposed renewable projects on the Forest consist of a wave energy 

project (Yakutat Wave) and one geothermal project (Bell Island Geothermal). 

In addition to proposals for new energy projects, there is ongoing work

associated with existing hydroelectric projects. Forest Service involvement 

continues throughout the life of these projects with the implementation and 

monitoring of license terms and conditions and annual coordination meetings. 

Examples of existing operating projects on NFS lands include the Black Bear

Lake, Blue Lake, and Goat Lake projects. 

Final EIS 3-315 Renewable Energy
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.12b-1

Existing Renewable Energy Projects

No. 1 Name Type

Capacity 

(MW)

Date 

Online Community Served

1 Goat Lake Hydropower (Storage) 4.0 1997 Skagway and Haines

2 Dewey Lakes Hydropower (Run-of-the-River) 0.9 1902 Skagway

3 Kasidaya Creek Hydropower (Run-of-the-River) 3.0 2008 Upper Lynn Canal

4 Salmon Creek Hydropower (Storage) 6.7 1913 Juneau

5 Gold Creek Hydropower (Run-of-the-River) 1.6 1914 Juneau

6 Annex Creek Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 3.6 1915 Juneau

7 Lake Dorothy Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 14.3 2009 Juneau

8 Snettisham Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 78.0 1979 Juneau and Douglas

9 Falls Creek Hydropower (Run-of-the-River) 0.8 2009 Gustavus

10 Pelican Hydropower (Run-of-the-River) 0.7 1941 Pelican

11 Blue Lake Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 16.9 1961 Sitka

12 Green Lake Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 18.6 1979 Sitka

13 Crystal Lake Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 2.0 1920s Petersburg

14 Tyee Lake Hydropower (Lake tap) 20.0 1984 Wrangell, Petersburg, Ketchikan

15 Black Bear Lake Hydropower (Lake tap) 4.5 1995 Prince of Wales Island

16 South Fork 

Black Bear

Hydropower (Run-of-the-River) 2.0 2005 Prince of Wales Island

17 Ketchikan Lakes Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 4.3 2000 Ketchikan

18 Beaver Falls Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 5.4 1947 Ketchikan

19 Silvis Lake Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 2.1 1968 Ketchikan

20 Swan Lake Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 22.4 1983 Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg

21 Whitman Lake Hydropower (Dam/Reservoir) 4.6 2014 Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg

22 Gartina Falls Hydropower (Run-of-the-River) 0.5 2015 Hoonah

Total Installed Capacity 216.9 1 Four other hydropower projects – Hidden Falls Hatchery, Jetty Lake, Betty Lake, and Burnett Inlet Hatchery – on NFS lands supply 

power to fish hatcheries and are not included.

Notes: Prince of Wales Island includes the communities of Craig, Klawock, Hydaburg, Hollis, Kasaan, and Thorne Bay

Upper Lynn Canal includes the communities of Haines, Skagway, Klukwan, and Chilkat Valley

Sources: USDA Forest Service 2010; AEA and REAP 2013; AEA 2014; AEL&P 2014; AP&T 2014; Leavitt et al. 2008; SEAPA 2014

The existing transmission system in Southeast Alaska is limited. The electric 

systems in a few communities are currently interconnected. These may be 

summarized by region, as follows:

• Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) Region—The SEAPA system 

connects Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell. 

• Juneau Area—The Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) system connects 

Juneau, Douglas Island, Auke Bay, and Greens Creek. 

• Prince of Wales Island—The Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) system 

connects the communities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, 

Kasaan, Klawock, and Thorne Bay. 

• Upper Lynn Canal Region—A separate AP&T system connects Haines and 

Skagway in the Upper Lynn Canal Region and is connected via an intertie to 

the existing Inside Passage Electrical Cooperative (IPEC) system that serves 

Klukwan and Chilkat Valley.

Many of the proposed projects include transmission lines that cross NFS lands. 

These include the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie Project, completed in 2009, and 

the Kake to Petersburg Transmission Line Intertie Project, which is undergoing 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review; the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS) was released in December 2014 and a Final EIS 

(FEIS) and Draft Record of Decision (ROD) are anticipated in June 2016.

Renewable Energy 3-316 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Others are still in the early conceptual planning stage and applications have not 

been submitted to the Forest Service. 

The 2008 Forest Plan includes a Transportation and Utility System (TUS) Land 

Use Designation that “provide(s) for, and/or facilitate(s) the development of 

existing and future major public Transportation and Utility Systems” (USDA 

Forest Service 2008a). Major systems are defined as “state and federal 

highways, railroads, public hydroelectric power projects and associated facilities, 

powerlines 66 kV or greater, and pipelines 10 inches or greater in diameter.” 

Four types of transportation and utility corridors are identified on the 2008 Forest 

Plan LUD map. These corridors are: Existing Power Transmission Corridor, 

Potential Power Transmission Corridor, Existing State Road Corridor, and 

Proposed State Road Corridor. The TUS LUD applies to existing or new 

transportation and utility systems once a project is approved and construction is

initiated. Prior to construction, the management prescriptions of the underlying 

LUDs remain applicable.

The Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Lands address special use 

administration for right-of-way grants, including those related to the TUS LUD. 

Three types of Transportation and Utility System areas are identified based on 

the LUD’s emphasis: TUS “windows,” TUS “avoidance areas,” and TUS 

“exclusion areas.” These areas are defined in the 2008 Forest Plan in Chapter 4 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp. 32-33) as follows:

1. TUS "window" is an area potentially available for the location of 

transportation or utility corridors and sites. Windows represent areas of 

future opportunity where the applied management direction will not 

conflict with future designation of a TUS. A site-specific analysis is still 

required during project-level planning, to identify resource protection 

needs within these areas. 

2. A TUS “avoidance area” is an area where the establishment and use of 

transportation or utility corridors and sites is not desirable given the LUD

emphasis. A search for “windows” should be exhausted before TUS 

facilities are considered in avoidance areas. When feasible, these areas 

should be avoided through site-specific analysis during project-level 

planning. Avoidance areas often include congressionally and 

administratively designated areas. Although special environmental or 

procedural considerations may be required for these areas, they do not 

preclude consideration and use as a TUS. Avoidance areas are 

designated through the allocation of lands to LUDs specifically identified 

as TUS avoidance areas in their standards and guidelines. In cases 

where proposed or potential corridors are allocated to the TUS LUD that 

traverse other LUDs identified as TUS “avoidance areas,” treat the 

corridors within such LUDs the same as TUS “windows” (subject to 

applicable laws). 

3. A TUS “exclusion area” is a large area (large enough to cause significant 

barriers) that legislatively precludes TUS. There will be no exclusion 

areas on the Tongass National Forest due to special authorities provided 

in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Title 

XI (USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 4-32 to 4-33).

The 19 LUDs on the Tongass include two overlay LUDs: the Transportation and 

Utility LUD and the Minerals LUD. The remaining 17 LUDs are either designated 

TUS windows or TUS avoidance areas. Four of the 17 non-overlay LUDs are

TUS windows and together account for 6,342,405 acres, approximately 38 

percent of the Forest. The remaining 13 non-overlay LUDs, which comprise 

Tongass National 

Forest Land and 

Resource 

Management Plan

Final EIS 3-317 Renewable Energy
3 Environment and Effects

10,413,279 acres or 62 percent of the Forest, are TUS avoidance areas. The 

distribution of the TUS windows and TUS avoidance areas are shown in Table 3-

12b-2. The assignment of TUS windows and TUS avoidance areas is discussed 

further in this section, and additional information, including map figures, is

provided in the Energy Resource Report (Tetra Tech 2016).

Table 3.12b-2

Transportation and Utility System Window and Avoidance Areas by LUD

(acres)

TUS “Window” Acres TUS “Avoidance Areas” Acres

Natural Setting LUD Group Wilderness LUD

Semi-Remote Recreation 3,010,933 Wilderness 2,641,042

Development LUD Group Wilderness National Monument 3,113,807

Modified Landscape 726,224 Non-Wilderness National 

Monument 167,282

Scenic Viewshed 308,950 Natural Setting LUD Group

Timber Production 2,296,298 LUD II 878,694

Total Window Areas 6,342,405 Remote Recreation 2,005,891

Old Growth Habitat 1,194,080

Municipal Watershed 45,208

Research Natural Area 21,682

Special Interest Area 206,370

Wild River, Scenic & Rec. River 102,130

Development LUD Group

Experimental Forest 36,264

Unmapped areas GIS Slivers 829

Total Avoidance Areas 10,413,279

Inventoried Roadless Areas

As noted earlier, project proponents have filed permit applications with the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for seven new or amended 

hydroelectric projects on the Tongass National Forest that require Forest Service 

review and/or responses during various stages in the permitting and FERC 

licensing process. Forest Service involvement includes the permitting of 

investigative studies, reviewing and commenting on project documents, 

reviewing study plans and results, participating in project development and 

resource mitigation, developing Federal Power Act section 4(e) terms and 

conditions, and issuing an authorization after the project is licensed by FERC. 

Three additional proposed projects (Little Port Walter, Tenakee Springs/Indian 

River, and Angoon Hydroelectric) are not under FERC jurisdiction. The Forest 

Service special use permit will be the authorizing document for these three 

projects. Of the 11 new or unconstructed projects proposed for development, 8 

are in inventoried roadless areas (see Table 3.12b-3 in the Proposed Renewable 

Energy Projects section below). 

In addition, proposed transmission lines serving as power interties among 

Southeast Alaska communities also cross inventoried roadless areas. 

The Federal Power Act (FPA) grants FERC the authority to issue and administer 

licenses for hydropower projects. For projects located on National Forest 

System lands, Section 4(e) of the FPA requires FERC to determine whether the 

project is consistent with National Forest purposes and the land management 

plan. Section 4(e) also gives the Forest Service authority to impose mandatory 

conditions in the FERC license to ensure the adequate protection and use of 

NFS land and resources. 

Renewable Energy 3-318 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Prohibitions on road construction and timber removal in inventoried roadless 

areas are considered conditions necessary for the protection and use of NFS 

land and resources. 

If sited and designed properly, hydroelectric projects provide an environmentally 

and economically preferred source of power due to the near elimination of 

hydrocarbon emissions from diesel fuels and reduce the risk of catastrophic 

diesel fuel spills associated with shipping, handling, and storing activities. 

Section 4(e) can be used to mitigate the impacts of any project including the 

location and size of a dam, associated project works (pipelines, roads, and 

facilities), reasonable access, and mitigation measures. The Forest Service may 

develop conditions necessary to protect NFS lands and resources, such as 

limiting or prohibiting certain roads, preserving remote characteristics, defining 

the size of facilities, project operations (run-of-river vs. large storage reservoirs, 

etc.) so long as the conditions do not constitute a veto and thereby usurp FERC’s 

role in deciding to license a hydropower facility. 

Viewed from an electric generation and transmission perspective, Southeast 

Alaska consists mainly of multiple, small load centers, separated from one 

another by mountainous terrain and marine waters. Regional planning efforts 

have included development of the 2012 Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource 

Plan (IRP). Developed in response to direction from the Alaska Legislature, the 

Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) was the lead agency for this plan, which explored 

the current status of energy resources in the region, as well as options for 

minimizing future power supply and space heating costs, while maintaining or 

improving power supply reliability (Black & Veatch 2012). The 2012 IRP 

describes the region’s electric transmission grid as limited in terms of the number 

of communities connected and notes that the grid is very different from the 

integrated, interconnected, and redundant grids that are in place throughout the 

lower 48 states (Black & Veatch 2012). 

Southeast Alaska has a wet, relatively temperate climate, and the combination of 

high precipitation rates and mountainous terrain provides considerable 

opportunity for hydroelectric generation. Although hydroelectric generation 

accounts for most of the region’s net power generation, hydroelectric power is 

not evenly distributed among the region’s communities. As communities moved 

toward electrification, hydropower projects were developed in locations near the 

region’s main load centers (i.e., the larger communities). Diesel generation was 

developed to supplement and backup hydroelectric generation, where it existed, 

and for communities that could not economically access hydroelectric power. 

Diesel generation is the main alternate source of energy because of the 

availability of diesel fuel, the ease of installing diesel generators in a wide range 

of capacities, and relatively low initial costs. However, in the period leading up to 

the 2012 Southeast Alaska IRP, the Southeast region saw a large increase in the 

number of conversions from fuel oil to electric space heating in those 

communities where hydroelectric power is available. This trend has led to 

unplanned growth in electric loads and reductions in the excess generation 

available from existing hydroelectric facilities (See Energy Resource Report 

[Tetra Tech 2016] for additional discussion). 

Municipal governments, Alaska Native organizations, corporations, and regional 

planning and development groups are all involved in energy planning in 

Southeast Alaska. The City of Wrangell is a strong advocate for the proposed 

Alaska-British Columbia Intertie (AK-BC Intertie) that would facilitate the export of 

surplus power from Southeast Alaska to Canada and the lower 48. Tlingit Haida 

Central Council, Grand Camp of the Alaska Native Brotherhood, and Sealaska 

Current Trends 

Final EIS 3-319 Renewable Energy
3 Environment and Effects

Corporation have all publicly supported hydroelectric power generation and 

intertie projects in the region. Southeast Conference has funded several energy 

development plans and worked closely with AEA to secure funding for specific 

projects (USDA Forest Service 2010). 

According to the Southeast Alaska IRP, the Southeast region is currently at a 

crossroads regarding the mix of generation, demand-side management/energy 

efficiency, and transmission resources that it will rely on to meet future electric 

and heating needs. The Southeast Alaska IRP identified four trends influencing 

energy demand and development in Southeast Alaska: 1) uneven distribution of 

relatively low cost hydroelectric generation, 2) volatility in diesel prices (especially 

the unprecedented increase prior to 2010), 3) current shortage of hydroelectric 

storage projects, and 4) the continued increase in homes converting from fuel oil 

to electric space heating in those communities where hydroelectric power is 

available which has let to unplanned growth in electric loads. Additional detail 

can be found in the Energy Resource Report (Tetra Tech 2016).

Social and Economic Context

Today, the power requirements of the region’s larger communities, including 

Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Skagway, and Haines, as well 

as some smaller communities, are met by relatively low cost hydroelectric 

generation, with diesel generation used only as a back-up. Other communities 

do not have this benefit and are instead entirely dependent on diesel generation. 

While considerable hydroelectric power is available in some locations, the lack of 

power transmission facilities prevents its distribution to the region as a whole 

(Black & Veatch 2012).

Fourteen of the 32 communities within or adjacent to the Tongass National 

Forest are either completely dependent upon diesel-generated electricity or are 

partially served by small hydroelectric projects (e.g., Gartina Falls [455

kilowatts]). Nine of these communities (Angoon, Coffman Cove, Elfin Cove, 

Hoonah, Kake, Naukati Bay, Tenakee Springs, Whale Pass, and Yakutat), 

ranging in population in 2014 from 16 to 787, have central electric utility systems 

that rely on diesel generation for all or the majority of their electricity needs. The 

other five communities that are dependent on diesel generation (Edna Bay, 

Meyers Chuck, Point Baker, Port Alexander, and Port Protection) with 2014 

populations ranging from 13 to 56 have no central utility system and residents 

rely upon individual generators (USDA Forest Service 2010; Alaska DOL 2015a).

Although relatively easy and inexpensive to install, high fuel costs and the 

operations and maintenance expenses associated with diesel generators make 

them expensive to operate. As a result, in communities where hydroelectric 

power is not available, the reliance upon diesel generation has contributed to 

very high electric rates. According to the 2012 Southeast Alaska IRP, this has 

“created a gap or chasm between communities, where stable and “well‐to‐do” 

communities exist near struggling communities and a notable absence of private 

sector economic activity are the norm” (Black & Veatch 2012, p. 1-4). Alexander 

et al. (2010, p. 8) found that “the high cost of energy in the communities that rely 

on diesel generation impedes economic development, as decisions to locate new 

commercial and industrial developments are influenced by the availability of 

reliable low-cost power. Residents in communities in Southeast Alaska that rely 

primarily on hydroelectric power to generate electricity have the lowest residential 

rates in the State, with rates as low as 10 cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2011. 

Residents of Anchorage and other places in Southcentral Alaska that rely mostly 

on natural gas for generation also have low rates, paying around 13 cents/kWh in 

2011. Rates are much higher in smaller, more remote communities that rely on 

Renewable Energy 3-320 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

diesel, with rates ranging from about 50 cents to more than $1.50/kWh. The

State helps to lower the price of electricity for residential customers and 

community facilities in most of these communities through the Power Cost 

Equalization (PCE) program. However, residents in these communities still pay 

higher rates even after the receipt of PCE payments (Fay et al. 2013).

The average residential rate in the U.S. was about 12 cents/kWh in 2011. In 

Southeast Alaska in 2011, electric rates for residential customers ranged from 9 

cents to 73 cents/kWh. The lowest rates were in Metlakatla and Sitka (9 

cents/kWh), Petersburg and Ketchikan (10 cents/kWh), Wrangell (11 cents/kWh), 

and Juneau (12 cents/kWh). The highest rates were in Pelican (69 cents/kWh), 

Tenakee Springs (69 cents/kWh), and Elfin Cove (73 cents/kWh). Rates for 

commercial and other users in each community are generally the same or very 

similar to residential rates (See Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra 

Tech 2016]). 

As noted above, the effective rate to residential customers in qualifying 

communities is lowered by the State of Alaska’s PCE program. In Southeast 

Alaska, PCE reimbursement rates in 2011 ranged from 7 cents/kWh in Haines

and Skagway to 40 cents/kWh in the communities served by the IPEC (Chilkat 

Valley, Kake, Hoonah, Klukwan, and Angoon). Commercial and other customers

(community and governmental facilities and industrial customers) are not eligible 

to participate in the PCE program and there is no comparable program for these 

customers. See the Energy Resource Report for additional detail (Tetra Tech 

2016). 

Hydropower is the main source of power generation in Southeast Alaska, 

accounting for 96 percent of net generation in 2011 (Fay et al. 2013). Other 

renewable resources exist and are being explored in the region. The following 

section provides a brief overview of hydropower and other renewable energy 

resources in Southeast Alaska.

Hydropower: As part of the Southeast Alaska IRP, AEA contractors developed a 

comprehensive list of potential hydroelectric projects in the region, with projects 

identified from numerous sources. One of the main sources was a 1947 report 

prepared by the Federal Power Commission that identified 200 projects. In total, 

the Southeast Alaska IRP identified almost 300 projects, but cautioned there is 

likely some duplication as some project names changed over time making it 

difficult to track individual projects. These projects are listed in Appendix C to the 

IRP (Black & Veatch 2012). 

The Southeast Alaska IRP subsequently identifies five proposed hydroelectric 

facilities as “committed resources” (projects assumed to exist for the purposes of 

their analysis): Blue Lake Expansion, Gartina Falls, Reynolds Creek, Thayer 

Creek, and Whitman Lake, and uses a refined screening analysis to identify a 

total of 24 other potential hydroelectric projects that have the potential to be 

suitable to serve Southeast Alaska utility systems and communities. These 

projects are identified in Table 10-4 in the IRP (Black & Veatch 2012).

Wind: According to the Southeast Alaska IRP, there are small areas distributed 

throughout the region that may possess wind resources, but most utility-scale 

resources are in areas that are inaccessible due to terrain, are located in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas, or are too far from population centers (Black & 

Veatch 2012). 

Geothermal: According to the Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska, most of 

Southeast Alaska has low to moderate temperature geothermal systems with 

surface expressions as hot springs. Use of geothermal resources can involve 

Renewable 

Energy 

Resources 

Final EIS 3-321 Renewable Energy
3 Environment and Effects

direct use, such as district heating, greenhouses, and swimming pool heating, or 

electricity production (AEA and REAP 2013). Three applications for geothermal 

projects on the Tongass have been submitted to the Forest Service: Bell Island 

Geothermal, Neka Geothermal, and Tenakee Geothermal. Bell Island is the only 

remaining active application on file and carried forward in Table 3.12b-3. The 

issuance of the 2012 Supplemental Final EIS and Record of Decision (USDA 

Forest Service 2012c) allows geothermal exploration activities across three 

leases through 2017. 

Biomass: Alaska’s primary biomass fuels are wood, sawmill waste, fish

byproducts, and municipal waste (AEA and REAP 2013; Lowell et al. 2015). 

Current biomass projects are mainly geared toward heating facilities (Black & 

Veatch 2012) and several dozen projects have been funded in some part by the 

Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Fund and USDA Forest 

Service grants over the past several years. Examples include the Sealaska 

Corporation which installed the state’s first large-scale pellet boiler at its 

headquarters in Juneau in 2010, followed by the Ketchikan Federal Building in 

2012 and the Tlingit-Haida Regional Housing Authority maintenance 

headquarters located in Juneau in 2013. Wood-fired boilers have been installed 

in some communities in Southeast Alaska, including Sitka, Craig, Thorne Bay, 

and Coffman Cove (AEA and REAP 2013; Lowell et al. 2015). According to the 

Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska, interest in manufacturing wood pellets 

continues to increase (AEA and REAP 2013; Lowell et al. 2015). Overall, 

successfully launched projects provide useful learning opportunities as case 

studies, but future projects will need to continue analyze overall cost savings 

based on choosing the right technology for the local biomass fuel supply (USDA 

Forest Service 2015k). 

Tidal: Tidal and river in-stream energy generation involves the use of hydrokinetic 

devices placed directly into a river or tidal current to capture the kinetic energy of 

moving water. AEA has granted partial funding for two tidal power reconnaissance 

and feasibility studies in Southeast Alaska. The Port Frederick Project and 

Kootznahoo Tidal Energy Project (Kootznahoo Project, formerly known as the 

Angoon Tidal Power Project) have been surrendered and dismissed by FERC, 

respectively. A third project—the Gastineau Channel Tidal—identified in the 

Southeast Alaska IRP (Black & Veatch 2012) was granted a preliminary permit by 

the FERC in 2010; this permit expired in 2013. 

Wave: Alaska has one of the strongest wave resources in the world, but much of 

this energy is dissipated on remote, undeveloped shorelines. The Renewable 

Energy Atlas of Alaska identified the Yakutat Wave project as perhaps the best 

prospect for wave energy development in Alaska (AEA and REAP 2013). 

Proposed Renewable Energy Projects

Proposed projects include hydropower, geothermal, and tidal energy. In June 

2015, the Forest Service reviewed the list of projects from 2014 (USDA Forest

Service 2014c) and identified 11 currently active proposed renewable energy 

projects in Southeast Alaska. All of these projects are either on or considered 

likely to affect NFS lands (Table 3.12b-3). Additional summary information is 

provided for these projects in Appendix A of the Energy Resource Report (Tetra 

Tech 2016).

Renewable Energy 3-322 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.12b-3

Active Proposed and Unconstructed Renewable Energy Projects on or likely to affect National Forest System Lands

No. Name

Ranger 

District

On or Likely to 

Affect NFS 

Lands Applicant

Power 

Destination LUD(s)

TUS

IdentificationRoadless 

Area

1 Yakutat Wave Yakutat Yes Resolute Marine Energy Yakutat Scenic 

Viewshed Window na

2 Annex Creek Juneau Yes AEL&P Juneau Semi-Remote 

Recreation Window 302

3 Sweetheart Lake Juneau Yes Juneau Hydropower, Inc. Juneau Semi-Remote 

Recreation Window 302

4 Angoon Hydroelectric1 Admiralty Yes Kootznoowoo, Inc. Angoon Wilderness Legislated na

5 Crooked Creek/Jim’s Lake Hoonah Yes Community of Elfin Cove Elfin Cove Semi-Remote 

Recreation Window 311

6 Tenakee Springs/Indian River1 Sitka Yes City of Tenakee Springs Tenakee Springs na na

7 Little Port Walter1 Sitka Yes NOAA/NMFS Little Port Walter 

Marine Station

Remote 

Recreation Avoidance 334

8 Swan Lake Expansion KMF Yes SEAPA

Ketchikan,

Swan-Tyee 

Intertie

Semi-Remote 

Recreation Window 526

9 Bell Island Geothermal1 KMF Yes B. Wilson Swan-Tyee 

Intertie

Semi-Remote 

Recreation Window 529

10 Mahoney Lake2 KMF Yes City of Saxman, AP&T et al. Swan-Tyee 

Intertie

Semi-Remote 

Recreation Window 524

11 Soule River KMF Yes AP&T BC and Lower 

48

Remote 

Recreation Avoidance 530

Notes:

Summary: 11 total: 7 window --- 2 avoidance – 1 legislated – 1 on non-NFS lands. 

 11 total: 8 in IRA -- 1 in Wilderness

na – not applicable

KMF – Ketchikan-Misty Fiords 1 Non-Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2 FERC licensed in 1998, unconstructed

Source: USDA Forest Service 2014a, 2014b

Final EIS 3-323 Renewable Energy
3 Environment and Effects

Six of the 11 of the projects identified in Table 3.12b-3 are FERC hydroelectric 

projects. The remaining five projects consist of three non-FERC projects (Angoon

Hydroelectric, Tenakee Springs/Indian River, and Little Port Walter), one wave 

project (Yakutat Wave), and one geothermal project (Bell Island Geothermal). 

Based on the existing LUDs, 2 of the 11 projects on or likely to affect NFS lands are 

located in TUS “avoidance areas.” Eight of the 11 proposed projects are located in 

IRAs, with one located in Wilderness (Table 3.12b-3).

Kootznoowoo, Inc., the village corporation of Angoon, is proposing to develop a runof-river hydroelectric facility and associated features (including a transmission line, 

access road, and auxiliary buildings) within the Kootznoowoo Wilderness. ANILCA 

section 506(a)(3)(B) granted Kootznoowoo, Inc., ‘‘the right to develop hydroelectric 

resources on Admiralty Island within Township 49 South, Range 67 East, and 

Township 50 South, Range 67 East, Cooper River Base and Meridian, subject to 

such conditions as the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe for the protection of 

water, fishery, wildlife, recreational, and scenic values of Admiralty Island.’’ ANILCA 

also recognized the economic and cultural needs and expectations associated with 

Kootznoowoo, Inc. (ANILCA Sec. 506(a)(3)(B)). FERC determined that it does not 

have jurisdiction over the project because Admiralty Island is a Congressionally 

designated National Monument on NFS lands. As directed by ANILCA, the Forest 

Service will issue special use authorizations, with specified conditions and in 

accordance with other federal and state permits and/or permissions, to allow 

construction and operation of the project under the terms of the May 2009 project 

Record of Decision. 

Renewable Energy 

The Forest Plan amendment would address renewable energy through the addition 

of Renewable Energy plan components, e.g., desired condition, objectives, 

standards and guidelines, to the Forest Plan. The Renewable Energy plan 

components would address each energy project including all related facilities, 

access roads, utility lines for the transmission and distribution of electric energy, 

ancillary equipment sites and areas required for construction and long-term 

maintenance of the project. As proposed, should there be a conflict in direction, the 

proposed plan components in Chapter 5 would take priority over forest-wide and 

LUD-specific standards and guidelines (subject to applicable laws). 

Environmental Consequences

The NFS land base is the same for all action alternatives, approximately 16.7 million 

acres, and no changes are proposed to the 17 existing non-overlay LUD allocations 

(see Table 3.12b-2) or the Minerals LUD (which is an overlay LUD). The primary 

difference between the No Action and the Action Alternatives is that the amendment 

would remove the windows/avoidance language under the TUS LUD .

Under Alternative 1, renewable energy projects would continue to be managed in 

accordance with the 2008 Forest Plan. Current direction consists of the 

Transportation and Utility System LUD and the Forest-wide Standards and 

Guidelines for Lands that address special use administration for right-of-way grants, 

including those related to transportation and utility systems. There are three TUS

areas on the Tongass based on the LUD’s emphasis: TUS “windows,” TUS 

“avoidance areas,” and TUS “exclusion areas.” 

Thirteen of the 17 non-overlay LUDs are identified as TUS avoidance areas in the 

2008 Forest Plan. Together, lands allocated to these LUDs comprise approximately 

10,413,279 acres or 62 percent of the Forest (Table 3.12b-2). These areas are 

described in the Forest Plan as areas where the “establishment and use of 

transportation or utility corridors and sites is not desirable given the LUD emphasis” 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Renewable Energy 3-324 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

(USDA Forest Service 2008a, p. 4-32). The Forest Plan directs that: a “search for 

"windows" should be exhausted before TUS facilities are considered in avoidance 

areas” and, when feasible, avoidance areas, as their name suggests, should “be 

avoided through site-specific analysis during project-level planning.”

Based on the existing LUDs, 2 of the 12 proposed renewable energy projects on or 

likely to affect NFS lands are entirely or partially located in TUS “avoidance areas”

(Soule River and Little Port Walter). Including the above projects, 8 of the 12 

proposed projects are located in IRAs, with one (Angoon Hydroelectric) located in 

Wilderness (Table 3.12b-3).

Consistent with the 2008 Forest Plan, renewable energy projects need to be 

consistent with the standards and guidelines for the respective LUDs affected by 

energy development. All potential impacts to IRAs would be addressed during the 

permitting and licensing of these projects, with most requiring NEPA analysis. 

Potential impacts would be mitigated, but some impacts, like the presence of a road 

in a roadless area, may be unavoidable. 

Under the Action Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5, the TUS LUD would be removed and 

replaced with Forest-wide plan components for Renewable Energy. No significant 

environmental consequences within the Lands category are anticipated for any of 

the action alternatives. The proposed plan content for Renewable Energy would 

provide greater flexibility, in meeting project planning, goals, and objectives (subject 

to applicable laws) across the Forest (see Chapter 5). Implementation of the 

Renewable Energy Plan Components under Alternatives 2 through 5 would simplify 

the process for projects, but would not necessarily result in an increase in the 

number of projects developed. The greatest effect may be in making the permitting 

process for developers less burdensome, resulting in more rapid development of 

sites rather than a substantial increase in the number of sites developed.

The Forest Service would continue land administration activities under the 

respective Forest-wide standards and guidelines presented in Chapter 4 of the 2008 

Forest Plan. Proposed plan components developed under the 2012 Planning Rule 

are reflected in Chapter 5. The primary change is the removal of the Transportation 

and Utility System LUD (e.g., TUS “windows” and TUS “avoidance areas” approach) 

described in Chapter 4 (USDA Forest Service 2008a, pp 32-33). Although the 2008 

Forest Plan does allow renewable energy projects to be proposed in any LUD, the 

process to allow such activities was limited, particularly LUDs identified as 

“avoidance areas”.

The proposed Renewable Energy plan components (desired conditions, objectives, 

standards and guideline, etc.) would allow renewable energy sites to be proposed 

regardless of LUD type or emphasis. In other respects, administration of special use 

authorizations would continue under all alternatives. Proposed renewable energy 

projects (Table 3.12b-3) would be managed under the Renewable Energy Plan 

Components in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan.

These Plan Components could affect other resources and are discussed in each 

respective resource. The proposed amendment would address each renewable 

energy site including all related facilities, access roads, utility lines for the 

transmission and distribution of electric energy, ancillary equipment sites and areas 

required for construction and long-term maintenance of the project. Site-specific 

locations and mitigation measures for proposed/unconstructed projects would still be 

determined by project-level planning and environmental analysis at the time a 

specific project is proposed. 

As noted above, 8 of the 11 proposed projects listed in Table 3.12b-3 are located in 

IRAs. Two of these eight projects are located in “avoidance areas” with the 

remaining six in areas identified as “windows” and therefore, overall effects are 

consistent with current direction. Effects on IRA characteristics under all Action 

Final EIS 3-325 Renewable Energy
3 Environment and Effects

Alternatives would need to be consistent with the new plan components for 

Renewable Energy (Forest Plan Chapter 5). Current existing and proposed 

renewable energy projects are widely distributed across the Forest, with 11 identified 

proposed renewable energy projects across six ranger districts. This would reduce 

the cumulative effects of these activities on any specific IRA. Overall, Alternatives 2 

through 5 would likely have little additional adverse effects to IRAs relative to current 

conditions (Alternative 1).

Management and administration would remain the same regardless of the action 

alternative. For projects located on NFS lands, Section 4(e) of the FPA requires 

FERC to determine whether the project is consistent with National Forest purposes 

and the land management plan. The Forest Service will continue to use Section 

4(e) to impose mandatory conditions in the FERC license to ensure the adequate 

protection and use of NFS land and resources. Non-FERC projects would continue 

to be administered through issuance of a special use authorization, with specified 

conditions and in accordance with other federal and state permits and/or 

permissions, to allow construction and operation of projects.

Forest Service land use activities under the proposed amendment to the Forest Plan 

are not considered to have the potential to create or contribute to significant 

cumulative effects. Incremental effects to the Scenic Integrity Objectives could occur 

for energy-related projects that may be sited within beach and estuary fringe areas. 

The addition of the Renewable Energy plan components do not change the need to 

ensure that resource protection measures are incorporated throughout project-level 

planning, construction, and operation of renewable energy sites including those 

projects located in IRAs. The effects of past and present actions on roadless areas 

are discussed in more detail in the Inventoried Roadless Areas section. All proposed 

projects would continue to be subject to the Forest Plan and the NEPA, as well as 

FERC regulations in some cases. The energy projects listed in Table 3.12b-3 are 

considered reasonably foreseeable, including those located in IRAs, and are expected 

to have low potential for cumulative effects given that over 90 percent of the Tongass 

is currently roadless or wilderness. Regardless of the alternative chosen, 

approximately 97 percent of all existing IRAs would remain roadless after 100+ years 

(See the Inventoried Roadless Areas section for additional detail). 

Appendix C in this EIS describes of all the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Cumulative 

Effects

Renewable Energy 3-326 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Timber

Affected Environment..................................................................................... 3-327

Introduction.................................................................................................. 3-327

Current Condition of the Forest Land Base ................................................ 3-327

Current Condition of the Timber Resource ................................................. 3-329

Current Practices......................................................................................... 3-333

Tongass Timber Sale Program ................................................................... 3-340

Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3-341

Suitable Timber Lands ................................................................................ 3-342

Silvicultural Systems and Practices ............................................................ 3-343

Projected Timber Sale Quantity .................................................................. 3-345

Future Conditions ........................................................................................ 3-348

Cumulative Effects ...................................................................................... 3-349

Affected Environment

The forests of Southeast Alaska are primarily the western hemlock-Sitka spruce 

forest type. This forest type is part of the temperate rain forest that occupies a 

coastal strip 2,000 miles long from northern California to Southcentral Alaska. 

The most extensive occurrence of the western hemlock-Sitka spruce type is in 

Southeast Alaska. Within the Tongass, western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands 

cover 98 percent of the forest lands. Western hemlock and Sitka spruce 

comprise the majority of the stocking in this forest type, associated species 

include, depending on location, yellow-cedar, western redcedar, mountain 

hemlock, and silver fir (Harris and Johnson 1983). The remaining 2 percent of 

forest lands support relatively small stands dominated by yellow-cedar, lodgepole 

pine (shore pine), red alder, or black cottonwood. Western hemlock is used for 

pilings, poles, railway ties, windowsills, doors, and construction lumber, and has 

been an important fiber source for pulp. Sitka spruce is used for lumber and 

commodity products, as well as specialty products, such as piano sounding 

boards, guitar faces, oars, planking, masts, and spars for custom-made or 

traditional boats, and ladders. For centuries Alaska Natives have used cedar 

species for canoes and paddles, housing (along with Sitka spruce), and totem 

poles. Today, redcedar is primarily used as a roofing material and yellow-cedar 

has many uses, including boats, utility poles, heavy flooring, framing, and marine 

decking and piling. 

The forests of Southeast Alaska are the main source of raw materials for the 

region’s wood products industry. From 1980 through 2005, the Tongass National 

Forest accounted for between 18 and 49 percent of the total annual Southeast 

Alaska timber harvest, averaging approximately 42 percent. During this period, 

timber harvest on all ownerships in Southeast Alaska ranged from peak levels of 

just under 1,000 million board feet (MMBF) in 1989 and 1990 to a low of 169 

MMBF in 2004. Timber harvested on National Forest System (NFS) lands is 

available for processing by the local wood products industry but most timber 

harvested on non-NFS lands is exported. The wood products industry and 

associated regional employment is discussed in more detail in the Economic and 

Social Environment section of this document.

The timber inventory on the Tongass, including the forest type composition, age 

class distribution, and volume classes, is described in Chapter 3 of the 1997 

Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Revision Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA Forest Service 1997a). This 

Introduction

Current 

Condition of the 

Forest Land 

Base

Final EIS 3-327 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

information was updated with inventory data published in 2001 (van Hees 2001).

Since 2008, extensive updating and inventorying of young growth stands has 

been conducted and incorporated into this analysis (S. Spores, Tongass Forest 

Silviculturist, personal communication, September 2015). 

Approximately 55 percent of the forest land on the Tongass National Forest 

(approximately 5.5 million acres) is classified as productive forest land; these 

lands are considered biologically capable of producing industrial wood products. 

Approximately 0.5 million acres of the productive forest lands on the Tongass 

have been converted to young-growth forest due to harvest or other disturbances 

such as fire or wind. This is approximately 3 percent of the total Tongass land 

base and 9 percent of the productive forest lands and represents approximately 

15 billion board feet of harvested timber. 

In addition to productive forest lands, the Tongass includes approximately 4.6

million acres of unproductive forest. These are lands that are not capable of 

producing industrial forest products, but are important for watershed protection, 

wildlife habitat, recreation, and other uses. Unproductive forest is land incapable 

of yielding crops of industrial wood, usually because of adverse site conditions. 

These conditions may include sterile or poorly drained soil, subalpine conditions, 

and steep rocky areas where landslides or avalanches curtail timber 

development. 

An analysis of timber resource land suitability on the Tongass in accordance to 

the 1982 planning rule was completed by the Forest Service for the 1997 Forest 

Plan Revision FEIS and updated for the 2008 Forest Plan, Appendix A. This was 

updated to comply with the 2012 planning rule for Alternative 5, the preferred 

alternative, and is included in the Forest Plan, Appendix A. Modifications to this 

appendix would be needed for Alternatives 2,3, and 4

Currently, the suitable forest land covers approximately 0.6 million mapped 

acres. Following field verification, the suitable acreage is expected to amount to 

approximately 0.5 million acres. A general summary of the derivation of suitable 

lands is presented in Table 3.13-1 for the 2008 Forest Plan. 

Table 3.13-1

Land Classification of Suitable Lands 

Classification Acres1

Total National Forest System lands within the plan area 16,755,685

Lands not suited for timber production due to legal or technical 

reasons

15,794,004

Lands that may be suited for timber production 961,681

Lands not suited for timber production because timber production is 

not compatible with the desired conditions and objectives established 

by the plan

369,161

Total lands not suited for timber production 16,163,165

Total lands suited for timber production (mapped suitable) because 

timber production is compatible with the desired conditions and 

objectives established by the plan

592,520

1 Sums and differences may not appear exact due to rounding. Differences between these numbers and 

those in the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS are due to changes in shoreline mapping, land adjustments 

(especially the Sealaska adjustment), and updates to the vegetation and other GIS layers.

 Source: Forest Service GIS database. 

Timber 3-328 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Age Class Distribution. The Tongass is a mix of old-growth stands and

naturally regenerated young-growth forest, which consists of both wind-created 

and harvest-created young growth. Harvest-created young growth amounts 

approximately 5 percent of the total forest land area. Suitable forest lands are 

classified into five stand conditions: 1) old-growth sawtimber, 2) young-growth 

sawtimber, 3) pole timber, 4) seedling and sapling, and 5) non-stocked. For 

timber inventory purposes, stands of trees 150 years old or older are designated 

as old growth. More than 85 percent of forest lands meet the criteria for oldgrowth sawtimber (Table 3.13-2).

To help define tree ages on the Tongass, Farr and McClellan (unpublished 

manuscript) measured and analyzed age data from 67 plots located throughout 

the Tongass (excluding the Yakutat Area). They found that 90 percent of all 

overstory trees were more than 180 years old; 84 percent were more than 200 

years; 47 percent were more than 300 years; 15 percent were more than 400 

years; and 5 percent were more than 500 years old.

Forests less than 150 years cover approximately 0.5 million acres; forests that 

are 150 years of age or greater cover over 5 million acres. Table 3.13-2 lists the 

total acres of productive forest land and the acres that are suitable for timber 

production within two broad age classes.

Table 3.13-2

Estimated Age Class Distribution of All Productive Forest Land

and Suitable Productive Forest Land (acres)

Age (Years) All Productive Forest Lands1 Suitable Forest Lands1,2

0 to 149 544,0003,4 264,0003

150+ 5,002,0004 329,000

Total 5,546,000 593,000 1 Numbers may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 2 Mapped suitable acres not adjusted (reduced) for falldown (MIRF). 3 Includes 83,000 acres of natural young growth and 461,000 acres of harvested stands including 

about 40,000 acres of partial harvested stands. 4 Differences between these numbers and those in the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS are due to changes 

in shoreline mapping, land adjustments (especially the Sealaska adjustment), and updates to the 

vegetation and other GIS layers.

Source: Tongass National Forest GIS database

Table 3.13-3 displays the acres of harvested even-aged young-growth forest by 

age class. Approximately 46 percent of the area harvested over the past century 

is no longer suitable, due to Congressional designations such as Wilderness, 

State and Native land selections, or Forest Plan LUD allocations. For example, 

areas designated as Wilderness or LUD II by Congress are no longer suitable.

Current

Condition of the 

Timber

Resource

Final EIS 3-329 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.13-3

Estimated Age Class Distribution of Even-aged Young-Growth 

Stands (acres)1,2

Age Class (Years)

Development 

LUDs

Wilderness, National 

Monument, LUD IIs3

Other NonDevelopment 

LUDs

0 to 55 326,768 8,484 49,532

56 to 65 16,289 2,420 8,795

66 to 75 2,400 641 534

76 to 85 987 176 307

>85-149 1,160 760 2,363

Total 347,605 12,482 61,529 1 Numbers may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 2 Acres differ from Table 3.13-2 that includes natural young-growth and uneven-aged stands. 3 Withdrawn Non-Development LUDs include Wilderness, LUD II, and other withdrawn acres.

Source: Tongass National Forest GIS database

Species Mix and Log Types

Timber harvest on the Tongass generally results in a mix of species and log 

types. The majority of the logs cut in most sales are western hemlock; Sitka

spruce is the second most common species. Yellow-cedar and western redcedar 

account for most of the remaining volume. Cedar, especially yellow-cedar, often 

commands high prices on the export market and is generally exported (refer to 

the Economic and Social Environment section for discussion of utilization). 

Trees harvested from old-growth stands on the Tongass often contain three 

types of logs: sawlogs, utility logs, and cull logs. Sawlogs are logs that come 

from that portion of the tree that is of suitable size and quality to be cut into 

dimension lumber. Sawlogs usually come from the lower portion of the tree, the 

part of the tree with larger diameter logs. Higher quality sawlogs come from that 

portion of the tree with fewer branches, which can result in lumber with fewer 

knots, while lower quality sawlogs often come from that portion of the tree that 

still retains a live crown. Utility logs are logs that cannot be used to produce 

lumber but are suitable for chips. They contain at least 50 percent sound wood. 

Utility wood is also produced from portions of sawlogs that cannot be cut into 

lumber (refer to Figure 3.13-2). The third type of logs, referred to as cull logs, are 

logs that do not have enough sound wood to be merchantable, even for chips. 

These logs are usually left in the woods and contribute to large woody debris 

(LWD) component and structure left on the forest floor. 

Trees harvested from young-growth stands have much lower rates of insects, 

disease and defect than in the old-growth stands. While productive younggrowth stands can carry much higher volumes per acre, it is recognized that the 

wood quality is lower than from the larger, slower growing old-growth trees. For 

example, the smaller, younger trees will have more knots and wider-spaced 

growth rings; in one study, Christensen et al. (2002) showed that recovery of 

high-grade material (clear and select structural grades) from 90-year old younggrowth trees from Prince of Wales Island was considerably lower than the typical 

old-growth yields of higher grade products. 

Timber Inventory 

The Timber section in the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b) includes a discussion on the history of the timber inventory 

methodology on the forest through about 2005. Since that time, extensive work 

Timber 3-330 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

has been conducted relative to the inventory of young-growth. A summary of this 

work is provided below:

• In 2005, approximately 25,000 acres of young-growth stands were 

inventoried using Common Stand Exam protocols. Approximately 22,000 

acres were inventoried on Prince of Wales Island with the remaining acres 

inventoried on Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District.

• In 2011, another effort was initiated that inventoried an additional 33,000 

acres of young growth. 

• In 2009, the Forest contracted with the Forest Biometrics Research Institute 

to develop a version of the Forest Planning and Projection System (FPS) 

growth and yield model for both young growth and old growth forests. This 

model is spatially explicit and has been used to expand existing data into 

currently uninventoried stands. 

• In July 2015, the Forest Service and State of Alaska entered into a cost 

share agreement to collect an additional $2.5 million dollars of inventory 

across young-growth stands to help determine feasibility of future harvest 

treatments and to develop a projected harvest schedule. 

Volume Classes and Strata

The Forest established volume classes of commercial timber in the 1979 Forest 

Plan (amended 1985), also known as TimTyp or TIM86. Using net inventory 

volumes per acre, these classes are:

Young Growth

Class 3: 0 to 8,000 board feet 

Old Growth and Young Growth

Class 4: 8,000 to 20,000 board feet

Class 5: 20,001 to 30,000 board feet

Class 6: 30,001 to 50,000 board feet

Class 7: 50,001 board feet or greater

There were a number of concerns from within and outside the agency regarding 

the reliability of this information (usually referred to as the volume class map). 

Therefore, a study addressing concerns about the volume class map reliability 

was commissioned in 1989. It concluded that there was no statistical difference 

among volume classes 5, 6, and 7 with respect to mean board feet per acre and 

that the existing volume class map should not be used to determine volume per 

acre (Brickell 1989).

The volume class map had been used by the Alaska Region to calculate long-term 

timber sale contract timber volume proportionality, as required by Section 301 of 

the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). However, this procedure was 

successfully challenged in court by The Wildlife Society, Alaska Chapter. The 

court disputes over the TTRA Section 301 proportional harvest methodology were 

settled, with issuance of an updated Forest Service Handbook Supplement 

(Region 10, FSH 2409.18 Supplement No. 2409.18-96-1), and alternative 

methods of assigning timber volume (or the capability to produce different timber 

volumes) to lands currently supporting old-growth forests were considered for the 

1997 Forest Plan Revision. Five different options were studied and evaluated 

(Julin and Caouette 1997). Statistical analysis indicated that three volume strata 

can be distinguished for the available timberlands (lands not legislatively or 

administratively withdrawn) using the existing inventory and additional information 

Final EIS 3-331 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

on soils and slope. The polygon characteristics of the three-strata approach are 

displayed in Table 3.13-4. In the development of the size-density model (SDM) 

(see Biodiversity section), these strata were redefined from the 1997 volume strata 

criteria of hydric soils and slope percent by using information on hydric soils and 

aspect, See Figure 3.9-2. Table 3.13-4 is based on these redefined strata. These 

volume strata were used to model timber outputs for this analysis (refer to 

Appendix B for a discussion of the Woodstock model).

Table 3.13-4

Tongass National Forest Strata Characteristics–Productive Old-Growth 

Forest

Geographic 

Area Trees/ Acre

Gross 

Volume 

(MBF/ Acre)

Net Sawlog 

Volume 

(MBF/Acre)

Net Utility 

Volume 

(MBF/Acre)

Total Net 

Sawlog and 

Utility Volume 

(MBF/Acre)

North Islands1

Low 102 17.8 11.1 1.8 12.9

Medium 89 27.8 17.7 3.0 20.7

High 89 39.8 25.6 4.8 30.4

North Mainland1

Low 137 12.3 7.6 0.9 8.5

Medium 148 35.0 19.6 4.5 24.1

High 89 39.8 24.6 4.7 29.3

South Islands1

Low 151 20.9 13.7 2.0 15.7

Medium 100 30.3 20.7 2.9 23.6

High 97 41.7 29.3 5.1 34.4

South Mainland1

Low 97 22.9 15.1 2.0 17.1

Medium 100 30.3 21.0 3.0 24.0

High 111 41.3 30.2 5.4 35.6

Yakutat

Low 21 6.5 4.7 0.5 5.2

Medium 187 40.4 27.7 5.0 32.7

High 196 45.2 32.7 4.1 36.8 1

 North Islands: Chichagof, Baranoff, Admiralty, and associated islands; North Mainland: mainland north of the Sti 

River; South Islands: Kupreanof, Mitkof, Kuiu, Prince of Wales, Wrangell, Zarembo, Etolin and Revillagigedo and 

associated islands; South Mainland: mainland south of the Stikine River.

Source: Refer to USDA Forest Service 2006, SDM Data for documentation on why forests were grouped in these 

geographic areas. Numbers not exact due to rounding.

While the three-strata approach is useful for estimating timber volume for forest 

planning purposes, it is not a good tool for identifying other important forest 

elements, including forest structure, ecosystem diversity, and wildlife habitat. For 

example, two stands may have the same volume, but one may be a dense stand 

of medium-sized trees with a single canopy layer, while the other stand may be a 

combination of widely- spaced large overstory trees and two or three lower 

canopy layers containing small- and medium-sized trees. To help account for 

these differences, the Size Density Model (SDM), which is based on a 

combination of tree sizes and tree densities (Caouette et al. 2001), has proven 

to be a better tool for representing these other forest elements. Using tree sizes 

and densities provides a more comprehensive forest measuring system for 

describing habitat than timber volume (Spies and Franklin 1991). The SDM 

(Caouette and DeGayner 2005) is described and used in the Biodiversity and 

other sections.

Timber 3-332 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Non-National Forest System Lands

The State of Alaska, Native village corporations, Sealaska (the Native regional 

corporation) and individuals own over 1,186,000 acres of land in Southeast 

Alaska, inside the Forest boundary. Approximately 364,000 acres of this land 

currently consists of productive old-growth forest and 422,000 acres consists of 

young growth. This means that approximately 54 percent of the original 

productive old growth on non-NFS lands has been harvested (based on GIS 

analysis and information provided by the landowners). Most timber harvested 

from Department of Natural Resources state lands in recent years has been 

processed locally, while timber harvested from University Trust and Mental 

Health Trust lands has been exported.

Young-Growth Management

The Secretary of Agriculture issued Memorandum 1044-009, Addressing 

Sustainable Forestry in Southeast Alaska, dated July 2, 2013. The 

memorandum guides management of the Tongass National Forest to:

“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” (USDA 2013, p. 1).

The objective of this Secretarial Memorandum is to ensure that the USDA, the 

Chief of the Forest Service, the Alaska Region of the Forest Service, and the 

Tongass National Forest work together to catalyze a transition from a timber sale 

program based on old growth to one based on young growth. Pursuant to this 

Memorandum, the Secretary asks the Forest Service to:

a) Seek opportunities to supply sufficient old-growth “bridge timber” while the 

industry re-tools for processing young growth. The first step is the Big 

Thorne timber sale. This project along with other planned timber sales would 

supply timber to existing mills for several years and allow the Forest Service 

to reallocate staff to young-growth projects.

b) As soon as possible, allocate staff and financial resources to planning young 

growth projects, ramping down old-growth sales and increasing investments 

in young growth.

c) Continue to work with Congress to exempt a limited amount of young growth 

on the Tongass from current requirements that generally restrict harvesting 

young growth timber until it has reached maximum growth rates, or 

Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI). Providing flexibility with 

regard to CMAI is essential to permit the development of economically viable 

young growth projects within the timeframe set as a goal for the transition. 

Public Law 113-291 provided the Tongass flexibility to harvest young growth 

without meeting CMAI requirements in addition to exceptions allowed under the 

National Forest Management Act.

Managing young-growth forests in Southeast Alaska will become an increasingly 

important component of forest management on the Tongass in the next decade. 

Young-growth stands can be treated through thinning and other intermediate 

treatments to concentrate growth in fewer, larger trees, improve lumber quality, 

and/or to enhance habitat conditions for wildlife. Zaborske et al. (2000) 

concluded that the types of treatments applied to young stands will have a 

Current 

Practices

Final EIS 3-333 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

profound effect on the types of materials available in the future, including log 

diameter, knot size, and wood strength. 

Over 200,000 acres have been precommercially thinned on the Tongass since 

1979. In recent years, precommercial thinning has averaged approximately 

5,600 acres per year. The Forest has less experience with other young-growth 

management techniques, such as pruning and commercial thinning. 

Barbour et al: (2005) estimated that precommercial thinning at age 20 with a 

spacing of 12 by 12 feet would produce more merchantable wood volume at age 

70 than wider spaced thinnings. However, there is a trend toward wider tree 

spacing in precommercial thinning prescriptions to maintain or enhance 

understory plant cover. These treatments could increase taper, knot size and 

stimulate the production of epicormic branches in spruce. These changes could 

adversely affect wood strength and stiffness (McClellan 2005). There is also a 

concern that wider spacing may increase the occurrence of fluting on sites where 

this is a problem (Julin et al. 1993; Holsten et al. 2001). 

Pruning removes lower branches and can increase future lumber quality.

However, care must be taken not to remove too much of the live crown, which 

can affect tree growth. 

There has been increased interest in commercial thinning in recent years, not 

only to improve timber values, but as a tool to improve wildlife habitat. Studies in 

other forest types in the Pacific Northwest indicate that stand structures that are 

similar to old-growth forest conditions can be developed through thinning (Thysell 

and Carey 2000). However, there are many unanswered questions as to how to 

implement thinning treatments that provide a sustainable source of high-value 

wood products while maintaining biological diversity (Zaborske et al. 2000). In a 

study comparing the lumber harvested from thinned and unthinned, 90-year-old 

stands on the Tongass National Forest, Christensen et al. (2002) found that there 

was no difference in volume recovery or lumber grade in thinned and unthinned 

Sitka spruce. For western hemlock, the unthinned stands produced more wood 

volume, but the thinned stands produced more high-grade lumber. The Prince of 

Wales Commercial Thinning Study was awarded as an Integrated Resource 

Service Contract at the end of FY2008. This study looks at five different 

commercial thinning prescriptions that offer a range of potential treatments that 

could be used on the Tongass. The five different prescriptions were 

implemented at three replicates: near Harris River, in the Maybeso Experimental 

Forest, and near Naukati. The objectives of the study are to assess how 

mechanized equipment operates, how the different prescriptions hold up to 

Southeast Alaska’s weather, and what the understory response is after 

treatment. A 5-year re-measurement of the sites was completed in 2014. 

There is also increased interest in managing young-growth stands to increase 

and maintain understory vegetation, especially as forage for deer and other 

wildlife. Hanley et al. (2005) noted that much research is needed on new 

approaches involving thinning of older stands, including red alder in the 

secondary successional sequence. Zaborske et al. (2002) found that thinning 

greatly increased forage production, though the amount of useful forage 

produced varied by the type of thinning implemented. Refer to the Wildlife

section for a discussion of thinning and wildlife habitat.

In additional to their continuing research on managing young forests, scientists at 

the Pacific Northwest Research Station joined with the Tongass National Forest 

in 2001 to establish an operational-scale adaptive management study of younggrowth management options. This program, called the Tongass-wide YoungGrowth Studies (TWYGS), is designed to evaluate the potential benefits of 

Timber 3-334 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

treating young-growth stands to increase wildlife habitat and wood production. 

Currently, TWYGS includes experiments that test the effectiveness of alder 

interplanting, precommercial thinning, slash treatments, girdling and pruning. 

Regeneration Methods

Regeneration methods are the harvest methods used to create a new age class 

within a stand. The methods used on the Forest are not expected to be differ

when applied to old-growth or young-growth stands. A description of the primary 

methods is provided below.

Even-aged Systems. This system includes clearcuts, seed tree, and 

shelterwood harvest methods. These methods are described in detail in 

Appendix G of the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan FEIS. Under an evenaged system, the intention is to replace the entire (or nearly the entire) stand with 

a new crop of trees that are all of the same age. Under the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA), clearcutting can only be used when it is the optimum 

system. This is determined through a site-specific prescription approved by a 

certified silviculturist. Also under NFMA, a stand must have reached at least 95 

percent of CMAI. This is the point at which the stand reaches its highest average 

growth. The exact age that this occurs varies by site and stand treatment. A 

stand on a high site will generally reach CMAI sooner than one on a lower site. 

However, stand treatments, such as precommercial thinning and commercial 

thinning, will generally extend the period of fast growth, causing the stand to take 

longer to reach CMAI. There are, however, exceptions to this NFMA requirement 

that the Tongass would likely qualify for under the current situation. 

Public Law 113-291 specifies that the Tongass may harvest trees prior to 95 

percent of CMAI to facilitate the transition away from commercial timber harvest 

of old-growth stands. However, the sale of young-growth trees harvested under 

this exception shall not: (i) exceed 15,000 acres during the 10‐year period 

beginning on the date of enactment of the Act (December 19, 2014), with an 

annual maximum of 3,000 acres sold; (ii) exceed a total of 50,000 acres, with an 

annual maximum of 5,000 acres sold after the first 10‐year period; and (iii) be 

advertised if the indicated rate is deficit (defined as the value of the timber is not 

sufficient to cover all logging and stumpage costs and provide a normal profit and 

risk allowance under the appraisal process of the Forest Service) when

appraised using a residual value appraisal. The NFMA also provides exceptions 

to the CMAI requirement.

Clearcutting, with reliance on natural seeding, has been the most commonly 

used silvicultural system in the Sitka spruce-western hemlock forest type of 

Southeast Alaska (Ruth and Harris 1979; Deal et al. 2002). Clearcutting is used 

where timber production is the primary use and where it is the optimal method. 

The clearcutting method is favored for several reasons. Clearcutting increases 

exposure to the sun, which raises soil temperature, speeds up organic 

decomposition, and thus improves soil productivity. Sitka spruce is less tolerant 

of shade than western hemlock (USDA Forest Service 1990); therefore, in the 

mixed spruce-hemlock forests of Southeast Alaska, the open conditions created 

by clearcutting favor the regeneration of Sitka spruce (Ruth and Harris 1979). 

Shade intolerance also favors cedar species regeneration in clearcuts relative to 

western hemlock (S. Spores, Tongass Forest Silviculturist, personal 

communication, September 2015). Clearcutting in stands infected by dwarf 

mistletoe substantially reduces infection in the regenerated stand (Shaw and 

Hennon 1991). Logging costs are lower than with other systems, and the

clearcut method has proven very successful in the regeneration (regrowth) of 

Final EIS 3-335 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

healthy forested stands (refer to Appendix G in the 1997 FEIS for additional 

discussion).

A variant of this system, referred to as clearcutting with reserves, involves 

retaining approximately 10 percent of the stand, either in single trees or in small 

groups. This method is generally used to meet scenery or wildlife needs in areas 

where timber production is the primary goal. 

In 1992, the Chief of the Forest Service directed that the even-aged system 

(clearcutting) be limited to areas where it is essential to meet Forest Plan 

objectives. Clearcutting has traditionally been used in the hemlock-spruce 

forests of Southeast Alaska to reduce mistletoe infection by eliminating infected 

trees from the overstory, reduce heartrot and stem diseases that may result from 

logging damage to leave trees, and to eliminate the risk of blowdown of residual 

trees. As the Forest begins to rotate younger stands, clearcutting may also be 

used to promote regeneration of desirable species. In addition, it requires fewer 

miles of road for a given volume (Ruth and Harris 1979; USDA Forest Service 

1983). Because more volume is harvested from each acre than would be the 

case under uneven-aged management, many fewer acres are impacted for the 

same harvest volume.

Two-aged Systems. In this system, for example, up to 30 percent of a stand is 

left as residual (or reserve) trees, either as single trees or in patches, and the 

rest of the stand is harvested. The reserve trees remain unharvested and 

provide structural diversity and an older aggregation of trees within the otherwise 

young-growth stand. This system has been used on the Tongass to meet 

scenery objectives. Logging costs can be higher because of the need to protect 

the reserve trees.

Experience in other regions indicated that retaining overstory trees led to 

regeneration of more shade-tolerant species (which would favor hemlock over 

Sitka spruce in Southeast Alaska), reduced growth, increased dwarf mistletoe 

infection in understory trees, and resulted in windthrow of overstory trees (Harris 

and Farr 1974). However, a retrospective study of 18 partial cut stands in 

Southeast Alaska found that partial cutting had little effect on tree species 

composition, diameter growth, or dwarf mistletoe levels (Deal and Tappeiner 

2002; Deal et al. 2002). Mortality of residual trees was only marginally higher in 

partial cut stands than in uncut stands; although the location of these stands may 

have contributed to the relatively low level of wind damage. The stands sampled 

in this study were all below 100 feet in elevation and within 1.25 miles of the 

shoreline. Stands on exposed south-facing ridges and on slopes are likely to 

have a greater risk of windthrow (Nowacki and Kramer 1998). Windthrow may 

be of particular concern because one of the predicted outcomes of climate 

change in Southeast Alaska is an increase in the frequency of severe wind 

storms. Juday et al. (1998) considered it highly likely that there would be 

increased blowdown across Southeast Alaska in the future.

Uneven-aged Systems. This system typically involves harvesting of single trees 

or of small groups of trees (usually less than 2 acres) from within a stand. This 

method maintains a multi-aged, multi-layered stand structure by removing some 

trees in all age groups. It has been used on the Forest to meet scenery and 

wildlife habitat needs. Uneven-aged management often involves higher costs 

due to the generally needing to use a helicopter or a lateral yarder for harvest. 

Larger harvest areas than would be needed for the same harvest volume under 

an even-aged or two-aged system (Ruth and Harris 1979). Also, the frequent 

entries in the stand to remove individual or small groups of trees increases 

Timber 3-336 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

logging costs and the risk of damaging the remaining trees (USDA Forest 

Service 1983). 

Deal (2001) concluded that it may closely mimic the natural disturbance regime 

of Southeast Alaska based on a retrospective study of 18 partial cut stands. 

Stand structures were similar to uncut old-growth stands, and cutting had no 

significant effect on species composition (Deal and Tappeiner 2002). Unevenaged systems have potential benefits, including protection of wildlife habitat, 

scenery, and slope stability as well as the maintenance of biological diversity

(McClellan et al. 2000). 

Growth rates. Estimation of future yields from young-growth stands created by 

timber harvest is critical for developing project timber sale quantities (PTSQs) for 

the Forest Plan. Growth and yield tables have been developed for even-aged 

stands in Southeast Alaska (Taylor 1934; Farr 1984). Although published growth 

and yield tables have not been developed for stands regenerated under twoaged or uneven-aged methods, unpublished yield tables for these harvest types 

were developed by the Forest Service for use in estimating sustained yield limit 

(SYL) and PTSQ. These are part of the planning record. 

Given that over 30 percent of the volume in old-growth stands is defective (Farr 

and Harris 1971), it is unlikely that these trees would respond to the additional 

growing space made available through partial harvest. While young western 

hemlock stands respond well to thinning, trees older than 100 years respond 

poorly to release (USDA Forest Service 1990). Western hemlock is shade 

tolerant and may grow well under partial shade. Sitka spruce is less shade 

tolerant than hemlock and it is reasonable to expect some growth loss when 

Sitka spruce is grown under residual overstory trees. However, Deal and 

Tappeiner (2002) reported that, in most cases, concerns about greatly reduced 

stand growth and vigor were unsubstantiated, based on a retrospective study of 

18 stands in Southeast Alaska that had been partially cut 12 to 90 years earlier. 

Analysis of these stands did not detect significant changes in tree species 

composition, stand growth, hemlock dwarf mistletoe infection, or mortality rates 

(Deal et al. 2002). 

Species Composition 

Of the four major commercial tree species on the Tongass, western hemlock is 

the most shade tolerant, followed by western redcedar, yellow-cedar, and Sitka

spruce, in that order (USDA Forest Service 1990). Western hemlock is by far the 

most prevalent species, making up 83 percent of the old-growth forests (Farr and 

McClellan 1994). Dwarf mistletoe commonly infects western hemlock. Sitka 

spruce and yellow-cedar are rarely infected by dwarf mistletoe and western 

redcedar is not infected (USDA Forest Service 2001b). Western hemlock also 

appears to have more insect enemies than Sitka spruce (USDA Forest Service

1974). In addition, western hemlock has the lowest economic value of these four 

species. Having a diverse species mix contributes to wildlife habitat quality, 

economic value, and minimizes losses due to insect and diseases that are 

species specific. 

Five years following even-aged harvest, Harris (USDA Forest Service 1967) 

reported that 53 percent of the regenerated stand was western hemlock, 41 

percent Sitka spruce, and 6 percent cedar. As even-aged stands age, the 

density of Sitka spruce decreases and relatively few Sitka spruce exist in oldgrowth stands, especially in the smaller diameter classes (USDA Forest Service 

2000b). 

Final EIS 3-337 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

Regeneration harvest methods that create open conditions and expose bare 

mineral soil, such as clearcutting, would encourage germination and growth of 

Sitka spruce and the cedars. Group selection with openings of at least 2 acres 

could also encourage germination and growth of Sitka spruce and the cedars, but 

to a lesser degree than clearcutting due to side shading. The amount of sun 

reaching the surface would vary depending on the size, shape, and aspect of the 

opening. Regeneration methods that create less ground disturbance and smaller 

openings in the canopy such as single tree selection, smaller sized groups in 

group selection, overstory removals, and treatments with many reserve trees 

would encourage growth of western hemlock at the expense of the other species. 

However, limited retrospective studies indicate that Sitka spruce can be 

maintained in mixed hemlock-Sitka spruce stands over a wide range of cutting 

intensities if enough Sitka spruce trees are present in the stand after harvest 

(McClellan 2005). Two-aged harvest would be similar to even-aged harvest if 

leave trees are concentrated near the unit boundaries but may be more favorable 

for western hemlock regeneration if reserve trees are scattered through the unit, 

due to shading from the residual overstory. 

Reforestation 

The NFMA requires assurance that all areas receiving final removal harvest can 

be adequately restocked with trees within 5 years of that harvest. On the 

Tongass, natural restocking is usually adequate to meet this objective because 

both western hemlock and Sitka spruce are prolific seed producers (USDA 

Forest Service 1983). The new stand originates from advance regeneration and 

from seeds that come from residual trees or from trees adjacent to the harvest 

unit. Since 1988, natural regeneration has accounted for 94 percent of the 

reforestation program. The remaining 6 percent has been artificial regeneration 

(planting). The future need for planting would be determined on a site-specific 

basis to achieve management objectives such as increasing the abundance of 

Sitka spruce where western hemlock or brush may have a competitive edge or 

increasing the abundance of yellow-cedar or western redcedar, where natural 

regeneration of these species is anticipated to be inadequate. The desired 

species composition, required number of seedlings, and method of regeneration 

should be displayed in the silvicultural prescription. 

Intermediate Treatment Methods 

Intermediate treatments are any manipulation in a stand that occurs between two 

regeneration periods (Daniel et al. 1979). The regeneration period establishes 

the new stand, either through natural regeneration or through planting. 

Intermediate treatments are done to ensure that the new stand has the desired 

species composition, tree health, growth, and spacing, as well as to recover 

product value. They can also be used to create or improve habitat for wildlife. 

Intermediate treatments may be used if approved as part of a site-specific 

silvicultural prescription. Currently, the only intermediate treatment commonly 

used on the Tongass is pre-commercial thinning. 

Precommercial thinning is applied in young stands that have not reached 

merchantable size. It is the most commonly applied intermediate treatment in 

Southeast Alaska. It is used to:

• Favor preferred tree species. 

• Concentrate tree growth on fewer individuals to produce larger trees in a 

shorter period of time.

Timber 3-338 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

• Increase the amount of light reaching the forest floor, thereby retaining 

understory vegetation that is valuable wildlife forage (DellaSalla et al. 1994).

There are concerns over the effects of precommercial thinning on future wood 

quality, especially wider spacing of residual trees (McClellan 2005). Thinning can 

increase epicormic sprouting on the Sitka spruce trees (Deal et al. 2003). Lower 

density thinnings could increase taper and increase the size and longevity of 

lower branches, thus reducing future wood quality (McClellan 2005). Larger 

lower branches increase fluting in western hemlock, which reduces wood quality 

(Julin et al. 1993) (refer to the Forest Health section for a discussion of fluting).

Pruning removes the lower branches of a tree at an early age in order to 

produce knot-free wood. It is the only way to produce clear lumber in rotations 

less than 100 years (Daniel et al. 1979). However, pruning Sitka spruce trees 

can encourage epicormic sprouting in Sitka spruce and can limit diameter growth

for all species. Deal et al. (2003) found that the total number of sprouts was 

similar among different levels of pruning but significantly more large sprouts were 

produced when more of the crown was removed. 

Commercial thinning is applied to young stands that have reached 

merchantable size. The primary difference between commercial and 

precommercial thinning is that the trees cut in a commercial thinning operation 

are removed and sold. Commercial thinning can be used to:

• Meet market demand for wood products, either from suitable or unsuitable 

lands (harvest would only be used on unsuitable lands to meet resource 

objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat, and where no irreversible 

damage would occur). 

• Maintain or increase the growth rate of dominant and co-dominant trees by 

removing trees in the lower crown classes, increasing merchantable yields 

over the rotation.

• Stimulate development of more complex canopy structures or enhance 

forage in the understory in order to meet wildlife habitat needs.

• Maintain or improve scenic quality.

By maintaining or increasing growth rates, commercial thinning lengthens the 

time needed for a stand to reach CMAI, extending the rotation length (Daniel et 

al. 1979).

Precommercial thinning would be implemented under all alternatives based on 

funding. Pruning is likely to play a minor role in the foreseeable future under all 

alternatives. Commercial thinning is expected to play a larger role in meeting 

future demand under all alternatives over the next few decades, as areas 

harvested in earlier decades reach commercial size. Over the long term,

previously harvested stands would regenerate and could be commercially 

thinned again. 

Yarding Methods

On the Tongass, most logs have been yarded downhill using cable logging 

systems such as highlead and skyline. Access has usually been from valley 

bottoms, because road building on steep slopes is difficult and costly. Most 

logging occurs inland, with logs transported via road systems to marine access 

points, also referred to as log transfer facilities, at tidewater (see the 

Transportation section). Harvest by tractor (shovel yarding) has proven effective 

on flat to moderate slopes; it is not practical on steep slopes. Harvest by 

Final EIS 3-339 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

helicopter is typically the costliest method, but also has fewer adverse effects on 

other resources.

Yarding methods can be divided into three "operability" classes, which relate to 

the methods necessary to harvest and transport trees under various conditions

(see Table 3.13-2). Normal operability includes the standard ground-based and 

cable logging systems used in areas where access is relatively easy and 

helicopter logging with distances of up to 0.75 mile. These areas have the lowest 

logging costs. Difficult operability includes long-span cable systems and 

helicopter logging with distances between 0.75 and 2.0 miles, occurring where 

ground access is challenging or not possible. Difficult operability involves higher 

costs. The third class, isolated operability, consists of isolated stands 2.0 miles

or more from a helicopter landing site. These tend to be uneconomical under 

even high timber markets. 

The 2007 LSTA indicates that approximately 89 percent of the suitable timber 

land would be accessible using normal harvest methods, 10 percent would be

difficult, and 1 percent would be isolated. When economic and environmental 

risk factors are considered, additional areas are likely to be identified as difficult 

or isolated during project planning (see Table 3.13-2). Risk factors assigned by 

the LSTA team and district personnel, indicate that about 85 percent of the 

suitable acres with old-growth forest would be in the normal category.

In the past, stands adjacent to the shoreline were sometimes harvested from the 

water using A-frame logging, where a floating yarder was used to move logs to 

the marine waters. As a result, isolated young-growth stands exist within the 

beach and estuary fringe that are not connected to existing road systems. This 

yarding system has not been used on the Tongass in decades and it is unlikely 

any operators currently have the equipment, though it could be built. While 

currently uncommon, current beach yarding options include shovel access from 

roads if present, shovel access from the beach (working with barges), helicopter 

yarding, or some combination of these. Other methods could be employed as 

long as they meet management objectives.

The primary sources of timber within Southeast Alaska are the Tongass National 

Forest, private corporations (principally Alaska Native Corporations formed 

through the Alaska native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA), and the State of 

Alaska (Table 3.13-5). Between 1980 and 1990, harvest from the Tongass 

contributed about 50 percent of the timber supply in Southeast Alaska. From 

2002 to 2014, Alaska Native Corporations harvested an average of 69 MMBF 

and the State harvested an average of 26 MMBF. This information is presented 

in greater detail in the Economic and Social Environment section of this EIS (see 

Table 3.22-5). Timber under contract and demand for timber products from the 

Tongass National Forest are discussed in detail in the Economic and Social 

Environment section.

One objective of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) 

was the maintenance of timber supply for the Southeast Alaska timber industry 

because of its contribution to the local and regional economies of Southeast 

Alaska. For similar reasons, TTRA (Section 101) directs the Forest Service to 

seek to provide a supply of timber from the Tongass that meets annual market 

demand and the market demand for each planning cycle to the extent consistent 

with providing for the multiple-use and sustained-yield of all renewable 

resources. The planning cycle is assumed to be the 10- to 15-year period 

between Forest Plan revisions.

Tongass Timber

Sale Program

Timber 3-340 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

The current Tongass timber program is composed of a large sale program, a 

small sale program, and a firewood and personal use program. Annual harvest 

volumes averaged 36 MMBF between 2002 and 2014 (USDA Forest Service 

2015a), notably lower than the Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ) of 267 MMBF per 

year approved in the 2008 Record of Decision. 

The timber sale program has been in transition since the end of the long-term 

contracts. Many operators are in the process of developing direct markets for 

value-added products, such as molding, tongue-in-groove, paneling, and 

furniture. A census of timber processors in Alaska in 2011 identified 27 sawmills 

in Southeast Alaska, with almost half this total (12 facilities) located on Prince of 

Wales Island (Berg et al. 2014). Berg classified essentially all of these mills 

except one (Viking Mill in Klawock) as small operators if they produce less than 2 

MMBF per year 

The Forest has created a microsale program to make wood available to small 

operators. This program allows operators to identify sales of dead and down 

wood of up to 50,000 board feet or with a value of up to $10,000. These sales 

are then approved by the Ranger and made available to local purchasers by 

competitive means. 

The Forest Service and the University of Alaska have created the Ketchikan

Wood Technology Center to focus on ways to help the local timber industry. 

Among other things, the center has developed log grades for Alaskan wood 

products.

Table 3.13-5

Timber Harvest and Imports for Southeast Alaska, 1997-2011 (MMBF)1

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Tongass 

NF

Sawlogs 94.4 107.6 132.8 133.7 39.8 30 44.1 40.9 43.3 39.4 14.8 24 25.3 30.3 30.2

Utility Logs2 12.2 12.2 12.9 13 7.9 3.8 6.7 5.4 6.2 3.7 3.9 4 3.1 5.1 2.4

State of 

Alaska3

Sawlogs 5.2 5.6 7.3 47.8 48 48 32.7 21.9 40.7 43.6 38.8 10.3 11.8 9 15.5

Utility Logs 0.3 1.9 0.1 12.1 5.2 9.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 1 5.8 1.6 1.7 1.5 0.8

Bureau of 

Indian 

Affairs

Sawlogs 

and Utility2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alaska 

Native 

Corps.

4

Sawlogs 335.9 157.6 193.6 114.6 106.5 93.6 98.1 92 99.3 67.1 46.9 45.5 46.9 62.5 58.2

Utility Logs2 47.6 59 45.4 46 13.3 8.1 7.6 6.9 4.6 4.1 3.1 6.8 4.9 3.9 4.9

Southeast 

Alaska 

Total

Sawlogs 435.5 270.8 333.7 296.2 194.3 171.6 174.9 154.8 183.3 150.1 100.5 79.8 84 101.8 103.9

Utility Logs2 60.1 73.1 58.4 71.1 26.3 21.2 15.4 14.6 13.2 8.8 12.8 12.4 9.7 10.5 8.1

Total 495.6 343.9 392.1 367.2 220.6 192.8 190.3 169.4 196.5 158.9 113.3 92.2 93.7 112.3 112

Alaskan 

Imports5

Sawlogs 0 0 0 0.1 3.2 1.7 0.1 2.6 1.7 7.7 7.8 1.1 0 0 0.1

Utility Logs2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 1 National Forest and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) harvests reported for fiscal years. All other ownerships reported in calendar years. 2 Utility volume includes logs with less than one-third net sawlog but at least one-half firm usable pulp chips. 3 Harvests from Alaska Mental Health Trust and University of Alaska lands omitted prior to 2000. 4 Source: USDA Forest Service 2012d. 

Environmental Consequences

The analysis of the potential effects of the alternatives addresses the following 

questions:

• How much land would be allocated to timber production?

• What silvicultural systems and vegetative practices would be utilized?

• What would the PTSQ be under each alternative?

• What projected log grade or quality would be provided?

Final EIS 3-341 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

• What would the product mix be, in terms of sawlogs and utility logs?

• What would the SYL be under each alternative?

• What are the factors that affect the attainment of the PTSQ?

• What would be the future condition of the Forest in 100 years?

The analysis of timber supply and demand for timber products, as well as how 

existing sales under contract and timber volume in preparation may be affected 

by the alternatives, is discussed in the Economic and Social Environment

section. 

The effects on the timber industry infrastructure and employment levels are also 

discussed in that section.

There are approximately 5.5 million acres of productive forest land on the 

Tongass. Approximately 1 million acres of this is mapped as suitable under the 

2008 Forest Plan (which includes roadless areas). However, as described 

below, only an estimated 773,000 acres are actually suitable for harvest. This 

includes old-growth and young-growth forest. Appendix A of the Forest Plan 

contains a discussion of the determination of suitable lands. In this FEIS, the 

amount of suitable land would vary by alternative both for young growth and old 

growth. 

During a plan amendment or revision, the Responsible Official is to identify the 

amount of timber that can be removed annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield 

basis from the applicable national forest. This amount of timber is the forest’s 

SYL. The sustained yield limit is the amount of timber that could be produced on 

all lands that may be suitable for timber production, assuming all of these lands 

were managed to produce timber without considering other multiple uses or fiscal 

or organizational capability. The projected wood sale quantity (PWSQ) is an 

estimate of the volume of all timber and other wood products that is expected to 

be sold during the plan period from expected harvests for any purpose (except 

salvage harvest or sanitation harvest) on all lands in the plan area. The PWSQ

includes all woody material likely to be sold from these harvests whether or not 

the woody material meets the utilization standards. The projected timber sale 

quantity (PTSQ) is a subset of the PWSQ and is an estimate of the quantity of 

timber expected to be sold during the plan period. The volume in the PTSQ is 

the volume that meets utilization standards. The estimation of both the PWSQ

and the PTSQ must take into account the fiscal capability of the planning unit and 

be consistent with all plan components. Both the PWSQ and the PTSQ vary for 

each alternative (see Table 3.13-8). Table 3.13-6 displays the distribution of 

forest lands, suitable acres, projected harvest acres, and the PTSQ for old 

growth and young growth by alternative. 

The amount of suitable land would vary from 9 percent to 15 percent of the 

productive forest land. However, no alternative would have projected old-growth 

harvest of more than 1.3 percent of the productive old growth (POG). The 

annual PTSQ would be 46 MMBF for all alternatives during the first decade. 

Alternative 2 would contribute the highest proportion of young growth and 

Alternative 1 would contribute the lowest. In the second decade, the PTSQ 

would range from 46 to 86 MMBF per year following the same pattern for younggrowth contribution.

 

Suitable Timber 

Lands

Timber 3-342 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.13-6

Land Classification, Suitable Lands, Projected Harvest, and PTSQ for Old-Growth 

and Young-Growth Harvest under Each Alternative1

Classification

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Total National Forest land (thousands of acres) 16,756 16,756 16,756 16,756 16,756 

 Non-Forest land (includes water) 6,649 6,649 6,649 6,649 6,649

 Forest land 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107 10,107

Productive Forest Land (thousands of acres) 5,547 5,547 5,547 5,547 5,547

 Productive Old Growth (POG) 5,002 5,002 5,002 5,002 5,002

 Productive Young Growth (includes natural young 

growth) 544 544 544 544 544

Mapped Suitable forest lands (thousands of 

acres) 592 724 866 533 568

 Suitable Old Growth 329 349 517 269 229

 Suitable Young Growth 264 375 350 264 339

Projected Harvest Acreage after 25 years 

(thousands of acres) 48 79 70 64 67

 Old Growth Harvest after 25 years 39 15 17 23 24

 Young Growth Harvest after 25 years 10 64 54 41 43

Projected Harvest Acreage after 100 years 

(thousands of acres) 272 368 349 277 327

 Old Growth Harvest after 100 years 63 33 36 43 42

 Young Growth Harvest after 100 years 210 335 313 235 284

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ)– annual (MMBF)

1st Decade Total 46 46 46 46 46

 Old Growth 38 24 26 35 34

 Young Growth 8 22 20 11 12

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (PTSQ) – annual (MMBF)

2nd Decade Total 46 96 88 69 72

 Old Growth 31 5 5 12 12

 Young Growth 15 91 83 56 60

1 Sums and differences may not appear exact due to rounding.

 Source: Forest Service GIS database and Woodstock modeling. 

This section describes vegetation management practices prescribed in the Forest 

Plan, including regeneration methods, reforestation, and intermediate treatments. 

Definitions for each of these practices, how they will be applied, and expected 

effects on the timber resource are provided. 

Harvest Methods 

For planning purposes, the 2008 Forest Plan considered the three regeneration 

methods for old growth, discussed under Regeneration Systems: even-aged system, 

two-aged system, and uneven-aged system (group selection). These same methods 

were also considered in this Plan Amendment. This does not mean that these are the 

only regeneration methods that will be used on the Tongass. Other even-aged 

methods such as shelterwood may be utilized to meet specific objectives and would be 

similar to clearcut with reserves in regard to appearance and effects (or to clearcuts if 

the shelterwood is later cut). For modeling purposes, only even-aged and unevenaged systems were used and displayed. The affected environment section and 

Appendix G of the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision FEIS contain 

detailed descriptions of the various silvicultural systems and their advantages and 

disadvantages. In addition, other regeneration methods may be applied on a limited 

scale to test their utility in achieving other forest management objectives. 

Silvicultural 

Systems and 

Practices

Final EIS 3-343 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

Implementation of any Forest Plan alternative would include a full array of silvicultural 

prescriptions, including modification of these methods, depending on the site-specific 

conditions. The choice of the regeneration method and rotation length would be 

based upon site-specific analysis done at the project level, would consider multiple 

resource needs and objectives, and would include the rationale for using the selected 

regeneration method. This would be documented in the silvicultural prescription, 

which must be approved by a Region 10 certified silviculturist.

Transitioning to young growth as fast as possible means it is important to harvest 

stands at the youngest age possible. Based on collective experience of timber 

managers on the Tongass and discussions with industry representatives, it was 

decided that in order for a young timber stand to have a chance of being 

economic, the majority of trees harvested need to produce two logs. Production 

of one log per tree not only increases logging costs relative to revenues 

substantially, but also creates a large amount of slash left behind, which can 

have negative effects on wildlife, scenery, economics and recreation. Based on 

analysis of yield tables it was decided that to produce two logs per tree for the 

majority of trees in a stand, a minimum age of 65 years would be used for 

modeling of high site stands and a minimum age of 75 years would be used for 

lower site stands.

Harvesting trees at 65 to 75 years of age is prior to their CMAI age, which is 

likely to be in the 90 to 110 year range. Although this would likely shorten the 

transition time, in the long term it should be recognized that it would result in 

lower growth rates and lower overall volumes produced.

Table 3.13-7 displays the annual number of acres estimated for each of the main 

regeneration methods by alternative for the first and second decades of the Plan 

based on the Woodstock model outputs. The acreages displayed are for modeling 

purposes only in order to estimate Forest Plan outputs and do not limit the use of any 

harvest method to best meet project goals and objectives. 

For young growth, harvest methods used for modeling included even-aged systems 

(primarily clearcutting), patch cuts, and commercial thinning. Patch cuts include 

harvesting up to 35 percent of the stand in patches or groups with a maximum opening 

size of 10 acres. Patch cuts are modeled only in Alternative 5 for beach and estuary 

fringe, riparian management areas, and the Old-Growth Habitat LUD. Commercial 

thinning in the model includes removal of up to 33 percent of the stand volume. 

Commercial thinning is used in all of the action alternatives for beach and estuary 

fringe, riparian management areas, and non-development LUDs, where applicable.

In the first two decades, even-aged management would prevail. However, 

commercial thinning of young growth would become more significant in the 

second decade, particularly in Alternatives 2 and 4. Alternative 5 is the only 

alternative where patch cutting becomes important.

Alternative 1 would result in the most old-growth harvest overall, and the most 

even-aged harvest, followed by Alternatives 5, 4, 3, and 2 in that order. 

Alternatives 1 and 5 would have the greatest amount of old-growth uneven-aged 

management, although the relative amount would be small. 

Timber 3-344 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.13-7

Timber Management Practices as Modeled

Average Annual Harvest Acres of Suitable Lands Modeled in First Decade

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Harvest1,2

OG Even-aged 1,776 1,134 1,236 1,611 1,626

OG Uneven-aged 32 0 0 0 0

YG Even-aged 246 682 619 285 285

YG Patch Cut 0 0 0 0 2

YG Commercial Thinning 0 93 82 243 247

Total Old Growth 1,808 1,134 1,236 1,611 1,626

Total Young Growth 246 775 701 528 534

Average Annual Harvest Acres of Suitable Lands Modeled in Second Decade

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Harvest1,2

OG Even-aged 1,365 247 286 592 543

OG Uneven-aged 9 0 0 0 57

YG Even-aged 551 2,675 2,615 1,667 1,747

YG Patch Cut 0 0 0 0 274

YG Commercial Thinning 0 854 247 452 232

Total Old Growth 1,374 247 286 592 600

Total Young Growth 551 3,529 2,862 2,119 2,253 1 Even-aged acres modeled as full timber yield by Woodstock. 2 Uneven-aged acres modeled as reduced timber yield by Woodstock

OG = old growth; YG = young growth

Source: Woodstock Modeling results

Projected Timber Sale Quantity 

The PTSQ of each of the alternatives is an indicator of possible future timber 

supply level that each alternative would produce. PTSQ is the estimated quantity 

of timber meeting applicable utilization standards that is expected to be sold 

during the plan period. As a subset of the PWSQ, the PTSQ includes volume 

from timber harvest for any purpose from all lands in the plan area based on 

expected harvests that would be consistent with the plan components. The 

PTSQ is also based on the planning unit’s fiscal capability and organizational 

capacity. 

Table 3.13-8 displays the projected timber output for the first through fourth 

decades that could result from implementing each of the five alternatives. Each 

alternative is judged by its ability to transition to predominantly young-growth 

harvest. This condition is judged to be fully achieved when 46 MMBF can be 

harvested per year with only 5 MMBF coming from old growth. The period 

required to reach this point is estimated to be approximately 12 years for

Alternative 2, 13 years for Alternative 3, 16 years for Alternatives 4 and 5, and 32 

years for Alternative 1. All of the action alternatives would produce a majority of 

the 46 MMBF per year for young growth in less than 15 years. Alternative 1 

would require about 25 to 30 years. See Figures 2-1, 2-3, 2-5, 2-7, and 2-9 in 

Chapter 2 for graphical representations of PTSQ showing old-growth and young 

growth volume contributions over 100 years.

Projected 

Timber Sale 

Quantity

Final EIS 3-345 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.13-8

Projected Timber Sale Quantity (Decades 1 – 4, Annual)

Alt

1st Decade 2nd Decade

Old Growth

(MMBF)1

Young Growth

(MMBF)1

Old Growth

(MMBF)1

Young Growth

(MMBF)1

1 38.4 7.6 30.8 15.2

2 23.8 22.2 5.0 90.6

3 25.8 20.2 5.0 82.9

4 35.2 10.8 12.3 56.5

5 34.5 11.5 11.6 60.2

Alt

3rd Decade 4th Decade

Old Growth

(MMBF)1

Young Growth

(MMBF)1

Old Growth

(MMBF)1

Young Growth

(MMBF)1

1 28.5 17.5 5.0 103.6

2 5.0 119.8 5.0 119.8

3 5.0 115.8 5.0 115.8

4 5.0 86.6 5.0 86.6

5 5.0 92.6 5.0 92.6 1 MMBF = million board feet, long log bureau scale 2 Source: Woodstock model outputs.

Factors Affecting the Projected Timber Sale Quantity

Within LUDs where timber harvest is compatible with the resource objectives of 

the area, there may be “intrusions,” “physical factors,” and “unmapped” standards 

and guidelines that limit timber management opportunities. These factors

(discussed below), often termed “falldown,” have been recognized at the forest 

level, and the anticipated timber output adjusted appropriately. These limitations 

may include lands that are not capable of supporting a sustained timber 

management program. In other cases, where there are physical limitations, a 

less intensive or perhaps unregulated output may be scheduled for this period. 

Other factors also contribute to differences between PTSQs and timber sales, 

such as budgets and legal challenges.

The Forest-wide estimates used to develop the PTSQ considered many of the 

factors contributing to differences between PTSQs and the actual volumes 

produced in timber sales. These include factors affecting the suitability 

determination of forest lands that are usually encountered in on-the-ground 

examinations (e.g., sale reconnaissance, stand exams, layout, and sale 

preparation). For each alternative, areas were set aside (not scheduled for 

harvest) to allow for those factors most often encountered. Data from previous 

case studies, monitoring, site visits, inventory data, the GIS database, and an 

updated vegetation map were used to develop the acreage estimates (see 

Appendix B for more information). 

Economics is an important consideration in determining whether lands should be 

harvested; however, experience has proven that it is not feasible to effectively 

factor in economics as part of the suitability determination. Economic conditions 

fluctuate greatly during the course of a plan period. One year a certain area of 

land or species may be uneconomic to harvest, and in another year, market 

conditions may have changed to where the same area or species would be in 

demand. This makes it difficult to meaningfully assess the economics of 

harvesting a particular site over a 10-year period. Also, the value of the timber 

sale program must be considered as a whole rather than by only evaluating 

individual timber sales or harvest units, because some sales or units of low value 

are offset by other higher-value sales or units. The economics of harvesting any 

Timber 3-346 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

particular site can be considered as part of the project decision to approve 

harvest of the area.

Other Factors that Affect the Timber Sale Program

Other factors that may affect the amount of timber actually sold include the cost 

of preparing a timber sale due to budget constraints, administrative appeals and 

lawsuits (which may delay or forestall sales), transportation and fluctuating fuel 

costs (which affect the cost of harvesting a sale, especially a helicopter sale), 

and market conditions that may discourage purchasers from bidding on sales. 

Additional harvest may occur on lands that are not suitable for timber 

management, for example, to stimulate development of more complex canopy 

structures or to enhance forage in the understory in order to meet wildlife habitat 

needs or to salvage timber to improve wildlife habitat. Another example would be 

incidental harvest on steep slopes if they were found to be stable after a sitespecific analysis. 

Sustained Yield Limit and Projected Timber Sale Quantity

SYL is the amount of timber, meeting applicable utilization standards, “which can 

be removed from [a] forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis” 

(NFMA at section 11, 16 U.S. Code 1611; 36 Code of Federal Regulations

219.11(d)(6)). It is the volume that could be produced in perpetuity on lands that 

may be suitable for timber production. Calculation of the limit includes volume 

from lands that may be deemed not suitable for timber production after further 

analysis during the planning process. The calculation of the SYL is not limited by 

land management plan desired condition, other plan components, or the planning 

unit's fiscal capability and organizational capacity. The SYL is not a target but is 

a limitation on harvest, except when the plan allows for a departure.

The projected yield over the next 10 decades that could contribute to the PTSQ

is expected to increase over time as young-growth forests mature and become 

available for harvest. The average volume per acre of suitable old-growth forest 

is approximately 29 thousand board feet (MBF) per acre. The expected volume 

of 100-year-old stands of young growth in the central portion of the Tongass is 

approximately 56 to 60 MBF per acre (based on the Forest’s managed yield 

tables for this area), depending on stand management (see below). As more 

100-year-old stands become available for harvest, the PTSQ could increase, or 

the land base needed to produce a given PTSQ could decrease. 

The PTSQ does not exceed the SYL during the 100-year-plus planning horizon. 

The potential PTSQ is expected to be between 37 and 56 percent of the SYL for

the rotation under all alternatives based on the SYL calculations (with roadless 

areas excluded). Table 3.13-9 displays the PTSQ and SYL by alternative. For 

all alternatives, the PTSQ never exceeds the SYL during the planning horizon. 

Final EIS 3-347 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.13-9

Projected Timber Sale Quantity and Sustained Yield Limit (MMBF1)

Alt.

Decade 1 to 2:

Annual Volume

Decades 3 to 5: 

Annual Volume

Decades 6 to 

10: Annual

Volume

SYL: Annual

Volume2

Maximum

PTSQ as % 

of SYL

1 46 46-138 138 248 56%

2 46-125 125 125 248 50%

3 46-121 121 121 248 49%

4 46-92 92 92 248 37%

5 46-98 98 98 248 40% 1 MMBF: million board feet 2 SYL in table is based on a land base that excludes roadless areas. If roadless areas are included in 

the land base, then the SYL would increase to approximately 412 MMBF per year.

SOURCE: Woodstock modeling results

Approximately 90 percent of the existing timber stands on the Tongass are 

beyond CMAI. Timber stands that exceed CMAI are either in decline or are not 

growing at optimal rates for their site’s potential productivity. The western 

hemlock-Sitka spruce forest type is one of the world’s most productive forest 

types (USDA Forest Service 1983). The forest yield tables for the Tongass 

estimate that a normally stocked stand 40 years old would contain 7 MBF of

merchantable wood per acre. By age 70, volume should increase to 29 MBF of

wood per acre, assuming no precommercial thinning occurred. The age of CMAI 

would be around 100 years with a merchantable volume of 56 MBF per acre, 

assuming no precommercial or commercial thinning. If the same stand is

thinned, volume at CMAI is estimated to be 60 MBF, in addition to an estimated 8 

MBF of commercial thinning volume. Yields from uneven-aged silvicultural 

systems would be considerably less, approximately 28 MBF at age 200, based 

on the updated forest yield tables. 

As a greater proportion of the Forest is converted from slower growing, highlydefective old-growth stands to stands well-stocked with vigorously growing 

conifers, total forest growth would increase. Because of higher volumes and 

lower defect, managed young-growth would be able to provide higher harvests 

on the same land base or support the same harvest on a smaller land base. 

However, as noted previously, harvesting trees at 65 to 75 years of age, well 

prior to CMAI, would shorten the transition time, but in the long term it would 

result in smaller piece sizes, resulting in fewer options for wood products and 

lower overall volumes produced.

Only a portion of the Forest would emphasize timber management; most of the 

existing mature and old-growth stands on the Forest would be maintained. 

Under all alternatives, more than 100 years from now, the predominant age class 

on the Tongass would still be greater than 150 years as old-growth forest. The 

percent of total productive forest land that would be managed stands of less than 

150 years of age is expected to be a relatively small component of the forest 

landscape on a Forest-wide basis for all alternatives. Old growth would still be 

the predominant vegetative structure on the Tongass (Table 3.13-10).

Conifer growth in young stands can be accelerated through silvicultural 

treatments to control conifer stocking. Benefits from such treatments may 

include larger piece size and consequently lower logging costs, increased stand 

variability, higher quality wood, and employment opportunities. In addition, 

treatments may shorten the time period spent in the stem exclusion phase of 

stand development and offer other resource benefits. 

Future 

Conditions

Timber 3-348 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.13-10

Forest-wide Stand Structures Existing and after 100 Years (thousands 

of acres)

Stand Structure

Alternative

Existing 1 2 3 4 5

0 to 149 years, 

including natural 

young growth

544 540 542 535 529 538

Productive Oldgrowth (150+ years) 5,002 5,010 5,008

 

5,014

 

5,020 

 

5,012

Note that the alternative totals take into account the harvest over 100 years, as well as the acres of 

existing young growth that will be over 150 years (POG) after 100 years from now. 

Source: Woodstock modeling and GIS analysis results. Numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. 

Managing stands to enhance wildlife and fish habitat carrying capacity is one of 

the objectives of the Tongass National Forest. To help meet this objective, the 

Forest Service has implemented studies on stand management, including the 

Tongass wide Young-Growth Study, the Prince of Wales Commercial Thinning 

Study, the Alternatives to Clearcutting study, and other Pacific Northwest

research, some of which has been discussed in this section. 

Cumulative effects to timber include past and present and proposed harvest 

discussed above. Table 3.13-9 presents a comparison of harvest and SYL by 

alternative, an important measure of the cumulative effect on the growing stock 

on NFS land. Maximum harvest levels on NFS lands proposed under all 

alternatives are well within the SYL. Table 3.13-10 displays Forest-wide stand 

structure on NFS lands under existing conditions and after 100 years. 

Cumulative effects on timber resources across Southeast Alaska are presented 

below.

In 1954, there were approximately 6.3 million acres of productive forest land on 

all ownerships inside the Tongass Forest boundary (including Annette Island). 

The amount of forest land in Southeast Alaska that is available for timber 

management has declined over the past century, largely due to Wilderness and 

LUD II designation by Congress, land selections by the State and ANSCA, and to 

land allocated to non-development LUDs in the current Forest Plan. This, along 

with mill closures and changes in timber markets, has contributed to a decline in 

timber harvest. Harvest on all lands in Southeast Alaska peaked from the late 

1960s through the early 1990s and has been in decline since then. Total harvest 

on federal, state, and private lands declined from just under 1,000 MMBF in 1989 

to less than 200 MMBF in 2005. Approximately 722,000 acres of productive 

forest land have been harvested since 1954 in this portion of Southeast Alaska, 

approximately 64 percent of this is NFS land and 36 percent is on Native 

corporation, state, and other lands.

Currently, there are between 0.51 and 0.83 million acres of NFS lands 

considered suitable for timber management on the Tongass, depending on the 

alternative. In addition, nearly 0.52 million acres of state, Native corporation, and 

other private lands are available for harvest. The allowable sale quantity from 

the Tongass National Forest is an average of 267 MMBF per year under the 

2008 Forest Plan, although actual harvests have averaged 30 to 40 MMBF per 

year for the last few decades. Potential annual harvest on state and private land 

is estimated to be approximately 90 MMBF (Daniels et al. 2015). Based on past 

experience, most of the harvest on private land would be exported and would not 

contribute to meeting local demand. Using this estimate, cumulative harvest in 

Cumulative 

Effects

Final EIS 3-349 Timber
3 Environment and Effects

Southeast Alaska would be about 136 MMBF for the next decade, increasing 

slowly in succeeding decades, and would be the same for all alternatives. Table 

3.13-11 displays the cumulative harvest under the alternatives. 

Table 3.13-11

Maximum Estimated Annual Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska 

during the First Decade (MMBF) 

Alternative National Forest1 State and Private2 Total

1 46 90 136

2 46 90 136

3 46 90 136

4 46 90 136

5 46 90 136 1 Woodstock model estimates, 2015 2 70 MMBF/year from Native corporation lands and 20 MMBF/year from state land (Daniels 2015). 

Most harvest on private land is exported.

MMBF = million board feet.

See Appendix C for a complete list of actions considered in this analysis.

Timber 3-350 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Minerals

Affected Environment......................................................................................3-351

Locatable Minerals.......................................................................................3-351

Leasable Minerals........................................................................................3-352

Salable Minerals ..........................................................................................3-353

Mineral Resource Inventory and Development Potential.............................3-353

Tongass Land Management for Minerals....................................................3-354

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................3-354

Direct and Indirect Effects ...........................................................................3-355

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-356

Affected Environment

Mineral deposit types and mineral resource occurrences were described 

thoroughly in the 2008 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

Amendment Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the 1997 Forest Plan 

EIS. This section will briefly summarize the affected environment for minerals 

and provided updated information where conditions have changed.

Mineral resources occurring within the boundaries of the Tongass National Forest

include gold, silver, molybdenum, and uranium, and nationally designated 

“strategic” and “critical” minerals such as lead, zinc, copper, tungsten, and 

platinum group metals. The Forest Service recognizes that minerals are 

fundamental to the Nation’s well-being and, as policy, encourages the exploration 

and development of the mineral resources it manages. The Secretary of 

Agriculture has provided regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 228) 

to ensure surface resource protection, while encouraging the orderly development 

of mineral resources on National Forest System (NFS) lands.

With respect to National Forest management, mineral resources are legally 

divided into three groups: locatable minerals, leasable minerals, and salable 

minerals. The authority of the Forest Service to influence and regulate the 

exploration, development, and production phases of mining operations varies with 

each group. As a result, the Forest Service manages mineral resource programs 

that are specific to each group of minerals. 

A locatable mineral is any mineral that is “valuable” in the usual economic sense, 

or has a property that gives it distinct and special value. These are typically what 

are known as “hardrock” minerals. Locatable minerals may be recovered from 

lode deposits (solid rock) or placer (surficial) deposits. Examples of some 

locatable minerals on the Tongass National Forest are gold, silver, copper, 

molybdenum, iron, nickel, lead, and zinc. The General Mining Law of 1872, as 

amended, grants every United States citizen the right to prospect and explore 

public domain lands open to mineral entry. The right of access is guaranteed and 

is not at the discretion of the Forest Service. 

The Forest Service works with mining claimants to provide reasonable access to 

their claims, minimize adverse environmental impacts on surface resources, and 

ensure reasonable reclamation of disturbed lands affected by mining operations. 

Protection of surface resources is accomplished by reviewing the mining plan of 

operations submitted by the claimant, disclosing impacts of the proposed mining 

operations in a site-specific environmental document, approving only those 

activities that are reasonably incident to the proposed operation, monitoring 

Locatable 

Minerals

Final EIS 3-351 Minerals
3 Environment and Effects

operations to ensure environmental standards are met, and ensuring prompt and 

reasonable reclamation of disturbed areas.

By law, designated Wilderness, National Monuments, Research Natural Areas, 

Enacted Municipal Watersheds, and Wild Rivers (when designated by Congress) 

are withdrawn from mining claim location. These withdrawn areas are, however, 

subject to mining claims with valid existing rights established before the date the 

areas were withdrawn from mineral entry. As a consequence, some mining 

claims located within existing or proposed withdrawn areas could be developed in 

the future. 

On the Tongass, Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, Recreational Rivers, 

Timber Production, and Minerals Land Use Designations (LUDs) are open to 

mineral entry. The Primitive Recreation, Semi-Remote Recreation, Old-Growth 

Habitat, Experimental Forest, Special Interest Areas, Scenic Rivers, and LUD II

LUDs remain open to mining activities; however, special stipulations and more 

stringent mitigation measures may be required for mining activities in these 

LUDs. 

Certain types of minerals, primarily energy resources (e.g. oil, gas, coal and 

geothermal resources), are not subject to mining claim location, but are available 

for exploration and development under provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 

1920. Access to these types of minerals is provided through leases, permits, or 

licenses that include fee and/or royalty payment conditions. Federally owned 

leasable minerals include oil, gas, coal, geothermal resources, potassium, 

sodium, phosphates, and sulfur. The authority to manage these minerals is 

presently administered by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) in cooperation with the Forest Service. 

No leasable minerals are presently being produced on the Tongass National 

Forest, and the anticipated demand is expected to remain low. The BLM 

conducted an assessment of mineral resource potential in support of a resource 

management plan for the Ring of Fire planning area (BLM 2006), which includes 

Southeast Alaska. The assessment indicated the potential for oil and gas 

occurrence in the Yakutat region was considered to be high, based on geologic 

factors (URS Corporation 2006). While there has been exploration activity in the 

Yakutat area in the relatively recent past, the resource development potential is 

considered low; therefore, the BLM expects no exploration or development 

activity within the next 10 to 15 years. Outside of the Yakutat area, oil and gas 

occurrence potential elsewhere in the Tongass is considered low to none. 

Occurrences of coal found at several locations in Southeast Alaska; however, the 

BLM considers development of these resources to be uneconomic in the near 

future, other than possibly for local use, and does not foresee associated 

exploration or development activity.

Geothermal resources occur in 19 known locations in Southeast Alaska. Thermal 

springs in several locations have been developed for small-scale commercial 

uses such as tourism, aquaculture, community bathhouses, and district heating of 

buildings (URS Corporation 2006). There has been some recent interest in 

geothermal resources in the Bell Island area. 

In 2008, in response to the Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 2005, the BLM and the 

Forest Service, in cooperation with the Department of Energy, jointly prepared a 

Final Programmatic EIS (PEIS) for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United 

States (BLM and USDA Forest Service 2008). The PEIS provides a framework to 

facilitate the BLM and Forest Service efforts regarding geothermal lease 

applications that were pending as of the EPAct of 2005, as well as future 

Leasable 

Minerals

Minerals 3-352 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

determinations for projects on BLM and NFS lands. The PEIS considered 

pending leases, including the three Bell Island leases that encompass much of 

Bell Island and a portion of the Cleveland Peninsula on the adjacent mainland. 

The PEIS analyzed whether or not the lands should be made available for the 

BLM to lease to a private geothermal developer. In December 2013, the Tongass 

National Forest completed an additional environmental analysis for the Bell Island 

Geothermal Leases with the publishing of a Supplemental EIS (USDA Forest 

Service 2012c). Of note, the SEIS considered effects to inventoried roadless 

areas and changed social and economic conditions. A Record of Decision (ROD)

was published, documenting the Forest Service’s decision to provide a consent 

determination to the BLM for the issuance of the three pending lease applications 

on Bell Island and the adjacent mainland.

While the occurrence potential for geothermal resources is considered high in 

several locations and some exploration could occur, geothermal development 

activity is not anticipated in the near future.

Salable, or “common variety,” minerals on NFS lands are sold rather than located 

or leased. These minerals include petrified wood and common varieties of sand, 

rock, building stone, gravel, pumice, clay, and other similar materials. These 

minerals are most commonly used as building materials and are also used for 

agriculture, cleaners and abrasives, and as inputs to manufacturing processes. 

The predominant salable commodity extracted on the Tongass National Forest is 

crushed rock used to construct roads. The supply of quality rock sources is 

largely dependent upon the locations of active logging operations. Presently, 

there is an adequate supply of rock sources with suitable quality (hardness and 

durability) in the southern third of the Tongass. However, rock quality is poor in 

the northern two-thirds of the Forest, and good material sources are difficult to 

locate in current timber production areas. Sand and gravel sources are scarce 

throughout the Forest, except within the Yakutat Ranger District.

Limestone and marble are abundant in Southeast Alaska, and both have 

historically been produced from quarries in the region for use as building stone 

(BLM 2006). Identified marble resources in the region are estimated at over 800 

million tons. Large quantities of limestone have been quarried from Prince of 

Wales and Dall Islands. Continued exploitation of these building material 

resources could be expected in the future. While several areas in Southeast 

Alaska also have geologic formations that are favorable for the occurrence of 

pumice deposits, market and location conditions indicate there will be little or no 

foreseeable development potential for pumice (URS Corporation 2006).

The 2008 Forest Plan Amendment provides a summary of Mineral Resource 

Inventory and Development potential on the Tongass including identified mineral 

resources and undiscovered resources. There has been no update to mineral 

inventories since that time.

Mineral Resource Demand

The extent to which identified and undiscovered mineral resources on the 

Tongass will be exploited in the future will depend largely upon the level of 

demand for those resources. Demand for mineral resources can be inferred 

based on the amount of money spent by the mining industry to prospect and 

explore for mineral resources in Southeast Alaska. Between 1982 and 1987, the 

mineral industry spent an average of $2.92 million per year on mineral exploration 

in Southeast Alaska, with a high of $5.85 million in 1987 (USDA Forest Service 

1997a). Exploration expenditures increased drastically for the 1988 to 1991

Salable Minerals

Mineral Resource 

Inventory and 

Development 

Potential

Final EIS 3-353 Minerals
3 Environment and Effects

period, when the industry spent more than $20 million each year. Expenditures 

generally declined for the next 10 years, reaching $1.6 million in 2001, before 

increasing again to a level of $9.9 million in 2006 (Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources [ADNR], Alaska’s Mineral Industry annual reports and summaries for 

1997 to 2005). Annual exploration expenditures remained high between 2007 

and 2013, averaging $20 million with a high of $34.3 million in 2011.

Mineral Production

Mineral production in Southeast Alaska in recent years has been dominated by 

the Greens Creek Mine at the north end of Admiralty Island and Kensington Gold 

Mine located on the mainland north of Berners Bay. Greens Creek is an 

underground mining operation that opened in 1989 and produces silver, zinc, 

lead, and gold. In 2013, the mine milled about 805,000 tons of ore worth about 

$397 million and reported 306 total employees (Athey et al. 2014). Another 

operating mine on the Tongass is the Kensington Gold Mine, located about 45 air 

miles north of Juneau, which began production in 2010. The Kensington Mine 

milled about 554,000 tons of gold bearing ore in 2013 and reported 300 total 

employees (Athey et al. 2014).

As described previously, the Forest Service administers mineral exploration, 

development, and production activities through the legal/regulatory systems for 

locatable, leasable, and salable minerals. The Forest Service also accounts for 

mineral resources in the land management planning process. One way of 

recognizing the importance and potential of mineral resources is through the 

designation of Minerals LUDs in the Forest-wide land allocation. The intent of the 

Minerals LUD designation is to encourage exploration and development of 

locatable minerals in areas of high mineral potential, while taking other resource 

values into account. The Tongass Forest Plan includes management 

prescriptions for those areas, and standards and guidelines specific to minerals 

and geology. 

The current Tongass Forest Plan, as amended, allocates several areas of the 

Forest to the Minerals LUD. The 2008 ROD expanded the Minerals LUD to about 

249,570 acres, an increase of about 80,000 acres. These areas are widely 

distributed across most portions of the Tongass, excluding Wilderness and LUD 

II lands. Several Minerals LUDs are clustered around Juneau (near Lynn Canal, 

Berners Bay, Stephens Passage, Gastineau Channel, and Taku Inlet); on the 

north end of Admiralty Island; on Yakobi Island and on the mainland east of 

Wrangell; a cluster near Clarence Strait and the southern part of Prince of Wales

Island; and an area near Hyder.

Unlike other LUDs, the Minerals LUD is an “overlay” designation that applies 

management prescriptions for minerals to the affected area in addition to the 

prescriptions of the underlying LUD, with the Minerals LUD having priority.

Environmental Consequences

None of the alternatives propose any changes to the current Minerals LUD. 

Expenditures for mineral prospecting and exploration, the demand for access to 

National Forest lands for the purpose of mineral exploration, and development is 

expected to remain high in the near future. Mineral entrants will continue to 

submit plans of operation to the Forest Service for approval, and regulations 

under which those operating plans are processed will not change by alternative. 

Identified and undiscovered mineral resource tracts, characteristics and location 

Tongass Land 

Management for 

Minerals

Minerals 3-354 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

of mineral deposits, and Southeast Alaska geology will not vary as a result of 

implementing any of the alternatives.

Locatable Minerals

The effects of the Forest Plan alternatives on locatable minerals are not 

discussed in detail, as there are no aspects of the Forest Plan that would have a 

specific direct or indirect effect on activity related to locatable minerals. Under 

any alternative, future exploration and development (except for valid, currently 

existing rights) would be precluded in areas withdrawn from mineral entry, such 

as Wilderness. None of the alternatives would modify the boundaries of existing 

LUDs in a manner that would economically constrain existing or future mineral 

activities.

Leasable Minerals

Alternative 1

Similarly, the effects of the Forest Plan alternatives on leasable minerals are not 

discussed in detail because there are no aspects of the Forest Plan that would 

have a specific direct or indirect effect on activity related to leasable minerals. 

The Tongass has no current leasable mineral activity, and the anticipated 

demand for leasable minerals is expected to remain low. The Forest Service is 

aware of some level of interest in oil and gas, coal, and geothermal resources in 

specific areas of the Tongass. Consistent with the current Forest Plan, any 

mineral leasing activity would need to be consistent with the standards and 

guidelines for the respective LUDs affected by leasing. The effects of any 

mineral leasing activity will be analyzed at the appropriate future time if the Forest 

Service receives specific requests for access to leasable minerals. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Each of the action alternatives includes new plan components governing the 

development of renewable energy projects, including geothermal resources. Any 

geothermal project would need to be consistent with the new plan components for 

Renewable Energy (Forest Plan Chapter 5). The effects of any geothermal 

energy project will be analyzed at the appropriate future time if the Forest Service 

receives specific requests for such projects. For all other mineral leasing activity, 

the effects would be the same those of Alternative 1.

Salable Minerals

Salable or common variety minerals, primarily crushed rock, are utilized in each 

of the alternatives. Their predominant use is to construct roads in support of the 

Tongass National Forest transportation system, and thus the amounts used will 

correspond closely to the miles of new road construction by alternative. These 

are shown in Chapter 2 as well as the Transportation section of this chapter.

Effects on Other Resources

The development of mineral resources in the Forest generally requires 

construction of an underground or surface mine complex, a millsite, road and 

pipeline systems, tailings and waste rock disposal areas, a marine 

transfer/docking facility, and lodging accommodations if the mine location is not 

close to an existing community. Total surface-disturbing acreage can vary 

markedly with specific project characteristics; the operating Greens Creek mine 

involves about 350 acres for facility development. The Kensington mine project 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Final EIS 3-355 Minerals
3 Environment and Effects

occupies about 280 acres. The effects of any such development are analyzed at 

the time a specific project is proposed.

There are no aspects of any of the alternatives that would have a specific direct 

or indirect effect on activity related to locatable, leasable (excluding geothermal) 

or saleable minerals. Thus, there are no cumulative effects to these resources 

from any of the alternatives. Under all alternatives, the right to prospect and 

explore public domain lands open to mineral entry are preserved. Existing 

mineral projects are expected to continue and new projects are expected to be 

explored and developed. The effects of any mineral activity operating under the 

standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan would be evaluated at the time 

appropriate future time if the Forest Service receives specific requests for such 

projects. Appendix C of this EIS provides a full list of all the projects considered 

in the cumulative effects analysis.

See the Renewable Energy section for a discussion of renewable energy direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects.

Cumulative 

Effects

Minerals 3-356 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Recreation and Tourism

Affected Environment...............................................................................3-357

Supply of Recreation Opportunities ......................................................3-359

Existing Use Levels and Trends ...........................................................3-364

Environmental Consequences ................................................................3-374

Direct and Indirect Effects.....................................................................3-374

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-384

Risk and Uncertainty.............................................................................3-385

Affected Environment

The affected environment portion of the recreation and tourism analysis is 

divided into two broad sections, the first addressing the supply of recreation 

opportunities, and the second addressing existing use levels and trends. The 

supply section discusses the existing supply of recreation opportunities in terms 

of the Forest Service’s Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classes and 

inventoried recreation places on the Tongass. The existing use and trends 

section discusses overall forest use, resident recreation, tourism, and 

commercial outfitter/guide use.

The remainder of this introductory section provides a general overview of 

recreation in Southeast Alaska and the Tongass National Forest, which 

comprises approximately 80 percent of the region. Southeast Alaska possesses 

a remarkable and unique combination of features including inland waterways with 

over 11,000 miles of shoreline, mountains, fiords, glaciers, and large or unusual 

fish and wildlife populations that provide opportunities for a wide range of outdoor 

recreation experiences. Southeast Alaska imparts a sense of vastness, 

wildness, and solitude. These sentiments are enhanced by a small resident 

population and a relative absence of development compared to most other 

National Forests. 

Recreation and tourism on National Forests encompasses more than the 

provision of facilities or recreation sites. This is especially true on the Tongass 

National Forest where most recreation and tourism attractions occur in remote 

undeveloped areas. Many Alaska residents purposefully live in proximity to such 

settings as a part of their lifestyle. Most visitors who travel long distances to see 

Alaska expect to find it in a wild and “unspoiled” state, but also expect comfort 

and convenience, reliable transportation, and other features requiring some level 

of infrastructure and development. The challenge to managers is to identify and 

understand the relationship between the settings and the variety of client groups. 

Commercial providers of recreation activities base much of their marketing 

strategy on particular environmental settings and identified recreation places 

within those settings. 

The Tongass National Forest includes approximately 17 million acres of land 

available for recreation. This land contributes greatly to the feeling of vastness 

and solitude that dominates the region; however, much of the land is not suitable 

for outdoor recreation. Difficult and steep terrain, wetlands, icefields, glaciers, 

and heavy vegetation confine most recreation activities to accessible shorelines, 

river and stream bottoms, and around the many lakes within the Forest. 

Extensive use is made of some of the icefields and alpine areas (above tree line), 

but access to these areas is usually by aircraft. Both residents and visitors use 

the developed campground and picnic areas, beaches, trails, cabins, shelters, 

Final EIS 3-357 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

and visitor centers that are located near communities. An inventory of developed 

recreation sites on the Tongass is presented in Table 3.15-1.

Table 3.15-1

Tongass Recreation Facilities, 2015

Type of Facility Number

Anchor Buoys 42

Boating Sites 7

Campgrounds 15

 - Number of Sites 220

Camping Areas 7

Day Use Areas 10

Picnic Sites 33

Group Picnic Sites 2

Hotel, Lodge, Resort 2

Interpretive Site 3

Interpretive Visitor Centers 3

Lookout/Cabin 147

Shelters 39

Observation Site 2

Recreation Residence 3

Swimming Site 2

Trailheads 120

Trails (number of miles):

 – Nonwilderness 900

 – Wilderness 93

 Total Trail Miles 993

Wildlife Viewing Sites 10

The National Park Service manages 3.3 million acres in three park units in 

Southeast Alaska: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Sitka National 

Historic Park, and Klondike Goldrush National Historic Park. The majority of this 

land is located within the Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. 

The State of Alaska also administers land for recreation. Many of the state land 

selections were made with recreation opportunities for the residents of local 

communities in mind. Most of these opportunities are still undeveloped. State 

selections were also made for future development of a system of marine parks. 

Currently, Alaska State Parks manages about 80,000 acres and 34 park units, 

including 16 marine parks, in Southeast Alaska. In addition, the Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game (ADF&G) manages two state wildlife refuges, two critical habitat 

areas, and one wildlife sanctuary, and the Alaska Division of Forestry manages the 

247,000-acre Haines State Forest (Alaska State Parks 2009). 

Community road systems are limited and heavily used for access to recreation 

sites and attractions near local communities. Existing road systems are primarily 

located near the larger communities of Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, Petersburg, and 

Wrangell. There is an extensive road system connecting the small communities 

on Prince of Wales Island, as well as road systems near the communities of 

Hoonah and Kake. There is no interconnecting highway system between islands 

or between communities on the mainland.

Haines, Skagway, and Hyder all have highway connections to Canada and the 

Alaska Interior, as well as the lower 48 states, and serve as gateways for tourists 

heading north. Haines and Skagway are also visited by cruise ships and served 

by the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS).

Recreation and Tourism 3-358 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Roads exist in other locations where timber harvest has taken place. 

Independent visitors from outside the state and residents from other parts of 

Southeast Alaska use road systems that are accessible from the AMHS ferries or 

from local communities for recreational purposes. Roads in locations where 

there are no communities or interconnecting access to the AMHS receive 

relatively low levels of recreation use. However, recreation-related vehicle use 

has been growing on some remote islands, including Kruzof, Zarembo, and 

Etolin Islands, and isolated systems on Kuiu and Kupreanof Islands. While the 

total amount of recreation use on these islands is low, it can be heavy at times, 

such as during hunting season. 

The supply of recreation opportunities is described in this analysis using two 

concepts: ROS and recreation places. These concepts describe the quantity of 

recreation opportunities. Quality is addressed using the “Home Range” concept 

and by assigning a value to the recreation places. These concepts are 

discussed in the following sections.

The Tongass National Forest has the potential to provide a wide variety of 

recreation settings. The ROS has been developed to help identify, quantify, and 

describe these settings. The ROS system portrays the combination of activities, 

settings, and experience expectations along a continuum that ranges from highly 

modified to primitive environments. Seven classifications are identified along this 

continuum: Urban (U), Rural (R), Roaded Modified (RM), Roaded Natural (RN), 

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM), and 

Primitive (P). The ROS inventory may be used to assess the potential effects of 

the alternatives on recreation settings.

The seven ROS classes are summarized in Table 3.15-2, based on seven 

elements that are considered in the allocation and management of recreation 

settings. Forest-wide ROS acres are presented in Table 3.15-3.

Table 3.15-2

Comparison of ROS Classes

Urban (U) Rural (R) Roaded Modified (RM) Roaded Natural (RN)

Scenic 

Quality

Alterations to landform 

and vegetation 

dominate landscape; 

nonrecreational 

activities not to exceed 

Low SIO - FG; Very 

Low SIO - MG.

Alterations to landform 

and vegetation 

dominate landscape; 

nonrecreational 

activities not to exceed 

Low SIO - FG; Very 

Low SIO - MG.

Alterations dominate the 

landscape; 

nonrecreational 

activities/structures 

evident, but do not 

exceed Very Low SIO. 

Alterations to landscape 

subordinate; 

nonrecreational 

activities not to exceed 

Low SIO though 

typically Moderate SIO. 

Access1 Access and travel 

facilities are highly 

intense, motorized, 

and often with mass 

transit supplements.

All methods of access 

and travel may occur, 

but subject to formal 

regulation. 

All methods of access 

and travel when needed 

and compatible with 

intended activities. 

All methods of access 

and travel may occur 

when compatible with 

intended activities; 

zones of non-motorized 

use. 

Remoteness Remoteness from sites 

and sounds of human 

activity not available or 

important. 

Remoteness from sites 

and sounds of human 

activity not available or 

important. 

Remoteness from 

continuous sounds of 

human activity is of 

moderate importance. 

Remoteness from 

continuous sounds of 

human activity is 

expected.

Visitor 

Management 

Intensive on-site 

controls are numerous 

and obvious.

On-site regimentation 

and control is obvious.

On-site regimentation 

and control is obvious.

On-site regimentation 

and controls are few.

Supply of 

Recreation 

Opportunities 

Final EIS 3-359 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.15-2 (continued)

Comparison of ROS Classes

Urban (U) Rural (R) Roaded Modified (RM) Roaded Natural (RN)

On-site 

Recreation 

Development 

Recreation structures 

and facilities readily 

evident, but 

appropriate for setting; 

designed for high use 

levels. Information 

and interpretive 

facilities may be large 

and complex. 

Recreation structures 

and facilities readily 

evident, but 

appropriate for setting, 

designed for high use 

levels. Information 

and interpretive 

facilities may be large 

and complex. 

Recreation structures and 

facilities provided for site 

protection and user 

convenience. Facilities 

are contemporary but of 

rustic design and 

harmonize with natural 

setting. 

Recreation structures 

and facilities may be 

present, but are 

provided primarily for 

protection of the 

resource rather than 

user convenience. 

Facilities are rustic 

and harmonize with a 

backcountry setting. 

Social 

Encounters 

High concentrations of 

people at one time.

Moderate to high 

concentrations of 

people at one time. 

Interactions with others may 

be moderate to high. 

Moderate concentrations of 

people, especially on trails 

and in dispersed areas. 

Moderate concentration 

of users on roads and 

little evidence of others 

or interactions at 

campsites.

Visitor 

Impacts 

Very noticeable, but 

managed to prevent 

physical resource 

degradation. 

Very noticeable, but 

managed to prevent 

physical resource 

degradation. 

Human use noticeable, but 

not degrading to resources. 

Site hardening dominates 

campsites, parking areas. 

Visitor use noticeable, 

but not degrading to 

resources; 

established SIOs. 

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM)

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 

(SPNM) Primitive (P)

Scenic 

Quality

Alterations few and subordinate to 

landscape; designed and located to 

not exceed Moderate SIO. 

Alterations few and subordinate to 

landscape; nonrecreational 

activities and structures designed 

not to exceed High SIO. 

Alterations to landscape not 

evident; structures do not 

exceed High SIO. 

Access1 Travel on trails designed for/open 

to motor vehicles; roads maintained 

for high clearance vehicles; 

motorboats operating on 

waterways; may establish zones of 

non-motor use for facility/resource 

protection. 

Trails closed to motorized use; 

nonmotorized boats used on 

freshwater lakes and streams. 

Trails closed to motorized 

use; non-motorized boats 

used on freshwater lakes and 

streams. 

Remoteness Nearby sights and sounds of 

human activity are rare; distant 

sounds may occur. 

Nearby sounds of human 

activity are rare; distant sounds 

may occur. 

Sounds of human activity are 

very infrequent to 

nonexistent. 

Visitor 

Management 

On-site regimentation and controls 

are few.

On-site regimentation and 

controls are rare.

On-site regimentation and 

controls are very rare.

On-site 

Recreation 

Development 

Recreation structures and facilities 

may be present, provided primarily 

for protection of site rather than 

user convenience. Facilities, when 

present, are rustic and harmonize 

with natural setting. 

Recreation structures and 

facilities may be present but 

provided primarily for protection 

of site. Facilities, when present, 

are rustic and harmonize with 

natural setting.

Recreation structures are rarely 

present, provided primarily for 

the protection of the site. 

Facilities, when present, are 

rustic and harmonize with 

natural setting.

Social 

Encounters 

Low interaction between users. 

Campsites seldom within sight or 

sound of another group except 

during peak periods. 

Low interaction between users. 

Campsites seldom within sight 

or sound of another group 

except during peak periods. 

Very low interaction between 

users and no other groups in 

sight or sound of overnight 

camps. 

Visitor 

Impacts 

Human use noticeable, but not 

degrading to resource or 

backcountry setting. 

Human use noticeable, but not 

degrading to resource 

elements. 

Human use essentially 

unnoticeable. Site 

hardening—boardwalks, boat 

moorings, food caches. 1 Subject to ANILCA provisions.

Note: SIO = Scenic Integrity Objective, FG = Foreground, MG = Middleground

Source: USDA Forest Service 1997a (Table 3-30).

Recreation and Tourism 3-360 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Viewed in terms of acres, the Primitive ROS setting is the largest on the Tongass, 

with approximately 10.4 million acres allocated to this setting (Table 3.15-3). The

Wilderness and Natural Setting Land Use Designation (LUD) groups currently 

account for 47 and 46 percent of this total, respectively (Table 3.15-4). 

Approximately 33 percent of the areas presently inventoried as SPNM (3 million 

acres) are located in the moderate development (11 percent) or intensive 

development (22 percent) LUD groups1, with 19 percent located in existing 

Wilderness. Areas inventoried as SPM account for approximately 1.5 million 

acres Forest-wide and are mostly located in the Wilderness (31 percent) and 

Natural Setting (48 percent) LUD groups. Approximately 72 percent of areas 

allocated to the RN, RM, Rural, and Urban settings are located in the moderate 

development (22 percent) or intensive development (50 percent) LUD groups 

(Table 3.15-4).

Existing Wilderness on the Tongass is mostly associated with the Primitive ROS

setting (82 percent), with the remaining 18 percent comprised of SPNM (10 

percent) and SPM (8 percent). Much of the area inventoried as SPM on the 

Tongass is accessed via motorized watercraft. The Primitive ROS setting also 

comprises a large share of the Natural Setting LUD group (64 percent), with 

SPNM accounting for a further 20 percent (Table 3.15-4).

Table 3.15-3

Forest-wide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Acres, 2015

ROS Class Acres

Percent of ROS

Total

Primitive (P) 10,357,832 62

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) 3,052,410 18

Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) 1,458,528 9

Roaded Natural (RN) 157,386 1

Roaded Modified (RM) 1,662,825 10

Rural and Urban (R and U) 5,618 <0

Note:

The total acres by ROS class shown in this table is slightly lower than the Forest-wide total because 

the ROS inventory does not include the entire Forest.

1 The Recreation and Tourism analysis divides the Tongass LUDs into four groups: 

• Wilderness: Wilderness, Wilderness National Monument, and Non-Wilderness National 

Monument.

• Natural Setting: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Old Growth Habitat, Special Interest Area, 

Municipal Watershed, Wild River, Scenic River, Recreational River, Remote Recreation, 

and Semi-Remote Recreation.

• Moderate development: Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, and Experimental Forest. 

• Intensive development: Timber Production.

Final EIS 3-361 Recreation and Tourism

 
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.15-4

Forest-wide Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Acres by LUD Group, 2015

LUD Group P SPNM SPM RN RM R+U

Acres by LUD Group and ROS

Wilderness 4,841,150 575,099 450,580 19,669 18,862 468

Natural Setting 4,789,784 1,474,340 701,878 87,088 369,164 4,043

Moderate Development 159,971 327,470 170,247 39,256 370,468 399

Intensive Development 566,863 675,473 135,749 11,347 904,262 684

Percent of ROS Setting

Wilderness 47 19 31 12 1 8

Natural Setting 46 48 48 55 22 72

Moderate Development 2 11 12 25 22 7

Intensive Development 5 22 9 7 54 12

Percent of LUD Group

Wilderness 82 10 8 0 0 0

Natural Setting 64 20 9 1 5 0

Moderate Development 15 31 16 4 35 0

Intensive Development 25 29 6 0 39 0

Notes:

1

 P=Primitive, SPNM=Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, SPM=Semi-Primitive Motorized, RN=Roaded Natural, 

RM=Roaded Modified, R+U=Rural and Urban

2

 The total acres by ROS class shown in this table is slightly lower than the Forest-wide total because the 

ROS inventory does not include the entire Forest.

3 The Recreation and Tourism analysis divides the Tongass LUDs into four groups: 

• Wilderness: Wilderness, Wilderness National Monument, and Non-Wilderness National Monument.

• Natural Setting: LUD II, Research Natural Area, Old Growth Habitat, Special Interest Area, 

Municipal Watershed, Wild River, Scenic River, Recreational River, Remote Recreation, and SemiRemote Recreation. 

• Moderate development: Modified Landscape, Scenic Viewshed, and Experimental Forest. 

• Intensive development: Timber Production.

Recreation Places

The Tongass offers a unique recreation setting because it provides an island and 

marine environment in close proximity to major mountain ranges and icefields. 

Forested mountains rising from the saltwater provide unique and remote coastal 

recreation opportunities not found in other areas of the United States. Recreation 

enthusiasts are able to view a variety of natural landforms and wildlife, such as 

glaciers, old-growth forests, humpback whales, spawning salmon, brown bears, 

and bald eagles. The immense amount of land on the Tongass National Forest 

provides a great diversity of recreation attractions and opportunities. Most 

recreation activities take place in, and are dependent on, settings that are primarily 

undeveloped and widely dispersed. The surrounding saltwater, which is not 

managed by the Forest Service, allows for motorized boat and floatplane access 

throughout Southeast Alaska. 

The pattern of use associated with known protected boat anchorages, boat 

landings, aircraft landing sites, and the limited road systems makes it possible to 

identify specific “recreation places.” Recreation places are those areas that are 

used for recreation activities and are easy to access. Approximately 1,436 

recreation places, totaling about 3.6 million acres (22 percent of the total 

Tongass National Forest), have been identified. Approximately 22 percent, or 

311 of these places, are located in existing designated wildernesses. Although 

these areas comprise only 22 percent of the Forest-wide number of recreation 

places, they account for 36 percent of total recreation place acres. 

The setting of a recreation place plays a key role in its attractiveness and use. 

Many recreation opportunities, such as viewing scenery or pursuing solitude, are 

dependent on this relationship and require a natural type of setting, whereas 

Recreation and Tourism 3-362 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

others, such as hunting or fishing, are less dependent on the type of setting. 

Table 3.15-5 identifies the distribution of recreation place acres by ROS class. 

Recreation places can be categorized into three general groupings based on 

their principle uses and attractions. These three general groupings, marine, 

freshwater, and land-based, are discussed in the Recreation and Tourism section 

of the 1997 Forest Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

(USDA Forest Service 1997a, pp. 3-107, 3-108). The distribution of recreation 

places among these general groupings is presented in Table 3.15-6.

For the purposes of this analysis, recreation places are classified in two basic 

ways. First, recognizing that access plays a key role in recreation in Southeast 

Alaska, “home ranges” were defined for each community. Inventoried recreation 

places were classified into two categories: those located within a radius of 

approximately 20 miles from communities (“home range”) and those outside 

(“rest of forest”). Almost half (48 percent) of the recreation place acres are within 

a community home range. Second, recreation places are identified as either 

important or ordinary/ common based on five categories: facilities, marine, 

hunting, fishing, and tourism. The Forest Service developed this rating system in 

response to public comments received on the 1990 Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS). Recreation places may be important for one, several, or none 

of the identified categories. Important recreation places by category are 

summarized in Table 3.15-7 and discussed further in the Recreation and Tourism

section of the 1997 Forest Plan Revision FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997a, pp. 

3-109, 3-111).

Table 3.15-5

Distribution of Recreation Place Acres by Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class

ROS Class Acres (1,000s)

Primitive 1,306

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 916

Semi-Primitive Motorized 870

Roaded Natural 103

Roaded Modified 432

Rural and Urban 3

Note: These totals include all identified recreation places within the Tongass National Forest boundary, 

including those on state and private lands. 

Table 3.15-6

Distribution of Recreation Places by General Use 

Number of Places Percent of Total Acres (1,000s)1 Percent of Total

Marine 617 43 1,234 34

Freshwater 302 21 908 25

Land-based 531 37 1,488 41

Total 1,436 100 3,630 100 1 Updated acreages were calculated using the ratios from USDA Forest Service 1997a (pp. 3-107, 

3-108) and the total acres identified in Table 3.15-5. Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

Final EIS 3-363 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.15-7

Important Recreation Places by Category1

Number of 

Places

Percent of 

Total2 Acres (1,000s)

Percent of 

Total2

Facilities3 402 28 1,053 29

Marine4 617 43 1,089 30

Hunting5 373 26 1,452 40

Fishing6 187 13 472 13

Tourism 876 61 1,924 53

Total 

Acres/Places

1,436 NA 3,630 NA

1

 Recreation places are rated as either important or common/ordinary. 2

 Percent columns sum to more than 100 because a recreation place can be rated important in 

more than one category. 3

 All recreation places with facilities were rated as being important. In addition, other recreation 

places with some type of facility, such as a viewing platform, and facilities authorized by a 

special use permit for recreation purposes, were identified as important. 4

 The marine category identified here is different to the marine type identified in Table 3.15-6. 

The marine category in this table only includes those recreation places that are truly unique or 

typify the Southeast Alaska marine experience. 5

 Important hunting areas were distinguished from ordinary hunting areas based on a number of 

factors, including heavy recurring use, hunter success, ease of access, opportunities for 

several species, and prized species, such as mountain goats and moose. 6

 Important fishing recreation places were identified using ADF&G ratings for recreational

fishing.

Note: This estimate of total recreation place acres is slightly higher than the estimate used in the 

current Forest Plan Revision FEIS (USDA Forest Service 1997a). The database used to develop 

these estimates has been updated and these estimates were developed using a more precise 

methodology than the grid-sampling approach that was employed in the 1997 Forest Plan 

Revision FEIS analysis.

Source: USDA Forest Service 1997a (pp. 3-109, 3-111).

The following section is divided into four parts that discuss forest use in general, 

resident recreation, tourism, and commercial outfitter/guide use on the Tongass 

National Forest. 

Forest Use 

Although there are some locations on the Tongass where fees are collected and 

locations where people can be easily counted, much of the information regarding 

general public use has been historically based on long-term observations, 

anecdotal information, and professional estimates, adjusted by quantitative 

indicators where available. In general, many residents and nonresidents seek 

the same type of recreation experiences and many engage in similar activities. 

Alaska has a reputation for vastness, rugged beauty, and solitude, and both 

residents and nonresidents usually expect to find these qualities in recreation 

settings. Expectations often vary by group and individual, however, with some 

people having higher expectations of wilderness and solitude than others.

The Alaska Region of the Forest Service (Region 10) has been participating in 

the Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program since 

2000. Based on the results of the NVUM program and supplemental survey 

results for 2008 and 2009, White and Stynes (2010) calculated a revised 

visitation estimate of 1,885,513 annual visits to the Tongass National Forest. 

The revised estimate took into account previously undocumented travel to the 

forest via boat and plane (the visitation estimate based on the national survey 

was 1,628,000). Half of Alaska residents surveyed who live in Southeast Alaska 

reported using a boat or plane to access the national forest. This is different to 

the ways national forests are accessed in other states and reflects the 

undeveloped and remote nature of Southeast Alaska, and is one reason 

Existing Use 

Levels and 

Trends 

Recreation and Tourism 3-364 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

recreation sampling in Alaska is very challenging (USDA Forest Service 2013f).

Based on more recent NVUM surveys conducted as part of the NVUM Round 3 

(2010 to 2014), the current estimate for the Tongass National Forest is 

approximately 1,836,000 annual visits (USDA Forest Service 2015f). 

Resident Recreation

Many residents of Southeast Alaska place a high value on the quality and 

availability of outdoor recreation opportunities in the region, with the proportion of 

Alaskan residents who participate in outdoor activities generally much higher 

than elsewhere in the United States (Bowker 2001). Many local residents 

engage in dispersed recreation activities on National Forest System (NFS) land 

and adjacent saltwater. Accurate data on this type of use are difficult to obtain 

and estimates tend to either underestimate the nature and extent of much of this 

use or overcompensate in inconsistent ways (USDA Forest Service 1997a, p. 3-

120). The net result is that while there is a general consensus that outdoor 

recreation opportunities and activities provided by the Tongass are highly 

important to residents, there is limited data that accurately quantifies resident 

recreation use.

Resident recreation demand is influenced by a number of factors, including 

regional population levels, per capita participation rates, and recreation travel 

behavior. Over time, the supply of certain recreation opportunities in Southeast 

Alaska has increased. Road systems have expanded into previously 

inaccessible areas and visitor services and tourism marketing have also 

increased. In some cases, supply-induced increases in participation have 

occurred. On Prince of Wales, Wrangell, and Mitkof Islands, for example, road 

systems developed for timber harvesting created an opportunity for road-related 

access to previously inaccessible recreation settings and an opportunity for 

recreation activities involving wheeled vehicles.

Supply-induced participation changes have also been accompanied by additional 

demand for specific recreation places or facilities for a related activity. Increased 

opportunities for roaded access and activities are typically accompanied by a 

need for parking, dispersed campsites, picnic sites, trails to scenic attractions, 

and additional short access routes to cabin sites and previously inaccessible 

beaches. Increased tourism has resulted in increased demand for interpretive

services as well as walking and hiking opportunities near the major communities.

The use of off-highway vehicles (OHVs) and over-snow vehicles is another 

growing activity on the Tongass. Use is limited by topography, dense vegetation, 

and wet soils. These types of vehicles are most frequently used on road systems 

connected to communities, with riders seeking out primitive roads or spurs. 

Limited accessibility often results in OHV use on muskegs, beaches, tidal areas, 

and river channels during low flows. 

NFS routes (roads and trails) and areas designated as open to motorized use are 

identified on the Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) for the Tongass. The MVUM 

also displays allowed uses by vehicle class (such as highway-legal vehicles, 

vehicles less than 50 inches wide and motorcycles), seasonal allowances, and 

distance allowances, and provides information on other travel rules and 

regulations. Routes not shown on the MVUM are not open to public motor 

vehicle travel. The MVUM is updated annually in January with separate maps 

available for each ranger district. In the next few years, the Tongass will address 

the management of over-snow vehicles in a similar manner with the issuance of 

maps identifying areas where their use is permitted after holding public meetings 

and subsistence hearings.

Final EIS 3-365 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Tourism

Nonresident pleasure visitors or tourists can be generally divided into package

and independent visitors. Package visitors are typically the cruise ship clients, 

though some arrive by ferry and airplane. The vast majority of visitors to 

Southeast Alaska are cruise ship passengers. The Summer 2011 statewide 

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program (AVSP)2 found that cruise ship passengers 

accounted for 85 percent of visitors to Southeast Alaska compared to 57 percent 

of visitors statewide (McDowell Group 2012). Cruise ship passengers as a share 

of total visitors in Southeast Alaska varied by community, ranging from 12 

percent of summer visitors to Prince of Wales Island to 98 percent of visitors to 

Hoonah. Cruise ship passengers also accounted for more than 90 percent of 

summer visitors to Juneau, Ketchikan, and Skagway (McDowell Group 2012).

The Tongass is home to a vibrant and growing tourism industry. Tourism from 

large and small cruise ships and independent tour operators plays an important 

role in the economies of communities throughout Southeast Alaska. Cruise ship 

and other package visitors are a very large group that uses the Tongass National 

Forest primarily as a scenic resource. These visitors spend less time in the area 

and generally follow preplanned and regimented itineraries. Shore excursions 

have, however, become an important part of the cruise ship experience, with 

much of this activity centered around communities. Half-day and day excursions 

into the Forest have also increased in popularity.

Independent visitors, who constitute a much smaller group, tend to arrive by air, 

ferry, and highway and engage in a variety of activities. Independent visitors

spend more time in the communities and on the Forest, and may secure the 

services of outfitters and guides, restaurants, motels, and transportation services 

such as floatplanes, boats, and gas stations. Independent travelers tend to plan 

their own itineraries, but often secure the services of mini-packages, such as day 

excursions or fishing charters. These types of visitors compete more directly with 

residents for recreation opportunities on the Forest. Lodges have grown in 

popularity in recent years, with fishing lodges in particular playing an important 

role in the tourism industry in some local areas. This is, for example, the case 

with Elfin Cove, a small town located west of Hoonah, where nine recreational 

fishing lodges are located in the vicinity of the town (Dugan et al. 2006). Fishing 

lodges accounted for 65 percent of the non-cruise, multi-day packages identified 

in Summer 2011, with remote lodges accounting for a further 15 percent of the 

total. Adventure tours (8 percent), rail packages (4 percent), motor coach tours 

(4 percent), rental car/RV package (4 percent) and “other” (1 percent) accounted 

for the remaining share of multi-day packages (McDowell Group 2012).

The marketing of recreation opportunities by commercial suppliers has important 

similarities to resident recreation concerns. For example, many businesses that 

provide boat or aircraft access for wildlife viewing and other activities have a low 

tolerance for the presence of other groups in the same area. The presence of 

more than two or three other parties in a bay or area may cause such operators 

to seek substitute locations. The ability to market Alaska tourism is dependent 

on meeting customer expectations of seeing and experiencing vast, untamed 

land and its wildlife. Resident recreationists who traditionally use an area may, 

however, be discouraged by commercial businesses operating in the same area.

2 The AVSP is a significant visitor industry research project conducted periodically by the 

State of Alaska. The most recent study was conducted in 2011 (McDowell Group 2012).

Recreation and Tourism 3-366 Final EIS

 
Environment and Effects 3

Visitors to Southeast Alaska

The 2011 Summer AVSP found that city/sightseeing tours, cultural activities, and 

wildlife viewing were the most popular activities among visitors to Southeast 

Alaska based on estimated participation rates, with 46 percent, 46 percent, and 

42 percent of visitors engaging in these activities, respectively (Table 3.15-8). 

Other popular activities included hiking/nature walk (28 percent), day cruises (26 

percent), flightseeing (15 percent), tramway/gondola (14 percent), and fishing (11 

percent) were other popular activities among visitors to Southeast Alaska based 

on participation rates (Table 3.15-8). 

Table 3.15-8

Activities Participated in by Visitors to Southeast Alaska, 

Summer 2011

Activities Percent of Visitors

City/Sightseeing Tours 46

Cultural Activities 46

Wildlife Viewing 42

Hiking/Nature Walk 28

Day Cruises 26

Flightseeing 15

Tramway/Gondola 14

Fishing 11

Note:

1 The McDowell Group (2012) identified 12 other activities with participation rates 

ranging from less than 1 percent to 10 percent.

Source: McDowell Group 2012

Southeast communities accounted for four of the six most frequently visited 

communities and places in the state in 2011: Juneau ranked first, Ketchikan

second, Skagway fourth, and Glacier Bay sixth (McDowell Group 2012).

Trends in Visitation

The number of summer visitors to Alaska increased dramatically in the 1990s 

and the first part of the 2000s, increasing from 861,100 in 1993 to 1,631,500 in 

2006, which equates to an average annual growth rate of 5 percent and a total 

net increase of 89 percent. Statewide, visitation peaked in 2007 and 2008 with 

approximately 1.71 million visitors. The total number of visitors dropped in 2009 

and 2010 due to the nationwide economic recession (McDowell Group 2012). 

The State as a whole received an estimated 1,659,600 summer visitors in 2014. 

Cruise ship visitors accounted for 58 percent of the 2014 total, with 38 percent 

arriving via air, and 4 percent by highway or ferry (McDowell Group 2012). 

Average annual visitation grew at an even faster rate in Southeast Alaska in the 

1990s and early 2000s, increasing by 131 percent from 502,800 in 1993 to 

1,160,000 in 2006 (McDowell Group et al. 2007). An estimated 1,037,000 people 

visited Southeast Alaska in 2011, approximately 67 percent of total statewide 

visitation during the summer of that year. Cruise ship passengers make up a 

much larger share of visitors to Southeast Alaska than they do statewide, 

accounting for 85 percent of all visitors in 2011 compared to 57 percent statewide 

(McDowell Group 2012 – Summer 2011 AVSP). The annual number of cruise 

passengers visiting Southeast Alaska is shown for 2000 through 2014 in Figure 

3.15-1. An estimated total of 975,000 cruise passengers visited Southeast 

Alaska in 2014 (Southeast Conference 2014).

Final EIS 3-367 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Figure 3.15-1

Southeast Alaska Cruise Passengers, 2000-2014

Notes: 

1/ Data for 2014 are a preliminary estimate.

Source: Southeast Conference (2014)

The sheer magnitude of the cruise ship industry has important implications for 

recreation planning on the Tongass. Shore excursions have become an integral 

part of the cruise ship experience, providing increased revenues for ship 

operators and opportunities for local entrepreneurs. Much of this activity has 

been concentrated at ports of call that accommodate large or mid-sized cruise 

ships. Survey data from 2005, for example, indicate that approximately 83 

percent of cruise visitors to Juneau participated in at least one tour while they 

were in Juneau. Glacier tours were the most popular type of tour in 2005, with 

42 percent of cruise visitors taking this type of tour. Wildlife/marine life viewing, 

the Mt. Roberts Tramway, and flightseeing via helicopter were also popular 

(McDowell Group 2005).

Alongside the international cruise lines, several small and mid-size cruise 

operators are active in the region, often taking their customers to smaller places 

such as Metlakatla and Petersburg in addition to the larger communities. The 

Alaska Department of Economic Development (ADED) (2013) found that small 

cruise ships – generally those with capacities of less than 100 passengers –

accounted for about 1 percent of Alaska’s cruise passengers in 2011. Although 

accounting for a small share of the overall market, this segment of the cruise 

market is important for smaller communities that do not have the infrastructure to 

accommodate larger vessels. Twelve of the 18 communities visited by small ship 

operators in 2011 had very limited economic activity (ADED 2013).

Table 3.15-9 and Figure 3.15-2 provide information on non-cruise visitation to the 

region. The number of Southeast Alaska State ferry passengers has generally 

declined since 2000 with a pre-recession peak of 268,335 visitors in 2008. The 

number of Juneau airline departures also dropped sharply between 2008 and 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014

Number of Passengers

Year

Recreation and Tourism 3-368 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

2009, but has since increased to close to pre-recession levels. The number of 

arrivals by land at Haines and Skagway have generally declined since 2000, with 

fewer arrivals in 2013 than in 2000 in both cases (Table 3.15-9; Figure 3.15-2).

Table 3.15-9

Southeast Alaska Visitation, 1990 to 2013

Year1

Southeast Alaska 

State Ferry 

Passengers2

Juneau Airline

Departures

Haines Arrivals 

by Land3

Skagway

Arrivals by Land

20004 301,244 269,880 43,621 94,925

2001 270,507 275,074 39,865 82,629

2002 263,105 259,759 42,290 87,851

2003 245,818 265,815 40,238 74,750

2004 240,666 273,152 40,438 77,837

2005 233,667 281,870 37,756 71,387

2006 237,965 302,710 na 61,870

2007 249,310 310,938 39,338 68,855

2008 268,335 292,474 34,434 65,826

2009 242,940 264,646 33,931 67,232

2010 251,503 288,300 36,806 66,238

2011 253,554 295,277 32,603 64,368

2012 262,931 292,789 33,040 66,016

2013 254,437 294,347 31,631 67,610

na – not available 1 In addition to visiting tourists, visitation estimates in this table include Alaska residents and 

nonresidents visiting for reasons other than recreation and tourism. 

2 These totals do not include Inter-Island Ferry Authority passengers. 3 Arrivals by land are per passenger.

4 The ferry Columbia was out of service for most of the summer season, which reduced total ferry 

passengers. 

Sources: Alaska Marine Highway System (2014), Alaska DOT (2006), Alaska Travel Industry (2006), 

Haines Convention and Visitors Bureau (2014), Juneau Economic Development Council (2014a, 2014b), 

Skagway Convention and Visitors Bureau (2014), and USDA Forest Service (2008a) (Table 3.13-15).

Essentially, all cruise ship use is by nonresident tourists. Ferry and airline 

passenger volumes and arrivals by land, on the other hand, also include Alaska

residents and nonresidents visiting for reasons other than recreation and tourism, 

such as business or visiting relatives or friends. Larger communities; like 

Juneau, Ketchikan, and Sitka, also provide medical and other services that are 

not available in smaller communities.

Final EIS 3-369 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Figure 3.15-2

Southeast Alaska Visitation, 2000 to 2014

Notes: 

1/ This figure shows visitation by means other than cruise ship.

2/ State ferry data do not include Inter-Island Ferry Authority passengers.

3/ Data on Haines arrivals by land are not available for 2006 (Haines Convention and Visitors Bureau 2015).

Source: See Table 3.15-9.

Data on the division between visitor and resident arrivals are not available for 

Southeast Alaska, but are available for the state as a whole. In summer 2011, 

non-residents accounted for an estimated 77 percent of total arrivals (Table 3.15-

10). The percent of total arrivals accounted for by non-residents varied by type 

of transport, ranging from 32 percent of arrivals by highway to 100 percent of 

arrivals by cruise ship. Non-residents accounted for 68 percent and 81 percent 

of domestic air and international air arrivals, respectively, and 64 percent of 

arrivals by ferry (Table 3.15-10). These data are for the state as a whole, but are 

likely broadly representative of Southeast Alaska and illustrate the importance of 

the state ferry and domestic airlines to local residents.

Table 3.15-10

Alaska Arrivals by Transport Type and Visitor/Resident, Summer 

2011

Percent Visitor Percent Resident

Domestic Air 68 32

International Air 81 19

Highway 32 68

Ferry 64 36

Cruise Ship 100 0

Total 77 23

Source: McDowell Group (2012)

The ferry data provided in Tables 3.15-9 and 3.15-10 and Figure 3.15-2 are for 

the AMHS only. These data do not include passengers transported by the InterIsland Ferry Authority (IFA), which is a public corporation providing transportation 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013

Number of Passengers

Year

Alaska State Ferry Juneau Airline Departures

Haines Arrivals by Land Skagway Arrivals by Land

Recreation and Tourism 3-370 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

to island communities in southern Southeast Alaska. Roundtrip service is 

currently (as of winter 2014) provided between Hollis and Ketchikan (IFA 2014). 

This service has been operating since 2002 and connects with AMHS vessels at 

Ketchikan. Annual ridership on this route from 2002 to 2013 averaged 52,000 

(Sheinberg Associates 2014). An estimated 11 percent of this total (5,740 rides) 

are made by summer tourists and fall hunters visiting Prince of Wales Island 

(Sheinberg Associates 2014). Roundtrip service operated between Coffman 

Cove and Wrangell and Petersburg during the summers of 2006, 2007, and 

2008, but has since been on hold. The availability of inter-island ferry services 

could affect resident recreation patterns in the future, as well as the recreation 

patterns of independent visitors to the region. 

Visitation trends for two popular excursions, Juneau Icefield and Mendenhall 

Glacier, are presented in Table 3.15-11. The number of visitors to these areas 

has increased considerably since 1990. The number of Juneau Icefield 

helicopter landing tour passengers peaked in 2004 with almost 95,000 

passengers reported. Nearly 66,600 Juneau Icefield helicopter landing tour 

passengers were reported in 2014. A total of approximately 449,200 people 

visited the Mendenhall Glacier in 2014, up from about 440,400 in 2013 (Table 

3.15-11).

Table 3.15-11

Juneau Icefield and Mendenhall Glacier Visitation, 2000 to 2014

Year

Juneau Icefield Tour 

Passengers Mendenhall Glacier Visitors1

2000 85,531 NA

2001 89,961 236,340

2002 85,680 250,363

2003 85,407 284,867

2004 94,928 319,630

2005 93,902 367,333

2006 81,047 372,464

2007 89,250 414,138

2008 81,592 424,359

2009 69,889 434,391

2010 60,292 386,751

2011 66,864 385,245

2012 64,966 407,264

2013 69,502 440,405

2014 66,579 449,168 1 These data are for visitors to the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area entering via the Visitors Center

Unit on the east side of the Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area. Use also occurs on the west side of 

the Recreation Area, though to a lesser degree.

Sources: 2001 to 2005: USDA Forest Service (2006c; 2006d); 2006 to 2014: USDA Forest Service 

(2015g, 2015h)

Commercial Outfitter/Guide Use 

The Forest Service authorizes outfitter and guiding services to provide for public

health and safety and foster successful small businesses consistent with the 

Forest Plan. Outfitter and guiding services facilitate greater participation in 

programs by organizations and businesses that work with youth and educational 

groups. Also, outfitters and guides are normally skilled and experienced 

individuals who conduct activities in a manner that protects environmental 

resources and ensures that national forest visitors receive high-quality services. 

Due to its remote and rugged nature, recreation use on much of the Tongass 

National Forest requires good outdoor skills and/or specialized equipment. 

Commercial outfitters and guides provide access and equipment to assist people 

who might not otherwise be able to pursue certain recreation activities on the 

Final EIS 3-371 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Forest. Outfitter/guides on the Tongass range from small family-run operations 

to larger corporations and non-profit organizations. 

Commercial recreation activities in Southeast Alaska and on the Tongass 

National Forest cover a broad spectrum of uses, ranging from fishing and hunting 

to helicopter flights and photography. Both residents and nonresidents use the 

services of outfitter/guides, but nonresidents tend to use outfitter/guides more 

often because they do not have the local knowledge or necessary equipment. 

Local residents tend to use their own boats and equipment to reach the Forest. 

Outfitter/guides are authorized use through special use permits to operate on the 

Tongass and are required to report annual use as part of their permit. 

Most outfitter/guides using the Forest shorelines access them via boat from 

saltwater. Some clients access NFS lands from beaches, while others are also 

guided on land. The majority of charter boats in Southeast Alaska operate 

exclusively on saltwater for fishing or sightseeing without ever using the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2004g). 

While people often participate in several different activities in one or more 

settings on any given trip, different activities result in different numbers of people 

in a group and different amounts of time spent on the Forest. At one end of the 

spectrum, guided bear hunting consists of many small groups of one or two 

people. (State regulations require non-resident hunters to use guides for hunting 

brown bear and mountain goats which are present in southeast Alaska). Hunters 

are dispersed across a large area and are on the Forest for long periods of time, 

typically 5 to 10 days, during spring and fall. At the other end of the use 

spectrum are mid-sized nature-viewing tour boats with relatively large group 

sizes (from 12 to 70 people). These groups are typically concentrated in a few 

areas of the Forest. Their use is short-term and concentrated in the summer 

season. 

The Shoreline Outfitter/Guide FEIS, prepared for four northern Ranger Districts 

on the Tongass (USDA Forest Service 2004c), found that recreation group size is 

highly variable along shorelines in that study’s project area. Groups generally 

consisted of less than 12 people, although larger groups, often associated with 

commercially guided groups from tour boats, may also be present. The largest 

shoreline group identified as part of that EIS was a tour boat with 70 people. 

This type of use accounts for a large number of visitors, but tends to be 

concentrated in relatively few areas of the Forest. Businesses providing services 

to these types of larger groups are heavily influenced by physical conditions that 

allow for large boat access and their schedules.

Helicopter landing tours are another popular form of outfitter/guide use (Table 

3.15-12). An estimated 67,000 cruise ship passengers visiting Juneau in 2014 

(about 7 percent of all cruise passengers visiting that year) participated in 

helicopter landing tours on the Juneau Icefield (Table 3.15-11). These tours to 

the Juneau Icefield involve high volumes of people concentrated at specific 

locations for short periods of time, typically 2 to 4 hours. Helicopter traffic, in 

groups of one to three helicopters, is almost continuous to and from icefield 

locations during the summer. Clients are typically outfitted and guided to walk, 

photograph, hike, or trek on, and explore the glacial environment. 

Recreation and Tourism 3-372 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Table 3.15-12

Helicopter Tour Locations by Client and Group, 2014

Area

Number of 

Groups1

Number of 

Clients

Juneau Icefield 1 – Gilkey Backcountry 175 832

Juneau Icefield 3 – Herbert 2,086 10,726

Juneau Icefield 4 – Mendenhall 8,577 42,919

Juneau Icefield 5 – Lemon 1 3

Juneau Icefield 7 – Norris 2,005 8,984

Juneau Icefield 8 – Taku 1,192 6,266

P24 Baird Patterson Glaciers 2 8

Skagway Icefield – Denver 1,921 10,109

Skagway Icefield – Meade 2,827 14,352

Skagway Icefield – Shubee 34 173 1 These numbers are an estimate of the total number of helicopter landings, including gratuity, 

training, and tour landings.

Source: USDA Forest Service (2015i)

Helicopter landing tours also occur in a number of locations elsewhere on the 

Forest, including the Skagway Icefield and Baird Patterson Glaciers (Table 3.15-

12). Visitors to the Juneau Icefield accounted for about three-quarters of the total 

number of groups (75 percent) and clients (74 percent) in 2014, with most of the 

remainder visiting the Skagway Icefield.

The number of reported outfitter/guide clients and groups in 2013 are presented 

by Ranger District in Table 3.15-13. A total of 607,000 clients and 25,000 groups 

were reported in 2013. The Juneau Ranger District accounted for 92 percent of 

the total clients in 2013, with 72 percent of these clients (403,657) visiting the 

Mendenhall Glacier Visitor’s Center.

Table 3.15-13

Outfitter/Guide Use by Ranger District, 2013

Ranger District Clients Groups

Admiralty National Monument 2,446 611

Craig 2,326 350

Hoonah 3,224 313

Juneau 557,980 17,008

Ketchikan - Misty 12,096 2,009

Petersburg 8,036 1,264

Sitka 11,248 1,797

Thorne Bay 904 126

Wrangell 8,472 1,259

Yakutat 56 7

Total 606,788 24,744

Note: 

Data are likely underreported for the Yakutat Ranger District.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2015j 

This diversity in the range of activities, the season of use, and types of recreation 

experience offered by outfitter/guide businesses can lead to conflicts between 

businesses when incompatible activities occur in close proximity. Comments 

received during the Shoreline Outfitter/Guide EIS process highlighted conflicts 

between helicopter and wheeled airplane access on one hand and some boat or 

foot travel access on the other. Several comments noted that the activities of 

smaller operations tend to be similar and compatible resulting in minimal 

conflicts, while larger operations often tend to detract from the setting and 

expectations of smaller groups. Some smaller operators believe that they are 

being displaced from their traditional use areas by larger commercial operations

Final EIS 3-373 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

(such as mid-sized cruise ships). On the other hand, some tour boat operators 

providing services to large groups felt they have been progressively excluded 

from areas on the Tongass National Forest over the past two decades (USDA 

Forest Service 2004g). 

Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the 

proposed alternatives on recreation and tourism. The following subsections 

review the potential effects of the alternatives on the existing supply of recreation 

opportunities in terms of the Forest Service’s ROS settings and inventoried 

recreation places on the Tongass. Potential effects to developed recreation 

facilities, resident recreational use, and tourism are also discussed. 

Timber Harvest

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

As discussed in the preceding affected environment section, the ROS system is 

designed to help identify and quantify different types of recreation setting on the 

Tongass National Forest and portrays the appropriate combination of activities, 

settings, and experience expectations along a continuum that ranges from highly 

modified to primitive environments (Table 3.15-2). Estimated maximum acres

likely to be harvested after 100 years by ROS setting and alternative are 

presented in Table 3.15-14. 

Table 3.15-14

Estimated Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested after 100 Years by ROS Setting

ROS

Setting

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

P 119 2,169 1,277 1,068 1,187 1,325 117 63 346 22

SPNM 577 5,121 2,549 2,909 2,897 9,272 716 2,686 822 2,347

SPM 1,805 2,940 12,263 1,687 12,086 3,001 4,103 1,602 6,430 1,655

RN 982 2,034 2,005 1,002 2,211 312 527 643 1,283 678

RM 206,286 50,538 316,831 25,919 294,430 21,647 229,238 37,587 275,131 37,759

R and U 87 25 285 12 283 11 107 15 94 17

Unmapped 27 24 135 12 121 0 76 0 39 0

TOTAL 209,882 62,851 335,344 32,609 313,216 35,568 234,885 42,597 284,144 42,479

Notes:

P = Primitive, SPNM=Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, SPM=Semi-Primitive Motorized, RN=Roaded Natural, RM=Roaded 

Modified, R and U=Rural and Urban 1 The total acres shown in this table are slightly lower than the Forest-wide total because the ROS inventory does not include 

the entire Forest.

Recreational visitors with an expectation of a remote experience would be most 

affected by timber production in Primitive, SPNM, and SPM settings. In terms of 

maximum acres likely to be harvested after 100 years, Alternatives 2 and 3 would 

involve the largest amount of young-growth harvest in these three ROS settings

(Table 3.15-14). Alternatives 5, 4, and 1 would all involve less young-growth 

harvest in these ROS settings, with the amount decreasing in that order. 

Alternatives 3 and 1 would include the largest amount of old-growth harvest in 

the P, SPNM, and SPM ROS settings, followed by Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 in that 

order (Table 3.15-14). As a percentage of total ROS acres, however, less than 

one percent of total Primitive, SPNM, and SPM setting acres would likely be 

harvested (young-growth or old-growth) under any of the alternatives. Similarly, 

less than 1.5 percent of total RN acres would be harvested (young-growth or oldgrowth) under any of the alternatives.

Direct and 

Indirect Effects

Recreation and Tourism 3-374 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Most harvest would occur in ROS settings where some modification of the 

natural environment is expected. Alternatives 2 and 3 have the greatest amount 

of likely young-growth harvest in the Rural and Urban setting, at 285 and 283 

acres, respectively, compared to 107 acres for Alternative 4 and less than 100 

acres for Alternatives 1 and 5 (Table 3.15-14). Young-growth harvest would be 

most heavily concentrated in the RM setting, with all alternatives allowing harvest 

of more than ten percent of existing RM acres. Alternatives 2 and 3 would allow 

the largest area of young-growth harvest in RM, at 316,831 acres (19 percent of 

total RM acres) and 294,430 acres (18 percent), respectively (Table 3.15-14). 

While less extensive, representing 3 percent or less of RM acres, old-growth 

harvest is also most concentrated in the RM setting, ranging from 21,647 acres 

under Alternative 3 to 50,538 acres under Alternative 1 (Table 3.15-14). 

Land Use Designation

The Forest Plan LUDs govern allowable uses and desired conditions on the 

Tongass, including specific designations for recreation. Table 3.15-15 presents 

the estimated maximum acres likely to be harvested after 100 years by LUD

group, LUD, and alternative. All LUDs where harvest could take place allow 

recreation access, with varying degrees of focus on the recreational experience.

Viewed by LUD, young-growth and old-growth harvest could occur in nine LUDs 

depending on the selected alternative.

The maximum acres likely to be harvested after 100 years are mostly or entirely

located in the Intensive Development (Timber Production) and Moderate 

Development (Modified Landscape and Scenic Viewshed) LUD groups under all 

five alternatives, with the majority in Timber Production and Modified Landscape 

LUDs. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 also include acres in the Natural Setting LUD 

group, with 12 percent, 11 percent, and 1 percent of total harvest acres in the 

Natural Setting LUD group, respectively. The majority (Alternatives 2 and 3) or 

all (Alternative 5) of these Natural Setting LUD group acres (9 percent, 8 percent, 

and 1 percent of the total, respectively) are located in the Old-Growth Habitat 

LUD. Other Natural Setting LUDs affected under Alternatives 2 and 3 include 

Semi-remote Recreation and Special Interest Area (Table 3.15-15). Total acres

likely to be harvested in these LUDs represent a very small share of total acres 

and were harvest to occur in these areas it would have very limited impact on the 

supply of recreational experiences allowed in these LUDs.

Recreation Places

This analysis assesses the potential effects of the proposed alternatives on 

recreation places based on the estimated maximum acres of young-growth and 

old-growth likely to be harvested after 100 years. In general, timber harvest can 

have adverse impacts on recreation places while also increasing access to some 

recreation opportunities via new road construction. Adverse impacts would be 

most pronounced in recreation places within natural setting LUDs, where 

recreationists are seeking a remote experience in a near pristine environment. 

No old-growth acres harvest is proposed within the natural setting LUD Group in 

recreation places under any alternative; however, young-growth harvest is 

proposed in natural setting LUDs under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, varying between 

alternatives and by recreation place category. For all alternatives and recreation 

places, proposed harvest is concentrated within the moderate development and 

intensive development LUD groups. Recreation places within the home range of 

communities, and those important for developed facilities, marine recreation, 

hunting, fishing, and tourism are discussed below. 

Final EIS 3-375 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.15-15

Approximate Maximum Acres Potentially Harvested after 100 Years by LUD Group and LUD

LUD Group/LUD

Estimated Maximum Harvest (Acres) Estimated Maximum Harvest (Percent of Total)

Alternative Alternative

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Intensive Development

Timber Production 189,103 219,432 210,236 189,221 220,797 69 60 60 68 68

Subtotal 189,103 219,432 210,236 189,221 220,797 69 60 60 68 68

Moderate Development

Modified Landscape 68,153 84,197 80,536 74,207 84,897 25 23 23 27 26

Scenic Viewshed 15,477 19,731 18,785 14,054 19,118 6 5 5 5 6

Subtotal 83,631 103,928 99,321 88,261 104,015 31 28 28 32 32

Natural Setting

Old-Growth Habitat 0 31,640 26,186 0 1,811 0 9 8 0 1

Semi-remote Recreation 0 6,625 7,224 0 0 0 2 2 0 0

Remote Recreation 0 360 391 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Special Interest Area 0 5,966 5,425 0 0 0 2 2 0 0

Recreation River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Scenic River 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 44,592 39,226 0 1,811 0 12 11 0 1

TOTAL 272,733 367,952 348,783 277,481 326,623 100 100 100 100 100

Recreation and Tourism 3-376 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Home Range Recreation Places

Home range recreation places are those inventoried recreation places within an 

approximate 20-mile radius from one or more communities. Estimated maximum

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest in home range recreation places 

are summarized for each alternative in Table 3.15-16. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 

include young-growth acres in natural setting LUDs within home range, ranging 

from 8,693 acres for Alternative 5 to 13,195 acres for Alternative 2. Overall, the 

total percent of home range recreation place harvest acres ranges from 3.4

percent under Alternative 4 to 4.9 percent under Alternative 2 (Table 3.15-16). 

Table 3.15-16

Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Home Range Recreation Places, by LUD Group

LUD Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Natural 

Setting 0 0 13,195 0 12,183 0 0 0 8,639 0

Moderate 

Development 21,291 6,208 31,642 3,089 28,856 2,872 24,515 3,860 27,814 4,034

Intensive 

Development 24,935 7,571 34,167 3,879 30,368 3,490 26,246 5,235 30,602 5,263

TOTAL 46,226 13,779 79,004 6,968 71,408 6,362 50,761 9,095 67,056 9,297

% of Total 

Home Range 

Acres

2.7% 0.8% 4.5 0.4 4.1 0.4 2.9 0.5 3.8 0.5

3.5 4.9 4.5 3.4 4.7

Important Recreation Places

Recreation places are identified as either important or ordinary/common based 

on five categories: facilities, marine, hunting, fishing, and tourism. Individual 

recreation places may be important for one, several, or none of these categories. 

The following sections discuss the long-term effects of the proposed alternatives 

on important recreation places by category.

Facilities. Estimated maximum acres of harvest in recreation places important 

for facilities are summarized in Table 3.15-17. The potential effects of timber 

harvest would likely vary by the type of facility. The importance of a remote 

public recreation cabin may, for example, be greatly enhanced by the solitude 

and natural scenery the area provides. This type of setting may be of only 

secondary importance for a similar cabin where the attraction might be the 

outstanding steelhead fishing in the spring or fall. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 include 

young-growth harvest acres in natural setting LUDs within recreation places 

important for facilities. Overall, a relatively small portion of recreation places 

important for facilities include estimated maximum young-growth and old-growth 

harvest acres, ranging from 1.4 percent under Alternative 1 to 2.3 percent under 

Alternative 2 (Table 3.15-17). 

Final EIS 3-377 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Table 3.15-17

Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for Facilities, by LUD

Group

LUD Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Natural 

Setting 0 0 3,609 0 3,485 0 0 0 1,555 0

Moderate 

Development 5,370 2,023 8,664 1,017 7,951 964 7,551 1,301 7,566 1,437

Intensive 

Development 6,177 1,541 9,529 796 8,737 688 8,145 1,252 8,340 1,010

TOTAL 11,548 3,564 21,801 1,813 20,173 1,651 15,696 2,552 17,462 2,447

% of Total 

Acres 

Important for 

Facilities

1.1 0.3 2.1 0.2 1.9 0.2 1.5 0.2 1.7 0.2

1.4 2.3 2.1 1.7 1.9

Marine. Estimated maximum acres of harvest in recreation places that are 

important for marine recreation are summarized in Table 3.15-18. The 

perception of naturalness and scenery are very important values among Forest 

visitors engaged in the unique marine recreation opportunities offered by the 

Tongass. Approximately 30 percent of inventoried recreation place acres are 

currently important for marine recreation activities (Table 3.15-7). Many of these 

recreation places are within the beach fringe and are allocated to the SPM ROS. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 include young-growth harvest acres in natural setting 

LUDs within recreation places important for marine recreation. Overall, the 

portion of recreation place acres important for marine recreation with potential

young-growth and old-growth harvest ranges from 2.0 percent under Alternative 

1 to 3.2 percent under Alternative 2 (Table 3.15-18). 

Table 3.15-18

Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for Marine 

Recreation, by LUD Group

LUD Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Natural 

Setting 0 0 4,881 0 5,091 0 0 0 2,066 0

Moderate 

Development 8,533 2,491 15,564 1,229 14,309 1,099 12,669 1,707 13,300 1,882

Intensive 

Development 7,736 2,457 12,727 1,188 11,843 1,423 10,950 1,616 11,097 1,470

TOTAL 16,269 4,948 33,172 2,418 31,242 2,522 23,619 3,323 26,463 3,351

% of Total 

Acres 

Important for 

Marine Rec

1.5 0.5 3.0 0.2 2.9 0.2 2.2 0.3 2.4 0.3

2.0 3.2 3.1 2.5 2.7

Hunting. Estimated maximum acres of harvest in recreation places that are 

important for hunting are summarized in Table 3.15-19. Hunters who favor 

hunting in an undisturbed, natural setting would likely prefer those alternatives 

that have the least acres of harvest in these recreation places. Hunters who 

prefer using roads and road access would generally benefit from those 

alternatives with more potential acres of harvest. Approximately 40 percent of 

inventoried recreation place acres are currently important for hunting (Table 3.15-

7). Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 include young-growth harvest acres in natural setting 

LUDs within recreation places important for hunting. Overall, the portion of 

Recreation and Tourism 3-378 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

recreation place acres important for hunting with potential young-growth and oldgrowth harvest ranges from 2.4 percent under Alternative 4 to 3.9 percent under 

Alternative 2 (Table 3.15-19). 

Table 3.15-19

Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for Hunting, by LUD

Group

LUD Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Natural Setting 0 0 9,059 0 8,211 0 0 0 5,746 0

Moderate 

Development 11,865 3,084 16,933 1,506 14,888 854 11,799 1,553 15,465 1,614

Intensive 

Development 17,895 5,596 25,854 2,770 22,269 2,238 18,801 3,261 23,403 3,336

TOTAL 29,761 8,680 51,846 4,276 45,369 3,092 30,599 4,814 44,614 4,949

% of Total 

Acres 

Important for 

Hunting

2.0 0.6 3.6 0.3 3.1 0.2 2.1 0.3 3.1 0.3

2.6 3.9 3.3 2.4 3.4

Fishing. Estimated maximum acres of harvest in recreation places that are 

important for fishing are summarized in Table 3.15-20. Approximately 13 percent 

of inventoried recreation places acres are currently important for fishing (Table 

3.15-7). Access to streams and areas immediately adjacent to streams may be 

subject to modifications, with the settings adjacent to the stream side corridors 

appearing more modified over time. Access may affect the quality of the fishing 

experience regardless of the degree of setting changes leading up to the stream. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 include young-growth harvest acres in natural setting 

LUDs within recreation places important for fishing. Overall, the portion of 

recreation place acres important for fishing with potential young-growth and oldgrowth harvest ranges from 2.2 percent under Alternative 4 to 4.2 percent under 

Alternative 2 (Table 3.15-20). 

Table 3.15-20

Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for Fishing, by LUD

Group

LUD Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Natural Setting 0 0 3,380 0 3,144 0 0 0 2,009 0

Moderate 

Development 5,974 913 9,558 446 8,025 284 5,944 457 8,217 502

Intensive 

Development 3,503 1,897 5,679 950 4,629 1,124 3,166 1,073 5,084 940

TOTAL 9,476 2,810 18,616 1,396 15,798 1,408 9,110 1,531 15,310 1,442

% of Total 

Acres 

Important for 

Fishing

2.0 0.6 3.9 0.3 3.3 0.3 1.9 0.3 3.2 0.3

2.6 4.2 3.6 2.2 3.5

Tourism. Estimated maximum acres of harvest in recreation places that are 

important for tourism are summarized in Table 3.15-21. Approximately 53

percent of inventoried recreation place acres are currently considered important 

for tourism (Table 3.15-7). Based on surveys and marketing campaigns for 

visitors, it is widely accepted that natural beauty and scenery are some of the 

principal factors attracting visitors to the region. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 include 

young-growth harvest acres in natural setting LUDs within recreation places 

Final EIS 3-379 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

important for tourism. Overall, the portion of recreation place acres important for

tourism with potential young-growth and old-growth harvest is relatively low 

under all alternatives, ranging from 1.2 percent under Alternative 4 to 1.9 percent 

under Alternative 2 (Table 3.15-21). 

Table 3.15-21

Estimated Maximum Acres of Harvest in Recreation Places Important for Tourism, by 

LUD Group

LUD Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Natural 

Setting 0 0 6,380 0 5,910 0 0 0 3,467 0

Moderate 

Development 9,841 3,210 15,260 1,592 13,323 1,025 10,934 1,544 13,234 1,670

Intensive 

Development 7,140 3,531 11,720 1,761 10,098 1,632 7,804 2,024 10,286 1,368

TOTAL 16,980 6,740 33,360 3,353 29,330 2,657 18,738 3,569 26,987 3,039

% of Acres 

Important 

for Tourism

0.9 0.4 1.7 0.2 1.5 0.1 1.0 0.2 1.4 0.2

1.3 1.9 1.6 1.2 1.6

Developed Recreation Facilities

The number of developed recreation facilities that are located within 0.5-mile of 

suitable harvest areas is shown in Table 3.15-22, broken out by LUD group (no 

harvest acres are proposed in the Wilderness LUD group). The potential effects 

of timber harvest would likely vary by the type of facility. In addition, expectations 

for the type of recreation experience would vary by LUD group. Visible timber 

harvest in natural setting LUDs may be perceived as a more severe adverse 

impact, than similar harvest located in intensive development LUDs. 

The total number of developed facilities within 0.5 mile of suitable old-growth and 

young-growth stands ranges from 180 facilities under Alternative 5 to 235 

facilities under Alternative 2 (Table 3.15-22). Alternative 2 has the most facilities 

within 0.5-mile of both suitable old-growth (124 total) and young-growth (111 

total) (Table 3.15-22). Across all alternatives, larger numbers of recreation 

facilities are within 0.5 mile of suitable acres in moderate development LUDs

than natural setting or intensive development LUDs. Recreation facilities within 

0.5 mile of young-growth or old-growth suitable acres in natural setting LUDs 

range from 38 facilities under Alternative 4 to 63 facilities under Alternative 2.

Table 3.15-22

Number of Developed Recreation Facilities within 0.5-mile of Suitable Old-Growth and 

Young-Growth Stands, by LUD Group 

LUD Group

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Young 

Growth

Old 

Growth

Natural Setting 20 27 36 27 35 22 20 18 28 12

Moderate 

Development 36 57 43 59 43 44 37 40 39 39

Intensive 

Development 29 37 32 38 32 36 26 34 29 33

Totals 85 121 111 124 110 102 83 92 96 84

206 235 212 175 180

Resident Recreational Use

As noted in the Affected Environment part of this section, resident recreation 

demand, like other forms of recreation demand, is influenced by a number of 

Recreation and Tourism 3-380 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

factors, including regional population levels, per capita participation rates, and 

recreation travel behavior. The alternatives evaluated here are unlikely to affect 

broader trends in recreation behavior, but it is possible that they could result in 

different supply-induced changes in participation. These potential changes, 

along with the potential effects of the alternatives on recreation places, would 

likely affect resident recreationists.

In the past, supply-induced changes in participation on the Tongass have been 

mainly related to changes in road systems and road access. This type of change 

in participation appears to have occurred on Prince of Wales, Wrangell, and 

Mitkof Islands, for example. In these locations, road systems developed for 

timber harvesting created an opportunity for road-related access to previously 

inaccessible recreation settings and, therefore, an opportunity for recreation 

activities involving wheeled vehicles. In addition, new roads that provide easier 

access to a wider area may create new semi-primitive opportunities that 

increases the capacity of a recreation place or creates a new recreation place. 

Over time, continuation of such new opportunities would be dependent on the 

availability of funds for road maintenance and other system management needs. 

Under all alternatives, while there would be some new road access in the long 

run, nearly all new roads constructed under the alternatives would be closed 

following harvest. These roads would, therefore, not be available for use by 

highway vehicles or high-clearance vehicles. They would, however, be available 

for access by other methods and would, as a result, have the potential to affect 

existing recreation patterns. Any potential increase in recreational access may 

be limited by the extent to which road closures include restoring the road bed to a 

more natural condition, possibly blocking or discouraging non-vehicle access as 

well. In general, new roads would be required to harvest old growth while 

reconstruction of existing closed or decommissioned roads would be required to 

harvest young growth.

Viewed at a programmatic level, changes in participation related to road systems 

and access are more likely to occur under alternatives that involve higher levels 

of projected road construction and reconstruction. Based on the miles of new 

road construction projected under each alternative and viewed at a programmatic 

level, Alternative 1 would involve the construction of most new roads over 25 

years: 281 miles of new roads versus the next highest maximum of 267 miles 

under Alternative 5. However, Alternative 1 would require much less road 

construction on decommissioned roadbeds and road reconstruction over this 

period than the other alternatives, with a maximum combined total length of 224 

miles versus 306 miles (Alternative 4) to 381 miles (Alternative 2) under the other 

alternatives. 

Viewed over 100 years, new road construction would range from 871 miles 

(Alternative 4) to 1,056 miles (Alternative 2), with road construction on 

decommissioned roadbeds and road reconstruction miles ranging from 1,315 

miles (Alternative 1) to 1,791 miles (Alternative 2). Harvest would be limited to 

areas outside Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 

and would, therefore, tend to increase road density in already roaded areas 

rather than provide new access to presently undeveloped areas. 

As the preceding discussion suggests, the trend across all alternatives is toward 

an increase in general recreation access and a corresponding decrease in 

primitive recreation opportunities. Viewed at this level, Alternative 1 would have 

the lowest impact on primitive areas and associated opportunities because no 

potential timber harvest is proposed within the existing Inventoried Roadless 

Areas (IRAs) on the Tongass and it would involve the least road construction. 

Final EIS 3-381 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the next lowest potential impacts in that order, 

as they also do not include potential harvest acres within IRAs and would involve 

fewer new road miles than Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both 

include young-growth and old-growth harvest within IRAs that could impact 

primitive recreation opportunities, and have the greatest potential road 

construction. While Alternative 3 would involve less road construction than 

Alternative 2, it would involve more timber harvest in IRAs and therefore the 

greatest potential impacts to primitive recreation opportunities. In both cases, the 

areas in IRAs expected to be harvested represent a small percentage of total IRA

acres (0.1 to 0.3 percent) (see the Inventoried Roadless Areas section). As 

discussed in the Inventoried Roadless Areas section, timber harvest and road 

construction in IRAs is not consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. Harvest and 

road constructions in IRAs would be deferred until there was a change in the 

Rule or the Tongass Roadless Rule exemption were reinstated. 

Given the programmatic nature of this planning document, it is not possible to 

predict site-specific changes that would occur under any of the alternatives. 

Potential impacts to recreation places and recreation activities in other areas 

would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and in accordance with the 

applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines under all alternatives. 

The Forest will change over time under all of the alternatives, and recreation 

demand and use patterns are also likely to change. Recreationists may respond 

to changes to specific areas and locations in three general ways. Some may 

adapt to new situations, and changes in settings will have little or no impact to 

these current Forest users. For others, change may not be acceptable, and 

these users will be displaced to other areas where the setting and use patterns 

are more in line with their expectations and needs. A third group of current 

recreationists may find that they cannot adapt to the new situation nor find 

suitable substitute areas, and as a result, substitute other leisure activities in 

place of recreating on the Forest.

Tourism

The vast majority of visitors to Southeast Alaska are cruise ship passengers, 

accounting for 85 percent of visitors to Southeast Alaska in 2011 (McDowell 

Group 2012). Future development of the tourism industry in Southeast Alaska 

and elsewhere in the United States is dependent on a wide range of factors, 

including the value of the dollar in foreign countries, the price of oil, world events 

and international unrest, and political and social change. In addition, regions like 

Southeast Alaska directly compete with other locations and activities for tourist 

dollars. As a result, changes in other tourist markets, both positive and negative, 

have the potential to affect the tourism industry in Southeast Alaska. These 

factors are, for the most part, unrelated to management of the Tongass National 

Forest.

While it is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of tourism activity in the 

region is related to the natural environment, many visitors experience the 

Tongass passively—from the deck of a cruise ship, for example—without directly 

using the Forest for recreation purposes. Effects to this type of visitor would 

depend on the level of visibility of proposed timber production along cruise ship 

and other marine corridors. According to the analysis in the Scenery section, 

harvest areas under Alternatives 1 and 4 would be the least visible to viewers 

from waterways, while harvest under Alternative 2 would be the most visible. 

See the Scenery section for detailed impact discussions by viewshed and 

alternative. 

Recreation and Tourism 3-382 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Cruise ships have heavily marketed Forest-related activities in recent years, and 

many passengers take at least one trip to the Forest during their visit. As 

discussed in the affected environment portion of this section, the tourism industry 

and outfitter/guides in Southeast Alaska offer a wide spectrum of recreation 

activities, ranging from guided bear hunting through helicopter tours and guided 

wildlife-viewing boat tours. Viewed in terms of Forest management, the 

requirements of these activities are often at odds with one another. Some 

activities require developed facilities, utilities, and easy access, while others 

require vast and remote areas in a natural setting, with outfitter/guides providing 

only the basic essentials for their clients. 

There are indications that demand exceeds supply in some recreation places, 

especially those used more extensively by tourist operators and outfitter/guides. 

Activities that are presently near or at capacity include bear-viewing areas and 

helicopter use in the immediate vicinity of urban areas. Other areas may be able 

to accommodate current levels of tourism and potential increases in the future 

without negatively affecting the tourist experience or causing detrimental 

environmental effects. The number of visitors cruising the Inside Passage or 

viewing Mendenhall Glacier may, for example, be sustainable at current and 

future levels of use (Schroeder et al. 2005). 

Management practices for specific areas, such as limiting the number of visitors 

by permit, would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis and in 

accordance with the applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines under all 

alternatives. 

Assuming that the volume of tourists remains at its current level or more 

substantially recovers from the recession-induced dip during the late 2000s, the 

overall recreation trend would likely be toward more group experiences on the 

Tongass and fewer opportunities for solitude and isolation in natural areas close 

to cruise ship stops.

Renewable Energy Development

All renewable energy development projects built and operated in Southeast 

Alaska have to meet detailed local, state and, in most cases, federal laws, 

regulations, and requirements. Projects are also subject to Tongass National 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The Forest Plan identifies three types of 

area related to energy development on the Tongass based on the existing LUDs: 

windows, which represent areas potentially available for energy development; 

avoidance areas; and exclusion areas. Avoidance areas are those LUDs where 

development of energy projects are inconsistent with land use management 

objectives and desired future conditions. Alternative locations in other LUDs 

must be exhausted before facilities are considered in avoidance areas. LUDs 

classified as windows and avoidance areas make up 38 percent and 62 percent 

of the Forest, respectively. There are no exclusion areas on the Tongass due to 

special authorities provided in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act, Title XI. These classifications and the standards and guidelines in the 

current Forest Plan would continue to apply under Alternative 1. Under 

Alternatives 2 through 5, renewable energy sites would be managed under the 

new Renewable Energy Plan Components identified in Chapter 5 of the Forest 

Plan amendment. This is discussed in more detail in the Renewable Energy 

section of this EIS.

The Forest Service has identified 11 proposed renewable energy projects in 

Southeast Alaska that are currently active (Table 3.12b-3). Five of these 

proposed projects would be located in important recreation places. All five 

Final EIS 3-383 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

projects are located within recreation places important for tourism, four are within 

home range recreation places or places important for facilities, and one is within 

a place important for marine and hunting recreation. 

In addition, two developed recreation sites are within 0.5 mile of a proposed 

renewable energy project: the Swan Lake boat dock and the marine access point 

at Indian River. The proposed renewable energy projects are further discussed 

in in the Renewable Energy section of this EIS.

Effects from the proposed projects on recreation would depend on site-specific 

plans. In general, project activities that would impact recreation could include 

new access road construction, forest clearing, ground disturbance, temporary 

construction noise, temporary (construction) or long-term (operations) access 

restrictions, and visual impacts depending on the location and design features. 

Any associated transmission lines could also impact recreation areas and 

activities through forest clearing and potential additional road construction. All 

potential impacts to specific recreation resources would be addressed during the 

permitting and licensing of the projects, including National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) assessment. 

This section considers the incremental effects of the alternatives when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The effects of past and 

present actions on recreation are included in the Affected Environment portion of 

this section, which discusses current recreation facilities and activities on the 

Tongass. Past actions include past timber harvest and road building that has 

facilitated roaded recreation and changed ROS settings, as well as the 

development of recreation facilities, such as cabins, campgrounds, interpretive 

sites, and visitor centers. Present actions include the impacts of current 

management policies on existing recreation patterns, particularly those that are 

authorized by special use permits. 

Despite the recent recession-related drop, the number of cruise ship passengers 

visiting the region remains a significant source of current and future recreation 

demand on the Tongass. Current recreation patterns on the Tongass also reflect 

past timber harvest and road building activities on adjacent private and Native 

corporation lands, as well as wildland recreation opportunities on federal- and 

state-managed lands elsewhere in the region.

Reasonably foreseeable actions on NFS lands include the projected levels of 

future timber harvest and renewable energy development that are used in the 

preceding analysis to assess the potential impacts of the alternatives on the 

supply of recreation opportunities and recreation use and demand.

Other reasonably foreseeable actions include regional transportation 

development as defined by the State Transportation Plan and the Forest Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as road paving on 

Prince of Wales Island, the closing of roads, and construction of the Angoon

Airport. In addition, the expansion of cities like Juneau and Ketchikan, 

recreational cabin development, and land auctions by the State could include 

additional road construction. Appendix C provides a full list of all the projects 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

It is not possible at this time to predict exactly which roads would be developed or 

their likely impact on future recreation patterns. None of the alternatives is 

expected to affect this type of future road development, which would be expected 

to go or not go forward regardless of the selected alternative. The overall 

cumulative effect of new regional road corridors viewed in conjunction with the 

Cumulative 

Effects

Recreation and Tourism 3-384 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Forest Plan alternatives would be a trend toward the roaded end of the ROS

spectrum that would be highest under Alternative 2 and lowest under Alternative 1. 

Other reasonably foreseeable future actions include an expected growth in 

recreation and tourism businesses based on recovery in the cruise ship industry, 

as well as the development of additional fishing and other lodges. This type of 

development would facilitate additional recreation and tourism in the region and 

on the Forest. Human settlement expansion is expected to occur around the 

region’s larger cities, such as Juneau and Sitka, with residential expansion also 

expected as a result of state land auctions. These developments would likely 

result in increased demand for a range of recreation activities, with some 

developments favoring developed recreation opportunities, and others more 

dependent on undeveloped lands.

Mining activities are expected to expand at existing sites, including Greens Creek 

on Admiralty Island and Kensington Gold Mine north of Juneau, as well as 

possible future sites, including the Bokan Mountain and Niblack sites on the 

southern end of Prince of Wales Island. Mining projects are for the most part 

expected to have a negative effect on recreation activities, because most 

recreational activities are incompatible with these types of land use. 

As stated in a number of locations in this section, recreation and tourism in 

Southeast Alaska and on the Tongass is influenced by a number of factors that 

are largely independent of forest management decisions. Future recreation and 

tourism demand is difficult to predict with any precision and no attempt is made 

to quantify future demand in this section. The number of cruise ship visitors to 

the region is generally expected to remain at current levels or continue to 

increase, but there is uncertainty that this will be the case for the foreseeable 

future.

Likely impacts to the supply of recreation opportunities on the Forest are easier 

to project, as they are directly affected by management decisions, at least to the 

extent that proposed harvest levels and renewable energy projects affect 

different types of recreation. Much of the analysis in this section is based on this 

relationship, which allows a comparison between alternatives over time.

Changes in Southeast Alaska’s climate (discussed in the Climate and Air section) 

could affect recreation and tourism in the region in the future. Many tourists 

visiting the region travel long distances from across the United States, as well as 

from other countries. Many tourists arriving by cruise ships travel a considerable 

distance by air before even boarding the cruise ship in Seattle, Vancouver, or 

elsewhere. Others travel directly to Southeast Alaska via air. Future regulatory 

or market-based pressures to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gases 

could affect the level of visitation to the region.

Recreation activities could also be directly affected by global warming, with, for 

example, fewer winter recreation opportunities available and for shorter periods 

of time. Climate change could also affect recreational fishing through changes in 

biodiversity and water levels, as well as changes in the length of season and 

user experience (Kelly et al. 2007).

Risk and 

Uncertainty

Final EIS 3-385 Recreation and Tourism
3 Environment and Effects

This page is intentionally left blank.

Recreation and Tourism 3-386 Final EIS
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-387 Scenery

Scenery

Affected Environment...............................................................................3-387

Existing Scenic Integrity .......................................................................3-388

Environmental Consequences ................................................................3-390

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Forest-wide Effects ...........................3-391

Effects on Selected Viewsheds......................................................3-396

Renewable Energy Development ..................................................3-415

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-415

Affected Environment

The Tongass National Forest offers a variety of scenery to its visitors, from 

spectacular mountain ranges and the glaciers of the mainland to low-lying marine 

landscapes composed of intricate waterways, bays, and island groups. The 

Forest is viewed from a variety of vantage points, including the communities of 

Southeast Alaska, the Alaska Marine Highway ferry route, cruise ship routes, 

existing road systems, popular small boat routes and anchorages, developed 

recreation sites and facilities, and hiking trails. Tourist-related flight seeing via 

small aircraft is increasing in popularity and provides aerial views of the forest 

landscape. 

The Forest Service developed a Visual Management System (VMS) in 1974 to 

integrate aesthetic considerations into large-scale resource management 

decisions. Due to advances in technology, as well as the increased demand for 

high-quality scenery, the Scenery Management System (SMS) was released in 

1996. The SMS integrates the increased understanding of ecosystem processes

and cultural landscapes in identifying the effects of various management 

practices on scenic resources. The SMS was used in this analysis to inventory 

existing scenic resources, provide measurable scenic quality management 

objectives for each portion of the landscape, and estimate the landscape’s

sensitivity based on the visibility from priority travelways and use areas. 

In order to apply SMS to the Forest, a viewshed analysis of the entire Tongass 

National Forest was completed using the Tongass Geographic Information 

System (GIS) for the 2008 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)

Amendment. The analysis was completed separately for each Ranger District. 

Step one involved identifying the Visual Priority Routes (VPRs) and use areas

(listed in Appendix F of the 2008 Forest Plan). These are the major points from

which people view the forest. They include the Alaska Marine Highway; cruise 

ship and small boat routes; major roads, trails, and anchorages; and important 

recreation areas on the land. The viewshed analysis identified points at regular 

intervals along the VPRs and use areas. Each viewpoint along a route was 

assigned a viewing height from which a person would observe the forest. For 

example, the average height of a person was selected for the viewing height 

along a hiking trail, and the height of the cruise ship's deck was used for the 

cruise ship route. Each cell in the digital elevation model was evaluated for 

visibility from each of the points along each VPR and use area. Visibility was 

assessed separately for each marine viewpoint and land viewpoint.

The second phase of the analysis identified distance zones, breaking the visible 

areas into foreground, middleground, and background from each viewpoint, 

based on distance. Foreground is the visible area within 0.5 mile of a VPR;

background is the visible area greater than 5 miles and less than 15 miles from a 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-388 Final EIS

VPR; and middleground is the visible area between foreground and background

of a VPR. Areas more than 15 miles from any viewpoint and those not seen from 

any of the VPRs or Use Areas were considered seldom seen. Distance zones 

were also assessed separately for land and water viewpoints. The final layers for 

each Ranger District were generated by combining the results from the marine 

analysis and the land analysis. Any point that was visible from either a land or 

marine viewpoint was considered visible in the final layer. Any area that was 

foreground from either a land or marine viewpoint was considered foreground, 

and any land that was only background from either a land or marine viewpoint 

became background. All other visible land became middleground. Any areas not 

seen from any viewpoints are referred to as unseen or seldom seen. The 

distance zones were subsequently overlaid with the land use designations 

(LUDs) to generate the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) (refer to the Forestwide standards and guidelines in the Tongass Land and Resource Management 

Plan for details on how SIOs were determined for each LUD).

The existing scenic resources of the Tongass encompass everything from vast 

tracts unmodified by human activity to extensive areas of heavily modified 

landscapes. Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) ratings are used by the Forest 

Service to analyze the degree of intactness of the landscape character. These 

ratings are used to categorize the degree of alteration visible in the landscape on 

a continuum from a natural setting to a heavily altered landscape. The ratings 

apply to the broad landscape affected, not just the acres altered. As described 

below, ESI ratings range over six levels of integrity, from Very High to 

Unacceptably Low. 

• Very High—Landscapes where the valued landscape character is intact with 

only minute deviations, if any. The existing landscape character and sense 

of place is expressed at the highest possible level. 

• High—Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears intact. 

Deviations may be present, but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and 

pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale 

that they are not evident.

• Moderate—Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears 

slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to 

the landscape character being viewed.

• Low—Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears 

moderately altered. Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape 

character being viewed, but they borrow valued attributes such as size, 

shape, edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes 

or architectural styles outside the landscape being viewed. They should not 

only appear as valued character outside the landscape being viewed, but 

compatible or complimentary to the character within.

• Very Low—Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears 

heavily altered. Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape 

character. They may not borrow from valued attributes such as size, shape, 

edge effect and pattern of natural openings, vegetative type changes, or 

architectural styles within or outside the landscape being viewed. 

• Unacceptably Low—Landscapes where the valued landscape character 

being viewed appears extremely altered. Deviations are extremely dominant 

and borrow little if any form, line, color, texture, pattern or scale from the 

landscape character. 

Existing Scenic 

Integrity
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-389 Scenery

Table 3.16-1 displays the percent of acres of each ESI for the Tongass. In this 

and succeeding tables, a breakdown between “seen” and “seldom seen” areas is 

presented. Seen areas are those areas that can be viewed in the foreground, 

middleground, or background from inventoried VPR and Use Areas with a 

concern level of 1 or 2, the travelways and use areas with the highest number of 

users. Seldom seen areas are all the rest of the Forest. The ESI for wilderness 

is also included in this table. Approximately 88 percent of the Tongass is rated 

as a Very High ESI, which is a visually unaltered condition. About 10 percent of 

the land is rated as Low, Very Low, or Unacceptably Low, which indicates 

noticeable development activity. The remainder of the Forest is rated as High or 

Moderate. Some of the wilderness acres have a High or lower rating. This is 

mostly due to the landscape effect of developments adjacent to wilderness and 

past development activities within wildernesses. 

Table 3.16-1

The Existing Scenic Integrity of the Tongass National Forest (percent)

ESI Rating Very High/High Moderate Low Very Low

Unacceptably Low

Seen 26.5 1.0 2.5 4.2 0.1

Seldom seen 27.1 0.2 0.9 1.9 0.1

Wilderness 34.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotals 87.7 1.3 3.6 6.1 0.2

Note: Numbers are GIS estimates and are not exact. Columns and rows may not sum exactly due to 

rounding. Less than 1 percent of the Forest is unclassified.

Under the 1997 Forest Plan, all land has a designated LUD, which guides the 

types and intensity of development actions. The LUDs designate the SIOs for 

each area, which define the degree to which the natural landscape can be 

altered, and provide guidelines for timber harvest, road building, and other 

activities to ensure they are conducted in a way that allows the scenic objectives 

to be achieved. A LUD may have different SIOs depending on the distance zone 

(foreground, middleground, background) in which the development activity is to 

take place. SIOs are classified using the same terms outlined above for ESI: 

Very High, High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low. The Unacceptably Low rating is 

only used to inventory existing conditions and cannot be used as a management 

objective.

• The current adopted SIOs for all land within the Tongass are displayed in 

Table 3.16-2. This table separates the percent of acres of each SIO into five 

categories: foreground, middleground, background, seldom seen, and other 

(municipal watersheds and non-wilderness national monuments where the 

SIO is determined on a project-by-project basis). The Very High SIO is 

typically assigned to wilderness; however, it is not used for Tongass 

wilderness because of the potential alterations allowed under the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In reality, the vast 

majority of wilderness acreage will be managed through the specific 

wilderness plans with a Very High SIO. Thus, over 60 percent of the 

Tongass is to be managed at the High or Very High Scenic Integrity level.

• Demand for scenic quality can best be represented by the increase in 

tourist-related travel to the Tongass, as well as a heightened awareness and 

sensitivity of Alaskan residents to scenic resource values. These facts result 

in a strong indirect connection between scenic resource values and the 

economy of Southeast Alaska. For example, Southeast Alaska’s Inside 

Passage is advertised and promoted by the Division of Tourism, cruise ship 

operators, and the Southeast Alaska Tourism Council. Their marketing 

strategy focuses on the scenery of the Tongass National Forest as a major 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-390 Final EIS

attraction. The visitors to Southeast Alaska would, therefore, arrive with 

expectations and an image of the environment and scenery awaiting them. If 

current trends continue, demand for viewing scenic landscapes will increase. 

A report published by the Alaska Department of Community and Economic 

Development show that the largest number of visitors (1.96 million) for 2013-

2014 was 5,000 more than the last record set in 2007-2008. This increase 

also represents a 6 percent increase over 2012-2013.

Table 3.16-2

Adopted Scenic Integrity Objectives for the Tongass (percent)

Scenic Integrity Objective

High Moderate Low Very Low Other1

Foreground 7.7 3.6 1.4 0.1 0.1

Middleground 18.3 7.2 2.3 6.0 0.1

Background 0.8 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0

Seldom seen 33.9 8.8 0.5 6.9 0.1

Unmapped 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3

Total 60.7 20.0 4.2 13.1 0.6 1 Includes land in the Municipal Watershed and Non-wilderness National Monument LUDs. SIOs in 

these LUDs are to be determined on a project-by-project basis. Generally, the High SIO will be 

met. 

Source: USDA Forest Service, GIS. Numbers are not exact and may not sum correctly due to 

rounding.

Lands adjacent to the Alaska Marine Highway, cruise ship routes, flight-seeing 

routes, high-use recreation areas, and other marine and land-based travel routes 

will be seen by more people, more frequently, and for greater duration. 

Environmental Consequences

The Tongass has adopted specific management objectives for scenic resources 

(i.e., SIOs) for each LUD in the Forest. The adopted SIOs indicate the desired or 

acceptable level of human-induced alteration to the valued landscape character. 

Harvest of old growth would follow the SIOs of the 2008 Forest Plan for all 

alternatives. However, Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, have relaxed these SIOs for 

young-growth harvest in order to increase the availability of young growth,

especially in the first few decades. In other words, these alternatives have 

reduced SIOs in viewsheds where young growth is to be harvested. As a result, 

the current SIO designated for the LUD in which young-growth harvest takes 

place, is not likely to be met in many cases. Each alternative described in this 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would, if implemented, maintain or alter 

the visual character of the landscape to varying degrees. By varying the degree 

of change in SIOs for the harvest of young-growth, the alternatives would result 

in different amounts of land managed under each SIO. The adopted SIOs for 

young growth are, therefore, the units used to measure potential change in visual 

resources for each alternative.

Adopted SIOs can be thought of as an indicator of long-term cumulative effects. 

SIOs are adopted to provide a threshold for the amount of modification to the 

landscape during land altering activities; therefore, land may have an adopted 

SIO of Low, but currently meet the High SIO.

The potential effects to the scenic resource are primarily described in the 

following three ways:

1. A display of acres of each SIO adopted for suitable young growth, along with 

LUD and distance zone, for each alternative. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-391 Scenery

2. A display of the number of acres of SIO Changes for suitable young growth 

and the degree of change (e.g., from Moderate to Low) for each alternative.

3. A display of the effects of each alternative on a selected group of key 

viewsheds throughout the Tongass.

Effects associated with renewable energy development are also addressed. 

Table 3.16-3 displays the acres of suitable young growth in each SIO that would 

result from the five alternatives. Table 3.16-3 also shows the acres under each 

alternative and SIO that would be located within different LUDs and distance 

zones. Distance zones stratify the landscape into seen areas and unseen areas, 

relative to inventoried travelways and use areas. The seen areas are stratified 

further into foreground, middleground, and background zones. The acres 

displayed for Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 4 are based on the current 

mix of adopted SIOs because these alternatives include no SIO changes. 

Alternative 2 relaxes the SIO for young-growth harvest to Very Low, no matter 

what the SIO is currently. Alternative 3 would relax the SIO for young-growth 

harvest by one level in all LUDs, except in Timber Production. The Timber 

Production LUD SIOs would not change (i.e., Low in the Foreground and Very 

Low in the Middleground and Background). This is because the currently 

prescribed SIO of Low in the foreground is already very permissive (up to 60-

acre clearcut) and probably in concert with anticipated unit sizes. Alternative 5 

would relax the SIOs for young-growth harvest to Very Low, no matter what the 

SIO is currently, in all development LUDs. However, Alternative 5 also includes 

harvest in the Old Growth Habitat LUD and there would be no change in the SIO 

for this LUD (it would remain High).

Alternatives 2 and 3 include no acres designated as High SIO for young growth. 

Alternative 5 would include acreage designated as High SIO because it does not 

change SIOs in the Old Growth Habitat LUD. Alternative 2 would include no 

acreage designated as Moderate or Low SIO either; all acres would be 

designated Very Low. Alternative 3 on the other hand, would include almost 40 

percent in Moderate and Low (Table 3.16-3).

A more direct way to assess the relative effects of the alternatives on scenic 

integrity is to compare the area under each alternative where the SIO would 

change and the degree of this change. This analysis is presented in Table 3.16-

4.

Table 3.16-4 demonstrates again that Alternatives 1 and 4 would result in no 

changes to SIOs. The alternative with the most significant changes is Alternative 

2, which would result in about 102,000 acres changing from High or Moderate to 

Very Low. The next most significant change would be with Alternative 5, which 

would result in about 46,000 acres changing from High or Moderate to Very Low. 

Alternative 3 would not result in any acres dropping more than one level.

Direct, Indirect, 

and Cumulative 

Forest-wide 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-392 Final EIS

Table 3.16-3

Scenery Integrity Objectives for Suitable Young Growth by LUD, Distance Zone, and 

Alternative (percent)

Scenery Integrity Objectives

High Moderate Low Very Low Other1 Total

Alternative 1

Timber Production

Foreground

Middleground

15%

34%

15%

34%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 20% 20%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 15% 55% + 70%

Modified Landscape

Foreground

Middleground

9%

13%

9%

13%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 4% 4%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 9% 13% 4% + 26%

Scenic Viewshed

Foreground

Middleground

2%

2%

2%

2%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 2% 2% 0% 0% + 5%

Total 2% 11% 28% 59% + 100%

Suitable Acres 5,721 29,773 73,382 154,970 30 263,905 

Alternative 2

Timber Production

Foreground 13% 13%

Middleground 27% 27%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 18% 18%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 0% 58% 0% 58%

Modified Landscape

Foreground 9% 9%

Middleground 11% 11%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 3% 3%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 0% 23% 0% 23%

Scenic Viewshed

Foreground 3% 3%

Middleground 2% 2%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas + +

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5%

Non-Development 

LUDs

Foreground 6% 6%

Middleground 5% 5%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 3% 3%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 14%

Total 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%

Suitable Acres 0 0 0 374,712 0 374,712
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-393 Scenery

Table 3.16-3 (continued)

Scenery Integrity Objectives for Suitable Young Growth by LUD, Distance Zone, and 

Alternative (percent)

Scenery Integrity Objectives

High Moderate Low Very Low Other1 Total

Alternative 3

Timber Production

Foreground

Middleground

13%

28%

13%

28%

Background

Seldom Seen Areas 17% 16%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 13% 45% + 58%

Modified Landscape

Foreground

Middleground

9%

11%

9%

11%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 3% 3%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 9% 14% + 23%

Scenic Viewshed

Foreground

Middleground

2%

2%

2%

2%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas + +

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 3% 2% + + 5%

Non-Development 

LUDs

Foreground

Middleground

4%

5%

1% 6%

5%

Background + + +

Seldom Seen Areas 3% + 3%

Unmapped Areas + + +

Subtotal 0% 11% 1% 0% 0% 14%

Total 0% 13% 26% 59% 0% 100%

Suitable Acres 0 48,355 93,866 207,574 75 349,870 

Alternative 4

Timber Production

Foreground 16% 16%

Middleground 33% 33%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 19% 19%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 16% 52% + 68%

Modified Landscape

Foreground 11% 11%

Middleground 12% 12%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 3% 3%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 11% 12% 3% + 27%

Scenic Viewshed

Foreground 2% 2%

Middleground 2% 2%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 0%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 2% 2% 0% 0% + 5%

Total 2% 13% 29% 56% 0% 100%

Suitable Acres 6,315 35,015 75,540 146,763 75 263,708 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-394 Final EIS

Table 3.16-3 (continued)

Scenery Integrity Objectives for Suitable Young Growth by LUD, Distance Zone, and 

Alternative (percent)

Scenery Integrity Objectives

High Moderate Low Very Low Other1 Total

Alternative 5

Timber Production

Foreground

Middleground

14%

28%

14%

28%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 18% 18%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 0% 61% 0% 61%

Modified Landscape

Foreground

Middleground

9%

11%

9%

11%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 3% 3%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 9% 24% 0% 24%

Scenic Viewshed

Foreground

Middleground

3%

2%

3%

2%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 0%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5%

Non-Development 

LUDs (OG Habitat)

Foreground

Middleground

4%

4%

4%

4%

Background + +

Seldom Seen Areas 2% 2%

Unmapped Areas + +

Subtotal 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10%

Total 10% 0% 0% 90% 0% 100%

Suitable Acres 35,537 0 0 303,436 0 338,974 1 Consists of unmapped areas.

Note: Numbers are based on GIS estimates and are not exact due to rounding.

Table 3.16-4

SIO Changes in Estimated Suitable Young Growth Forest Land for 

Each Alternative 

SIO

Alternatives

1 2 3 4 5

No Changes

High 5,751 6,315 35,537

Moderate 29,773 35,015

Low 73,382 75,540

Very Low 154,970 234,285 168,043 146,763 170,995

Unmapped 30 75 75 38

Subtotal 263,905 234,285 168,118 263,708 206,570

Changes

High to Moderate 50,313

High to Very Low 9,611 8,781

Moderate to Low 47,398

Moderate to Very 

Low

41,670 38,255

Low to Very Low 89,146 84,041 85,369

Subtotal 0 140,427 181,752 0 132,405

Total Suitable 263,905 374,712 349,870 263,708 338,974

Note: Numbers are based on GIS estimates and are not exact. Columns do not sum correctly due to rounding.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-395 Scenery

Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would result in the largest acreage of old-growth 

harvest. An estimated 38,527 acres would be harvested in the first 25 years and 

62,851 acres would be harvested in 100 years. The 25-year harvest level is 62

percent more than the next highest old-growth harvest among the alternatives. 

Harvest of old growth would follow the SIOs under the 2008 Forest Plan so the 

SIOs would be met.

Young-growth harvest levels are estimated to be 9,669 acres in the first 25 years 

and 209,882 acres after 100 years. Both of these harvest levels are the lowest 

among the alternatives. Furthermore, young-growth harvest would follow the 

SIOs under the 2008 Forest Plan with this alternative. This alternative is ranked 

comparable to Alternative 4 and these two alternatives are expected to have the 

lowest visual impacts among the alternatives. 

Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, old-growth harvest levels would be lowest 

among the alternatives. An estimated 15,027 acres would be harvested in the 

first 25 years and 32,609 acres would be harvested in 100 years. This amounts 

to 39 and 52 percent of the Alternative 1 old-growth harvest, respectively. In 

addition, as in Alternative 1, harvest of old growth would follow the SIOs under 

the 2008 Forest Plan so the SIOs would be met after harvest. 

In contrast, young-growth harvest levels are estimated to be 63,787 acres in the 

first 25 years and 335,344 acres after 100 years. Both of these harvest levels 

are the highest among the alternatives. In addition, young-growth harvest would 

be subject to the lowest SIOs among the alternatives – all SIOs would be Very 

Low. About 37 percent of the current SIO acreage covering these harvests 

would need to be reduced to achieve the Very Low SIO. Also, this alternative 

permits young-growth harvest in most non-development LUDs. Therefore, even 

though this alternative would result in the lowest old-growth harvest acreage, its 

visual impacts are likely to be the highest among the alternatives. It is likely that 

many areas across the Forest will not comply with the SIOs associated with their 

underlying LUDs, because of young-growth harvest under this alternative.

Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, old-growth harvest levels would be almost as 

low as Alternative 2. An estimated 16,599 acres would be harvested in the first 

25 years and 35,568 acres would be harvested in 100 years. This amounts to 43 

and 57 percent of the Alternative 1 old-growth harvest, respectively. In addition, 

as in Alternative 1, harvest of old growth would follow the SIOs under the 2008 

Forest Plan so the current SIOs would be met after harvest. 

As in Alternative 2, young-growth harvest levels would be relatively high,

estimated to be 53,734 acres in the first 25 years and 313,216 acres after 100 

years. Both of these harvest levels are the second highest among the 

alternatives. Young-growth harvest would be subject to reductions in SIOs – all 

SIOs would be reduced one level except in the Timber Production LUD, which 

includes about 58 percent of the projected harvest. Therefore, the SIOs for 

about 52 percent of the projected harvest would be reduced by one level. This 

alternative would be similar to Alternative 5 in terms of overall visual impacts. 

Alternative 4. Alternative 4 would have old-growth harvest levels lower than 

Alternatives 1, higher than Alternatives 2 and 3, and comparable to Alternative 5. 

An estimated 23,255 acres would be harvested in the first 25 years and 42,597 

acres would be harvested in 100 years. This amounts to 60 and 68 percent of 

the Alternative 1 old-growth harvest, respectively. In addition, as in Alternative 1, 

harvest of old growth would follow the SIOs under the 2008 Forest Plan so the 

SIOs would be met after harvest. 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-396 Final EIS

Young-growth harvest levels would be second lowest among the alternatives; 

estimated to be 40,760 acres in the first 25 years and 234,885 acres after 100 

years. Young-growth harvest would be subject to the SIOs of the 2008 Forest 

Plan, so the current SIOs would be met after harvest. As a result, this

alternative, along with Alternative 1 would be likely to have the lowest visual 

impacts among the alternatives. 

Alternative 5. Alternative 5 would have very similar old-growth harvest levels as 

Alternative 4. An estimated 23,813 acres would be harvested in the first 25 years 

and 42,479 acres would be harvested in 100 years. This amounts to 62 and 68 

percent of the Alternative 1 old-growth harvest, respectively. As in Alternative 1, 

harvest of old growth would follow the SIOs under the 2008 Forest Plan so the 

SIOs would be met after harvest. 

Young-growth harvest levels would also be very similar to Alternative 4; 

estimated to be 43,316 acres in the first 25 years and 284,144 acres after 100 

years. Young-growth harvest would be subject to the SIOs of the current Forest 

Plan in the Old Growth Habitat LUD, but would be reduced to Very Low in the 

development LUDs. As a result, the SIOs on about 39 percent of the projected 

young-growth harvest would be reduced to the Very Low SIO level. This 

alternative would be similar to Alternative 3 in terms of overall visual impacts 

Effects on Selected Viewsheds 

To help focus the visual effects on more familiar areas, the alternatives were also 

analyzed by selected large viewsheds in the Tongass. These 23 viewsheds 

were selected for their popularity and intensity of public use and travel and are 

the same as those analyzed in the EIS associated with the 1997 Forest Plan 

Revision (USDA Forest Service 1997a) and in the EIS associated with the 2008 

Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2008b). They technically 

represent a series of viewsheds along a travelway and take in entire Value 

Comparison Units (VCUs). Table 3.16-5 compares the percentage of land in 

each SIO on suitable young-growth acres under the five alternatives for each of 

the viewsheds. The table also includes the total suitable young-growth acres, the 

suitable acres potentially old enough to be harvested in the first decade, and the 

acreage of the viewshed. Acres that are seldom seen or unseen from any 

viewpoint along the travelway are excluded from each of these categories. 

For two reasons, only the SIOs of young-growth acres are compared in this table 

in order to emphasize the differences among the alternatives. First, the SIOs for 

suitable young growth change in some alternatives while the SIOs for suitable old 

growth do not change. Secondly, the acres of young growth to be harvested 

over time are much higher than the acres of old growth and old-growth harvest 

over the next 100 years represents a small percentage (9 to 20 percent) of the 

suitable old growth.

While the previous section of this effects analysis summarized overall effects by 

alternative, this section is intended to be a viewshed-specific assessment of 

effects. As such, it takes into account past harvest and represents a cumulative 

assessment of scenery effects Listed below are some summary points that can 

be observed from the viewshed-specific assessment:

• Five of the 23 viewsheds (Hyder/Salmon River Highway, Icy Strait, Lynn 

Canal, Mendenhall Glacier, and Salmon Bay Lake) do not include any 

suitable young growth of harvestable age during the first decade, in any 

alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-397 Scenery

• Two of the 23 viewsheds (Hyder/Salmon River Highway and Mendenhall 

Glacier) do not include any suitable young growth in any alternatives.

• In most viewsheds, the highest effects on scenery would be associated with 

Alternative 2, followed by Alternative 5, followed by Alternative 3, followed by 

Alternative 1 or 4. This is based on the percentage of the viewshed that 

consists of suitable young growth and the changes in SIOs.

• Viewsheds with the highest potential for effects during the first decade 

include Behm Canal (West), Carroll Inlet, Clarence Strait, and Sumner Strait, 

based on the percentage of the viewshed consisting of suitable young growth 

that is harvestable in the first decade, the total amount of suitable young 

growth, and the extent of past harvest.

Behm Canal (West)

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Behm Canal, because it would 

have the highest acreage with SIO changes (84 percent), the highest acreage in 

which the SIO would drop by two levels, and the highest level of young-growth 

harvest. Alternative 5 would have the second highest effects with 75 percent of 

the suitable acres with SIO changes and 15 percent dropping two levels. 

Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in terms of scenery effects overall.

In some areas, particularly on the Revilla Island side of the west Canal, existing 

harvest is likely near the level allowed by the adopted SIOs. Additional harvest 

may need to be deferred in some areas in the coming decade depending on the 

SIO prescribed by the alternative; however, the number of young-growth acres of 

harvestable age within the next decade is limited, ranging from 866 to 2,485 

acres (Table 3.16-5). A high portion of these acres are along the beach fringe in 

all alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning is allowed in 

Alternatives 3 and 4. Thinning is expected to have little impact because it 

creates a fine patchwork of openings (less than 2 acres); this fine pattern would 

not be very noticeable and would become less noticeable after a short period. 

Clearcutting and patch cutting, with up to 10-acre openings, are allowed in 

Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively. A 200-foot shoreline buffer would be 

maintained in Alternative 5, which would help conceal the opening created by 

clearcuts. Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a lesser 

degree, could have localized high effects during the first few decades. Overall 

harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under the existing 

Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested 

under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Carroll Inlet

As with Behm Canal, Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of 

suitable young growth in the viewshed. In addition, neither of these two 

alternatives would change SIOs relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). 

Alternative 4 would have fewer suitable old-growth acres compared with 

Alternative 1, so it would likely have the lowest visual impact among all 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-398 Final EIS

alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would permit the highest level of oldgrowth harvest, it represents only 20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 

Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Carrol Inlet, because it would have 

the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (73 percent),

the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (29 percent), 

and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the second 

highest effects with 71 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes and 25 

percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in terms 

of scenery effects overall.

Carroll Inlet has experienced relatively heavy past harvest and existing harvest is 

likely near the level allowed by the adopted SIOs in some areas. Additional 

harvest may need to be deferred in localized areas in the coming decade

depending on the SIO prescribed by the alternative; however, the number of 

young-growth acres of harvestable age within the next decade is limited, ranging 

from 109 to 592 acres (Table 3.16-5). A high portion of these acres are scattered 

along the beach fringe in all alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial 

thinning (low scenery impacts) is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 

4, but clearcutting and patch cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in 

Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would 

be maintained in Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and 

Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could have localized moderate effects during the 

first few decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower 

than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old 

growth to be harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5

Chatham Strait (West side)

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Chatham Strait, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (59 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (34 

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 29 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 2 percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in 

terms of scenery effects overall.

Chatham Strait has experienced relatively high past harvest but much of it is in 

seldom seen areas. Further, the number of young-growth acres of harvestable 

age within the next decade is very limited, ranging from 0 to 34 acres (Table 

3.16-5). Therefore, all of the alternatives are expected to have low effects during 

the first few decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower 

than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old 

growth permitted to be harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-399 Scenery

Table 3.16-5

SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 1,2,3 

Scenic Integrity Objective

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Behm Canal (West)

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 16% 45% 100% 25%

 High to Moderate 11% 2%

 High to Very Low 10%

 Moderate to Low 15%

 Moderate to Very Low 15% 13%

 Low to Very Low 59% 29% 60%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

866 2,485 2,281 2,200 2,060

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 7,070 10,339 9,768 8,951 9,825

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (2% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 49,276 49,276 49,276 49,276 49,276

Carroll Inlet

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 27% 57% 100% 29%

 High to Moderate 3%

 High to Very Low 2%

 Moderate to Low 27%

 Moderate to Very Low 27% 25%

 Low to Very Low 44% 14% 46%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

109 571 592 497 411

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 6,016 7,913 7,782 7,194 7,253

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (6% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 52,281 52,281 52,281 52,281 52,281

Chatham Strait

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 41% 64% 100% 71%

 High to Moderate 32%

 High to Very Low 31%

 Moderate to Low 2%

 Moderate to Very Low 3% 2%

 Low to Very Low 26% 2% 26%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 34 33 0 14

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 4,456 7,466 6,887 4,686 7,198

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (4% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 107,799 107,799 107,799 107,799 107,799

Cholmondeley Sound

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 56% 83% 100% 77%

 High to Moderate 12%

 High to Very Low 13%

 Moderate to Low 3%

 Moderate to Very Low 3%

 Low to Very Low 28% 2% 23%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 112 97 0 75

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 574 944 895 744 789

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (21% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 36,164 36,164 36,164 36,164 36,164
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-400 Final EIS

Table 3.16-5 (continued)

SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 1,2,3 

Scenic Integrity Objective

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Clarence Strait

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 27% 43% 100% 34%

 High to Moderate 8%

 High to Very Low 7%

 Moderate to Low 31%

 Moderate to Very Low 32% 32%

 Low to Very Low 33% 18% 34%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

1,193 1,985 2,000 1,393 1,688

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 16,253 20,987 20,147 17,641 19,516

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (11% of Total Acres are Non-NFS)

 

201,376 

 

201,376 

 

201,376 

 

201,376 

 

201,376 

Duncan Canal

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 46% 46% 100% 49%

 High to Moderate 13%

 High to Very Low 12%

 Moderate to Low 5%

 Moderate to Very Low 5% 3%

 Low to Very Low 36% 36% 48%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 253 251 0 130

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 2,025 3,105 3,074 1,904 2,354

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (0% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 69,810 69,810 69,810 69,810 69,810

Eastern Passage

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 22% 63% 100% 36%

 High to Moderate 15%

 High to Very Low 14% 1%

 Moderate to Low 21%

 Moderate to Very Low 23% 19%

 Low to Very Low 41% 2% 44%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

1 163 103 0 67

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 2,436 3,107 2,967 2,463 2,924

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (9% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 135,765 135,765 135,765 135,765 135,765

Ernest Sound

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 1% 4% 100% 4%

 High to Moderate 18%

 High to Very Low 17% 6%

 Moderate to Low 46%

 Moderate to Very Low 46% 40%

 Low to Very Low 36% 32% 50%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

15 431 433 0 193

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 147 789 784 351 521

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (7% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 36,387 36,387 36,387 36,387 36,387
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-401 Scenery

Table 3.16-5 (continued)

SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 1,2,3 

Scenic Integrity Objective

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Frederick Sound

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 36% 47% 100% 38%

 High to Moderate 23%

 High to Very Low 25% 20%

 Moderate to Low 19%

 Moderate to Very Low 20% 21%

 Low to Very Low 20% 12% 21%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

389 1,015 895 615 787

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 6,065 9,049 8,234 6,491 7,797

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (2% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 163,049 163,049 163,049 163,049 163,049

Hyder/Salmon River Hiqhway

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change

 High to Moderate

 High to Very Low

 Moderate to Low

 Moderate to Very Low

 Low to Very Low

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 0 0 0 0

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 0 0 0 0 0

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (2% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 22,603 22,603 22,603 22,603 22,603

Icy Strait

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 46% 91% 100% 47%

 High to Moderate 4%

 High to Very Low 4% 3%

 Moderate to Low 4%

 Moderate to Very Low 4% 4%

 Low to Very Low 46% 46%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 0 0 0 0

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 2,223 2,519 2,273 2,241 2,519

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (5% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 71,270 71,270 71,270 71,270 71,270

Lynn Canal

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 100%

 High to Moderate

 High to Very 

 Moderate to Low

 Moderate to Very Low 54% 95% 6%

 Low to Very Low 46% 5% 94%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 0 0 0 0

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 31 70 591 18 34

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (15% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 233,520 233,520 233,520 233,520 233,520
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-402 Final EIS

Table 3.16-5 (continued)

SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 1

Scenic Integrity Objective

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Mendenhall Glacier

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change

 High to Moderate

 High to Very Low

 Moderate to Low

 Moderate to Very Low

 Low to Very Low

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 0 0 0 0

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 0 0 0 0 0

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (3% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 55,266 55,266 55,266 55,266 55,266

Peril Strait

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 29% 51% 100% 55%

 High to Moderate 19%

 High to Very Low 24% 7%

 Moderate to Low 29%

 Moderate to Very Low 28% 19%

 Low to Very Low 19% 1% 19%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

439 1,749 1,192 572 1,165

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 4,473 9,642 8,436 6,236 7,988

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (7% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 190,244 190,244 190,244 190,244 190,244

Salmon Bay Lake

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 5% 100% 19%

 High to Moderate 29%

 High to Very Low 29% 11%

 Moderate to Low 45%

 Moderate to Very Low 45% 45%

 Low to Very Low 26% 20% 26%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 0 0 0 0

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 1,083 1,371 1,349 0 1,352

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (8% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 8,422 8,422 8,422 8,422 8,422

Stephens Pass

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100%

 High to Moderate

 High to Very 

 Moderate to Low 100%

 Moderate to Very Low 100% 100%

 Low to Very Low

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

15 113 427 0 67

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 15 113 427 0 67

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (25% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 259,490 259,490 259,490 259,490 259,490
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-403 Scenery

Table 3.16-5 (continued)

SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 1,2,3 

Scenic Integrity Objective

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Stikine Strait

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 7% 8% 100% 15%

 High to Moderate 35%

 High to Very Low 35% 25%

 Moderate to Low 25%

 Moderate to Very Low 25% 26%

 Low to Very Low 33% 33% 35%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 63 62 0 47

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 2,359 4,201 4,164 2,215 3,435

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (0% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 60,823 60,823 60,823 60,823 60,823

Sumner Strait

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 27% 37% 100% 35%

 High to Moderate 13%

 High to Very Low 13% 7%

 Moderate to Low 20%

 Moderate to Very Low 20% 14%

 Low to Very Low 40% 30% 44%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

1,588 2,878 2,837 2,436 2,482

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 16,333 23,605 23,041 19,300 20,246

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (5% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 151,992 151,992 151,992 151,992 151,992

Sweetwater Lake/Honker Divide

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 7% 11% 100% 35%

 High to Moderate 29%

 High to Very Low 29% 1%

 Moderate to Low 22%

 Moderate to Very Low 22% 22%

 Low to Very Low 41% 38% 41%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

16 29 26 16 18

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 6,681 9,734 9,370 4,630 9,636

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (9% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 107,457 107,457 107,457 107,457 107,457

Tennakee Inlet to Tenakee Springs

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 45% 53% 100% 77%

 High to Moderate 30%

 High to Very 29% 1%

 Moderate to Low 10%

 Moderate to Very Low 10% 9%

 Low to Very Low 16% 8% 14%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

64 490 334 71 150

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 2,104 4,035 3,476 2,233 3,638

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (1% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 152,342 152,342 152,342 152,342 152,342
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-404 Final EIS

Table 3.16-5 (continued)

SIO Changes and Suitable Young Growth Acres in Selected Viewsheds 1,2,3 

Scenic Integrity Objective

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

West Coast Waterway -POW

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 47% 72% 100% 65%

 High to Moderate 17%

 High to Very Low 17%

 Moderate to Low 6%

 Moderate to Very Low 7% 7%

 Low to Very Low 29% 5% 29%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

404 888 840 725 746

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 9,921 14,431 13,878 10,789 12,737

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (1% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 140,773 140,773 140,773 140,773 140,773

Wrangell Narrows

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 0% 0% 100% 19%

 High to Moderate 29%

 High to Very Low 29% 8%

 Moderate to Low 48%

 Moderate to Very Low 47% 48%

 Low to Very Low 24% 23% 24%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

0 49 50 0 43

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 2,495 3,489 3,369 2,507 3,260

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (26% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 87,498 87,498 87,498 87,498 87,498

Zimovia Strait

Percent of Suitable YG Acres with SIO Changes

 No Change 100% 17% 35% 100% 37%

 High to Moderate 18%

 High to Very Low 19% 1%

 Moderate to Low 35%

 Moderate to Very Low 35% 36%

 Low to Very Low 29% 11% 26%

Suitable YG Acres of Harvestable 

Age in 1st Decade in Viewshed

71 233 225 74 193

Suitable YG Acres in Viewshed 2,725 3,934 3,997 2,835 3,637

Total Acres in Viewshed

 (12% of Total Acres are Non-NFS) 82,826 82,826 82,826 82,826 82,826

Cholmondeley Sound

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Cholmondeley Sound, because it 

would have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes 

(44 percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-405 Scenery

(16 percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have 

the second highest effects with 23 percent of the suitable acres having SIO 

changes and 0 percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the 

middle in terms of scenery effects overall.

Cholmondeley Sound has experienced limited past harvest on National Forest 

System (NFS) lands, but relatively high past harvest on non-NFS lands. About 

21 percent of the Viewshed consists of non-NFS lands. Further, the number of 

young-growth acres of harvestable age within the next decade is very limited, 

ranging from 0 to 112 acres (Table 3.16-5). Therefore, all of the alternatives are 

expected to have low effects during the first few decades; however, additional 

harvest may need to be deferred in localized areas near non-NFS land, 

especially where harvest includes openings in the beach fringe, as in Alternatives

2 and 5. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under 

the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be 

harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Clarence Strait

Clarence Strait is a large viewshed (over 200,000 acres), extending along both 

sides of the strait from its northern end south to Gravina Island. The viewshed 

includes portions of the South Etolin Wilderness Area, which would have an SIO 

of High under all alternatives; however, a Very High SIO would likely be 

achieved. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed and neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs relative to the 

2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer suitable oldgrowth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the lowest 

visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would permit the 

highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 20 percent 

of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Clarence Strait, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (73 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (39 

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 66 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 32 percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in 

terms of scenery effects overall.

Clarence Strait has experienced considerable past harvest, but much of it is not 

readily visible from the Strait, so much of the viewshed appears relatively 

pristine. However, the number of young-growth acres of harvestable age within 

the next decade ranges from 1,393 to 2,000 acres (Table 3.16-5). A number of 

these acres are scattered along the beach fringe, especially along the Prince of 

Wales and adjacent islands in the northern portion of the Strait in all alternatives 

except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning (generally low impact to scenery) 

is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting and patch 

cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, 

respectively. A 200-foot shoreline buffer would be maintained in Alternative 5, 

which would mitigate the visibility of openings. Therefore, Alternative 2 in 

particular, and Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could have localized moderate 

effects during the first few decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to 

be much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of 

the suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-406 Final EIS

Duncan Canal

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternatives 2 

and 3 would have the greatest effects on scenery in Duncan Canal, because they 

would have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes 

(54 percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels 

(17-18 percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have 

the third highest effects with 51 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 3 percent dropping two levels. 

Duncan Canal has experienced considerable past harvest on the east side of the 

Canal, but much of it is not readily visible from the Strait. However, the number 

of young-growth acres of harvestable age within the next decade ranges from 0

to 253 acres (Table 3.16-5). A number of these acres are scattered along the 

beach fringe in all alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning 

(generally low impact to scenery) is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 

and 4, but clearcutting and patch cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are 

allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (in addition, a 200- foot shoreline 

buffer would mitigate the visibility of openings in Alternative 5). Therefore, 

Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could have local 

effects along the travelway during the first few decades. Overall harvest of old 

growth is expected to be much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with 

only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 

2 through 5.

Eastern Passage

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Eastern Passage, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (78 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (36 

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 64 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 20 percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in 

terms of scenery effects overall.

Eastern Passage has experienced considerable past harvest on the Wrangell

Island side, but much of it is not readily visible from the Passage. The number of 

young-growth acres of harvestable age within the next decade ranges from 1 to 

163 acres (Table 3.16-5). A few of these acres are scattered along the beach 

fringe in all alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning

(generally low impact to scenery) is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 

and 4, but clearcutting and patch cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-407 Scenery

allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline 

buffer would mitigate the visibility of openings in Alternative 5). Therefore, 

Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could have small 

local effects along the travelway during the first few decades. Overall harvest of 

old growth is expected to be much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with 

only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 

2 through 5.

Ernest Sound

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Ernest Sound, because it would 

have the highest percentage with SIO changes (99 percent), the highest 

percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (63 percent), and the 

highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the second highest 

effects with 96 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes and 46 percent 

dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in terms of 

scenery effects overall.

Ernest Sound has experienced considerable past harvest on Deer Island and 

along the beach to the north. The number of young-growth acres of harvestable 

age within the next decade ranges from 15 to 433 acres (Table 3.16-5). Most of 

these acres are along the beach fringe in all alternatives except Alternative 1. 

Only commercial thinning (generally low impact to scenery) is allowed in the 

beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting and patch cutting, with up to 

10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (in addition, a 

200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening size in Alternative 5). 

Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could 

have localized effects during the first few decades. Overall harvest of old growth 

is expected to be much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 

19 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 2 

through 5.

Frederick Sound

Frederick Sound is a large viewshed (163,000 acres) along Kupreanof Island and 

the mainland. Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young 

growth in the viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would 

change SIOs relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would 

have fewer suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would 

likely have the lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though 

Alternative 1 would permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest 

level represents only 20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Frederick Sound, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (64 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (45 

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 62 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-408 Final EIS

and 41 percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in 

terms of scenery effects overall.

Frederick Sound has experienced considerable past harvest in local areas on 

Kupreanof Island and along the mainland. The number of young-growth acres of 

harvestable age within the next decade ranges from 389 to 1,015 acres (Table 

3.16-5). Some of these acres are along the beach fringe in all alternatives 

except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning (generally low impact to scenery) 

is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting and patch 

cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, 

respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening size

in Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a 

lesser degree, could have localized moderate effects during the first few 

decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under 

the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be 

harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Hyder/Salmon River

No suitable young growth acres occur in this viewshed under any of the 

alternatives. Therefore, no impacts related to young-growth harvest would occur. 

Limited harvest of old growth could occur, but this would be well within 2008 

Forest Plan SIOs.

Icy Strait

Icy Strait would experience limited effects due partly to the Wilderness LUDs on 

Pleasant and Lemesurier Islands and the LUD II at Point Adolphus. Wilderness 

areas would have an SIO of High under all alternatives, but would likely achieve 

an SIO of Very High. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Icy Strait, because it would have 

the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (54 percent), 

the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (8 percent), 

and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the second 

highest effects with 53 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes and 7 

percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in terms 

of scenery effects overall.

No young-growth acres of harvestable age within the next decade occur in the 

viewshed (Table 3.16-5). Therefore, little to no effects are expected to occur 

under any alternatives during the first few decades. Overall harvest of old growth 

is expected to be much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 

19 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 2 

through 5.

Lynn Canal

Scenic effects within the Lynn Canal Viewshed would be limited and would be 

very similar under all of the alternatives except Alternative 3 (Table 3.16-5). 

None of the alternatives would include only suitable young growth within the 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-409 Scenery

viewshed that would be of harvestable age within the next decade. Alternative 3 

would have 591 acres of suitable young growth of all ages, but none of the other 

alternatives would have more than 70 acres. None of these latter acres and few 

of the younger acres occur in the beach fringe. Therefore, effects of Alternative 3 

are expected to be higher than under the existing Forest Plan, but relatively 

minor as well. 

Mendenhall Glacier

No effects would occur on the Mendenhall Glacier Viewshed under any of the

alternatives. No suitable young growth or old growth occurs within the viewshed.

Peril Strait/Neva-Olga Strait/Sitka

This viewshed is a large one (190,000 acres) that begins near Sitka and wraps 

around the northern end of Chichagof Island and the southern end of Baranof 

Island. Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young 

growth in the viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would 

change SIOs relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would 

have fewer suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would 

likely have the lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though 

Alternative 1 would permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest 

level represents only 20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in the Peril Strait complex, because it 

would have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes 

(71 percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels 

(52 percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have 

the second highest effects with 45 percent of the suitable acres having SIO 

changes and 26 percent dropping two levels. In this viewshed, Alternative 3 

would likely be comparable to Alternative 5 in terms of scenery effects overall, 

with 49 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes but none dropping two 

levels.

The Peril Strait complex has experienced considerable past harvest in local 

areas, mostly on Chichagof, Kruzof, and adjacent small islands. The number of 

young-growth acres of harvestable age within the next decade ranges from 439 

to 1,749 acres (Table 3.16-5). Many of these acres are along the beach fringe in 

all alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning (generally low 

impact to scenery) is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but 

clearcutting and patch cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in 

Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would 

mitigate opening size in Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and 

Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could have local moderate effects during the first 

few decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than 

under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth 

to be harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Salmon Bay Lake

In the Salmon Bay Lake Viewshed, Alternative 4 would have very minor to no 

effects on scenery because it has no suitable young-growth acres. The other 

four alternatives would have comparable suitable young-growth acres, ranging 

from 1,083 to 1,371 acres. However, none of the alternatives have any younggrowth acres that would be of harvestable age within the next decade. 

Therefore, none of the alternatives are expected to have more than minor effects 

in the next few decades. In the long-term, Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 could have 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-410 Final EIS

higher effects; they all have SIOs changing on the majority of their suitable acres 

and Alternatives 2 and 5 would have 56 to 74 percent of their suitable acres with 

SIOs dropping by two levels. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be 

much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the 

suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Stephens Passage

Stephens Passage is a large viewshed (259,000 acres) running between 

Admiralty Island and the mainland. It excludes the majority of the wilderness 

portion of the Admiralty National Monument. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have only 15 and 0 acres of suitable young growth in 

the viewshed (Table 3.16-5), respectively, so the effects resulting from younggrowth harvest under these alternatives would be negligible to none. Alternative 

4 would have fewer suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it 

would likely have the lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though 

Alternative 1 would permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest 

level represents only 20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

All SIOs would change for suitable young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 and 

100 percent of the SIOs in Alternatives 2 and 5 would drop by two levels. 

However, these alternatives would include only 113 and 67 acres of suitable 

young growth, which represents less than 0.1 percent of the large viewshed. 

Although the majority of these acres are older stands in the beach fringe, they 

are scattered throughout the viewshed. Only commercial thinning (generally low 

impact to scenery) is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternative 3, but clearcutting

and patch cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 

5, respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening 

size in Alternative 5). Therefore, effects would likely occur in the first few 

decades, but they would be minor and localized, especially under Alternative 5 

with the smaller openings and 200-foot buffer and under Alternative 3 with the 

commercial thinning. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower 

than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old 

growth to be harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Stikine Strait

This viewshed covers the corridors between Etolin, Zarembo, and Woronkofski 

Islands. Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young 

growth in the viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would 

change SIOs relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would 

have fewer suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would 

likely have the lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though 

Alternative 1 would permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest 

level represents only 20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Stikine Strait, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (93 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (60

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 85 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 51 percent dropping two levels. In this viewshed, Alternative 3 would likely 

be almost comparable with Alternatives 2 and 5 in terms of scenery effects 

overall, with 92 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes but none 

dropping two levels.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-411 Scenery

The Stikine Strait Viewshed has experienced considerable past harvest in most 

areas within the viewshed. The number of young-growth acres of harvestable 

age within the next decade ranges from 47 to 63 acres for Alternatives 2, 3, and 

5 (Table 3.16-5). Many of these acres are along the beach fringe. No acres of 

suitable young growth would be of harvestable age in Alternatives 1 and 4 within 

the next decade. Only commercial thinning (generally low impact to scenery) is 

allowed in the beach fringe in Alternative 3, but clearcutting and patch cutting, 

with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (in 

addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening size in Alternative 5). 

Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could 

have localized effects during the first few decades. Overall harvest of old 

growth is expected to be much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with 

only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 

2 through 5.

Sumner Strait

The Sumner Strait Viewshed is a large viewshed (152,000 acres) along northern 

Prince of Wales, Kosciusko, Kuiu, Kupreanof, Zarembo, and other islands. It 

includes portions of the Kuiu Wilderness and the Mt. Calder/Mt. Holbrook and 

Salmon Bay LUD II areas. These areas would have an SIO of High but would 

likely achieve an SIO of Very High. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in Sumner Strait, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (73

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (33

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 65 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 21 percent dropping two levels. In this viewshed, Alternative 3 would likely 

be almost comparable with Alternative 5 in terms of scenery effects overall, with 

63 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes but none dropping two 

levels.

The Sumner Strait Viewshed has experienced extensive past harvest in many

areas within the viewshed. The number of young-growth acres of harvestable 

age within the next decade ranges from 1,588 to 2,878 acres for Alternatives 2, 

3, and 5 (Table 3.16-5). Many of these acres are along the beach fringe in all 

alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning (generally low impact 

to scenery) is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting

and patch cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 

5, respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening 

size in Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a 

lesser degree, could have relatively high effects during the first few decades. 

Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under the 

existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be 

harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-412 Final EIS

Sweetwater Lake/Honker Divide

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable young-growth and old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it 

would likely have the lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though 

Alternative 1 would permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, it represents 

only 20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in the viewshed, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (93 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (51 

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 65 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 23 percent dropping two levels. Alternative 3 would likely be in the middle in 

terms of scenery effects overall.

The Sweetwater Lake/Honker Divide Viewshed has experienced relatively heavy 

past harvest in some portions. Additional harvest may need to be deferred in 

localized areas in the coming decade depending on the SIO prescribed by the 

alternative; however, the number of young-growth acres of harvestable age 

within the next decade is very small, ranging from 16 to 29 acres (Table 3.16-5). 

Therefore, the alternatives would have only minor local effects during the first few 

decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under 

the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be 

harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Tenakee Inlet to Tenakee Springs

This is a large viewshed (152,000 acres), which contains the Trap Bay and 

Kadashan LUD II areas, which have an SIO of High under all alternatives (Table 

3.16-5). The viewshed also contains land designated as Research Natural Area 

and Wild River LUDs, which also have a High SIO under all alternatives. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in the viewshed, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (55

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (39

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 23 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 10 percent dropping two levels. In this viewshed, Alternative 3 would likely 

be almost comparable with Alternative 5 in terms of scenery effects overall, with 

47 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes but none dropping two 

levels.

The Tenakee Inlet to Tenakee Springs Viewshed has experienced considerable

past harvest in many areas within the viewshed. The number of young-growth 

acres of harvestable age within the next decade ranges from 64 to 490 acres 

(Table 3.16-5). Many of these acres are along the beach fringe in all alternatives 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-413 Scenery

except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning (generally low impact to scenery) 

is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting and patch 

cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, 

respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening size

in Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a 

lesser degree, could have relatively high localized effects during the first few 

decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under 

the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be 

harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

West Coast Waterway/Prince of Wales

This large viewshed (141,000 acres) contains the Mt. Calder/Mt. Holbrook LUD II

area, which would have an SIO of High under all alternatives. Alternatives 1 and 

4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the viewshed. In 

addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs relative to the 2008 

Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer suitable old-growth 

acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the lowest visual 

impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would permit the 

highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 20 percent 

of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in the viewshed, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (53

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (24

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 35 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 7 percent dropping two levels. In this viewshed. Alternative 3 would likely be 

in the middle in terms of scenery effects overall.

The West Coast Waterway/Prince of Wales Viewshed has experienced relatively 

heavy past harvest in many areas within the viewshed. The number of younggrowth acres of harvestable age within the next decade ranges from 404 to 888 

acres (Table 3.16-5). Many of these acres are along the beach fringe in all 

alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning (generally low impact 

to scenery) is allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting

and patch cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 

5, respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening 

size in Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a 

lesser degree, could have relatively high localized effects during the first few 

decades. Overall harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under 

the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be 

harvested under Alternatives 2 through 5.

Wrangell Narrows

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in the viewshed, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (100 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (76 
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-414 Final EIS

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 81 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 56 percent dropping two levels. In this viewshed, Alternative 3 would likely 

be almost comparable with Alternative 5 in terms of scenery effects overall, with 

100 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes but none dropping two 

levels.

The Wrangell Narrows Viewshed has experienced relatively high past harvest in 

many areas within the Viewshed and includes 26 percent non-NFS lands. 

However, the number of young-growth acres of harvestable age within the next 

decade ranges from 0 to 50 acres (Table 3.16-5). Most of these acres are along 

the beach fringe in all alternatives except Alternative 1. Only commercial 

thinning (generally low impact to scenery) is allowed in the beach fringe in 

Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting and patch cutting

, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively (in 

addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening size in Alternative 5). 

Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a lesser degree, could 

have localized effects during the first few decades. Overall harvest of old growth 

is expected to be much lower than under the existing Forest Plan with only 7 to 

16 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested under Alternatives 2 

through 5. 

Zimovia Strait

The Zimovia Strait Viewshed runs between Etolin and Wrangell Islands. 

Alternatives 1 and 4 would have the fewest acres of suitable young growth in the 

viewshed. In addition, neither of these two alternatives would change SIOs 

relative to the 2008 Forest Plan (Table 3.16-5). Alternative 4 would have fewer 

suitable old-growth acres compared with Alternative 1, so it would likely have the 

lowest visual impact among all alternatives. Even though Alternative 1 would 

permit the highest level of old-growth harvest, this harvest level represents only 

20 percent of the level allowed by the 2008 Forest Plan.

SIOs would change for young growth in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. Alternative 2 

would have the greatest effects on scenery in the viewshed, because it would 

have the highest percentage of suitable young growth with SIO changes (83 

percent), the highest percentage in which the SIO would drop by two levels (54 

percent), and the highest young-growth harvest. Alternative 5 would have the 

second highest effects with 63 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes 

and 37 percent dropping two levels. In this viewshed, Alternative 3 would likely 

be almost comparable with Alternative 5 in terms of scenery effects overall, with 

65 percent of the suitable acres having SIO changes but none dropping two 

levels.

The Zimovia Strait Viewshed has experienced relatively high past harvest in 

some areas within the viewshed. The number of young-growth acres of 

harvestable age within the next decade ranges from 71 to 233 acres (Table 3.16-

5). Most of these acres are along the beach fringe in all alternatives except 

Alternative 1. Only commercial thinning (generally low impact to scenery) is 

allowed in the beach fringe in Alternatives 3 and 4, but clearcutting and patch 

cutting, with up to 10 acre openings, are allowed in Alternatives 2 and 5, 

respectively (in addition, a 200-foot shoreline buffer would mitigate opening size

in Alternative 5). Therefore, Alternative 2 in particular, and Alternative 5 to a 

lesser degree, could have localized effects during the first few decades. Overall 

harvest of old growth is expected to be much lower than under the existing 

Forest Plan with only 7 to 19 percent of the suitable old growth to be harvested 

under Alternatives 2 through 5. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-415 Scenery

Renewable Energy Development

The Forest Plan identifies three types of area related to energy development on 

the Tongass based on the existing LUDs: windows, which represent areas 

potentially available for energy development; avoidance areas; and exclusion

areas. Avoidance areas are those LUDs where development of energy projects 

are inconsistent with land use management objectives and desired future 

conditions. Alternative locations in other LUDs must be exhausted before 

facilities are considered in avoidance areas. LUDs classified as windows and 

avoidance areas make up 38 percent and 62 percent of the Forest, respectively. 

There are no exclusion areas on the Tongass due to special authorities provided 

in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title XI. These 

classifications and the standards and guidelines in the 2008 Forest Plan would 

continue to apply under Alternative 1, which permits energy developments to 

“dominate the seen area” but meet a Low SIO. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, 

renewable energy sites would be managed under the new Renewable Energy 

Plan Components identified in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan amendment. 

Although the new components are likely to result in more energy project 

development over the long term, the scenery requirements for Alternatives 3 

through 5 are similar to those in the existing Forest Plan. Under Alternative 2, 

scenery standards would be relaxed to Very Low for renewable energy 

development so effects on scenery would likely be greater. The new 

components are discussed in more detail in the Renewable Energy section of 

this EIS.

The Forest Service has identified 11 proposed renewable energy projects in 

Southeast Alaska that are currently active (Table 3.12b-3). Nine of the projects 

are hydroelectric projects, one is a wave project, and one is a geothermal project. 

Five of these proposed projects would be located in important recreation places. 

The proposed renewable energy projects are further discussed in in the 

Renewable Energy section of this EIS.

Effects from the proposed projects on scenery would heavily depend on sitespecific plans. In general, project activities that would impact scenery could 

include new access road construction; forest clearing and ground disturbance;

dam, powerhouse, and penstock construction; and transmission line 

construction. There is a wide range of types and sizes for these disturbances 

and facilities and the eventual impacts to scenery will depend on the location and 

design features. All potential impacts to scenery resources would be addressed 

during the permitting and licensing of the projects, and would include National 

Environmental Policy Act assessment. 

The impacts to scenery associated with Alternatives 2 through 5 are expected to 

be similar, as these alternatives would follow the same renewable energy-related 

plan components except that Alternative 2 would reduce the SIO to Very Low, 

whereas Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 would have an SIO of Low. Impacts associated 

with Alternative 1 are expected to be slightly lower because of the development 

of fewer projects over the long term; however, the Alternative 1 standards and 

guidelines for scenery related to renewable energy projects are similar to the 

plan components of Alternatives 2 through 5. Although on a site-specific basis 

differences would occur, on a Forest-wide basis the scenery effects associated 

with all of the alternatives would show little differences because of the small 

number of projects likely to be developed.

This section considers the incremental effects of the alternatives when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The effects of past and 

present actions on scenery are included in the Affected Environment portion of 

Cumulative 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Scenery 3-416 Final EIS

this section, which discusses the level of scenic quality on the Tongass. Past 

actions include past timber harvest and road building, as well as the development 

of facilities and mines, which have resulted in reduced ESIs in many areas. 

Present actions include the impacts of current management policies on scenery; 

these have resulted in modifications to SIOs. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions on NFS lands include the projected levels of 

future timber harvest and renewable energy development that are used in the 

preceding analysis to assess the potential impacts of the alternatives on the 

scenic quality. Other reasonably foreseeable actions include regional 

transportation development as defined by the State Transportation Plan and the 

Forest Service Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as road 

paving on Prince of Wales Island, the closing of roads, and construction of the 

Angoon Airport. In addition, the expansion of cities like Juneau and Ketchikan, 

recreational cabin development, land auctions by the State, and land exchanges 

could include additional road construction, timber harvest, and facility 

construction.

It is not possible at this time to predict exactly which roads, energy projects, or 

other projects would be developed or their likely impact on future scenic integrity. 

Human settlement expansion is expected to occur around the region’s larger 

cities, such as Juneau and Sitka, with residential expansion also expected as a 

result of state land auctions. These developments would likely result in 

increased impacts on scenery. Mining activities are expected to expand at 

existing sites, including Greens Creek on Admiralty Island and Kensington Gold 

Mine north of Juneau, as well as possible future sites, including the Bokan 

Mountain and Niblack sites on the southern end of Prince of Wales Island. 

Mining projects are for the most part expected to have a negative local effect on 

scenery. Overall, the cumulative effects of past, present, and future actions on 

scenery are expected to be negative, but are not expected to be substantially 

different than the effects associated with the actions addressed under direct and 

indirect effects.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-417 Subsistence

Subsistence

Affected Environment...................................................................................... 3-417

The Legal Context for Subsistence Use ...................................................... 3-418

Subsistence Users....................................................................................... 3-419

Economy ...................................................................................................... 3-420

Subsistence Use Areas ............................................................................... 3-424

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................... 3-425

Direct and Indirect Effects............................................................................ 3-426

Cumulative Effects....................................................................................... 3-430

ANILCA Determination................................................................................. 3-431

Affected Environment

Subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering activities are a major part of 

life for many Southeast Alaska residents. Some individuals participate in 

subsistence activities to supplement personal income and provide needed food. 

Nearly all rural Alaska communities depend on subsistence resources to meet 

some portion of their nutritional needs (Fall 2014). Others pursue subsistence 

activities to perpetuate cultural customs and traditions. Still others participate in 

subsistence activities for reasons unconnected with income or tradition. For all 

these individuals, subsistence is a lifestyle reflecting deeply held attitudes, 

values, and beliefs.

Within the context of Southeast Alaska’s seasonal and cyclical resource-based 

employment, subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife resources takes on special 

importance. The use of these resources may play a major role in supplementing 

cash incomes during periods when the opportunity to participate in the wage 

economy is either marginal or nonexistent. Because of high prices of commercial 

products provided through the retail sector of the cash economy, especially in 

remote communities, the economic role of locally available fish and game takes 

on added importance.

Native and non-Native communities both have high subsistence participation 

rates and rely heavily on wild foods, with approximately 86 percent of rural 

Alaska households using wild game and 95 percent using fish (Fall 2014). The 

opportunity to participate in subsistence activities reinforces a variety of cultural 

and related values in both Native and non-Native communities. For example, the 

distribution of harvested fish and wildlife contributes to the cohesion of kinship 

groups and community stability through the sharing of resources. Subsistence

resources provide the foundation for Native culture, forming the basis for different 

clans and potlatch ceremonies, as well as reinforcing basic values of respect for 

the earth and its resources. Participating in subsistence activities contributes to 

the self-reliance, independence, and ability to provide for oneself; values that 

social surveys indicate are important reasons why many non-Native people move 

to or remain in Southeast Alaska (USDA Forest Service 1997a).
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-418 Final EIS

While there are a variety of cultural, popular, and sociological definitions and 

interpretations of subsistence, Congress addressed this subject in Title VIII of the 

1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Section 803 of

ANILCA defines subsistence use 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; for the making and selling of handicraft 

articles out of non-edible byproducts of fish and wildlife resources taken for 

personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family 

consumption; and for customary trade.” 

ANILCA provides for “the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by 

rural residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public 

lands.” It also states, in part, that “subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and other 

renewable resources shall be the priority consumptive uses of all such resources 

on the public lands of Alaska when it is necessary to restrict taking.” 

The provisions in ANILCA established a harvest priority for rural residents in an 

attempt to protect subsistence resource harvest. Under ANILCA, in times of 

resource scarcity or when demand exceeds biologically sound harvest levels, 

subsistence harvests have priority over other consumptive use of resources. In 

practice, this meant that commercial, sport, or other harvests were to be curtailed 

by state or federal fish and wildlife management authorities before subsistence 

harvests were limited. The Alaska legislature subsequently passed a regulation 

to comply with ANILCA, but in 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in 

McDowell v. State of Alaska that a harvest priority for rural residents conflicted 

with the state constitution, which guarantees all Alaskans equal access to the 

state’s natural resources. This ruling took the state out of compliance with 

ANILCA and the federal government has managed subsistence resources on 

federal lands in Alaska since 1990. As a result, federal subsistence harvests of 

fish and wildlife on the Tongass National Forest are presently managed by the 

Forest Service (Schroeder and Mazza 2005).

ANILCA requires the analysis of the potential effects on subsistence uses of all 

actions on federal lands in Alaska. This analysis typically focuses on those foodrelated resources most likely to be affected by habitat degradation associated 

with land management activities. Three factors related to subsistence uses are 

specifically identified by ANILCA: 1) resource distribution and abundance, 2) 

access to resources, and 3) competition for the use of resources. These factors 

are discussed in general terms in the following paragraphs.

Abundance and Distribution

Southeast Alaska subsistence resources include terrestrial wildlife (including 

deer, moose, mountain goat, black and brown bear, furbearers, and small game), 

waterfowl (including ducks, geese, and seabirds), marine mammals (harbor 

seal), salmon, other finfish, marine invertebrates, plants, and firewood. The 

abundance and distribution of these resources on the Tongass is described in 

the 1997 Land Management Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS), as well as in other sections of this EIS. 

Access

Road building, a byproduct of timber harvesting and, to a much lesser extent, 

mining, is an important agent of change in Southeast Alaska. New road 

networks often provide greater access to previously unconnected areas and can 

affect subsistence both positively and negatively by providing access, dispersing 

The Legal 

Context for 

Subsistence Use 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-419 Subsistence

hunting and fishing pressure, and creating the potential for increased 

competition. On Prince of Wales Island, for example, areas that have become 

connected by road are now more easily reached by local residents and other 

nearby communities. Road systems tend to bring more people into an area and

also give subsistence hunters access to previously remote regions and provide a 

greater opportunity for subsistence harvest. 

Southeast Alaska is comprised of isolated islands unconnected by road systems; 

however, with the transportation means available (floatplanes, ferry systems, 

automobiles, and boats), Southeast Alaska residents are very mobile in their 

subsistence resource use activities. Wrangell, the fifth largest community in 

Southeast Alaska, for example, has documented their subsistence gathering 

from the southern tip of Prince of Wales Island to Yakutat, covering most of the 

islands in between (Kruse and Muth 1990). 

Competition

The Tongass National Forest, with nearly 17 million acres of largely undeveloped 

land, includes extensive subsistence resources. These resources are not, 

however, distributed or used evenly across the Forest. Where the resources are 

confined to island groups or river systems and access is costly or nonexistent, 

use of the resources is low. Where the resource is abundant, and a community 

is present but access by other communities is costly, the resource tends to be 

used primarily by the community that resides in the area. Where resources are 

abundant and access is readily available to local and other communities of 

Southeast Alaska, competition for resources may exist.

Increased competition may result when less expensive access to the area or 

within the area is provided. Such is the case when road systems are established 

to local communities. When areas historically not used for subsistence purposes 

are made available because of easier, more cost-effective access, the new area 

then tends to be used. When communities with road access to abundant 

resources are connected to a ferry system or to commercial air services, 

competition for the resources may be generated from outside communities with 

lower abundance of the same resource.

Examples of the effect of ease of access are readily available in Southeast 

Alaska. Chichagof Island, Prince of Wales Island, and the Yakutat Forelands at 

one time were isolated portions of the Tongass with limited use from 

communities in the vicinity. Today, road construction, primarily a result of timber 

harvest activities, has created relatively large areas that are easily accessed from 

local communities. Access provided by ferry systems and small commuter 

planes to Chichagof and Prince of Wales Islands allows relatively easy access 

from off-island communities. Access to the Yakutat Forelands has been made 

easier because of commercial jet service and ferry service to the community of 

Yakutat. 

Under ANILCA, only rural Alaska residents qualify for subsistence hunting and 

fishing on federal lands. Alaska residents living in urban areas can harvest under 

sport, personal use, or commercial regulations, but not under subsistence 

regulations. Following the Alaska Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling in McDowell v. 

State of Alaska, all Alaska residents qualify as subsistence users on state lands 

with federal lands continuing to be managed under ANILCA.

In 2013, Southeast Alaska had an estimated population of 74,382, with the 

majority (about 92 percent) living in established communities (either incorporated 

cities or Census Designated Places [CDP]) (Alaska Department of Labor [DOL] 

2014a). Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the area’s population lived in the city 

Subsistence

Users
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-420 Final EIS

and borough of Juneau (44 percent) or Ketchikan Gateway Borough (19 

percent), the only two communities considered as urban areas for subsistence 

purposes. An additional 23 percent of the area’s population resided in the 

communities of Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Haines, and Craig. The remaining 

13 percent of the population lived in communities ranging in size from Excursion 

Inlet with 8 people to Metlakatla with 1,471 people (Alaska DOL 2014a).

In addition to permanent communities, there are a small number of logging 

camps across the Tongass National Forest that, in the past, were large enough 

and existed long enough to have had an effect on local uses of fish and wildlife. 

Currently, the remaining camps have few residents and do not have much effect 

on competition for resources.

A relatively small number of Southeast Alaska residents live at remote isolated 

locations. These include people living at home sites throughout Southeast 

Alaska, at summer fishing sites along the outer coast, tree thinners camped near 

areas where they have Forest Service contracts, trappers, and people living on 

floathouses and fishing boats. This diverse group is typically transient, generally 

has very low cash income, and is closely tied to non-commercial harvest of fish, 

game, and other renewable natural resources. 

Alaska Natives made up about 12 percent of the region’s population in 2010 and 

comprised about 24 percent of the total population of Southeast Alaska’s 30 rural 

communities in 2010 (Alaska DOL 2014b, 2014c) (Figure 3.17-1). These rural 

communities include: places that are predominately Native, such as Metlakatla, 

Hydaburg, and Angoon, where Alaska Natives made up 83 percent, 77 percent, 

and 76 percent of the population, respectively; other communities that are

predominately non-Native, like Edna Bay, Point Baker, and Whale Pass; and 

places with more mixed ethnicity where Alaska Natives range from about onethird to two-thirds of the population (Figure 3.17-1). 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs identifies 17 localized Indian tribes in the region, 

including the Metlakatla of the Annette Island Reserve. At the time of contact, 

tribes occupied seasonal camps and temporary villages throughout traditional 

territories. In the late 1800s, the individual tribes of the region coalesced at what 

had been their winter villages. The area’s extant tribes live within their earlier 

territories and use a similar set of subsistence resources and in this way maintain 

long standing ties to place. For Native people, this tie to place and the harvest 

and use of traditional foods are key elements in fostering Native cultural identity 

(Alaska Native Heritage Center 2014).

Subsistence use of fish and wildlife has been and continues to be an important 

component of the economies of Southeast Alaska communities. In Native 

communities, harvest and use of wild resources supported the subsistencebased economy that predated the introduction of cash income. In the modern 

era, beginning in the late-1700s, the economies of Native communities have 

undergone a progressive transformation, incorporating cash income into the 

subsistence-based system. Southeast Alaska communities that were settled 

primarily by non-Native immigrants have also depended on a mix of subsistence 

use of wild resources and cash income.

Economy
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-421 Subsistence

Figure 3.17-1

Native/Non-Native Components of Southeast Communities, 2010

Source: Alaska DOL (2014c).

Cash income in most Southeast Alaska rural communities is limited and 

intermittent, and frequently supports the purchase of fuel and equipment that are 

part of subsistence harvest technology. Subsistence harvests have been found 

to fill essential food needs in most rural communities in the region. These 

harvests are also customarily shared among community residents and between 

members of different communities. Some subsistence products are traded and 

bartered within the region. Subsistence harvests are not geared toward market 

sale or commercial profit. A mixed subsistence-market economy in which 

subsistence harvests and cash income are complementary characterizes the 

economies of most of the region’s rural communities (Wolfe 2004).

Subsistence research conducted in Southeast Alaska over the past two decades 

has included detailed community studies, use area mapping, household surveys, 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Edna Bay

Point Baker

Whale Pass

Tenakee Springs

Hyder

Thorne Bay

Gustavus

Skagway

Port Alexander

Coffman Cove

Hollis

Elfin Cove

Naukati Bay

Petersburg

Haines

Juneau city and borough

Wrangell city and borough

Ketchikan

Sitka city and borough

Port Protection

Craig

Pelican

Kasaan

Yakutat

Klawock

Saxman

Hoonah

Kake

Angoon

Hydaburg

Metlakatla

Native Non-Native
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-422 Final EIS

and studies of specific subsistence harvests. During the 1980s, the Forest 

Service supported research that examined the impacts of timber harvests in the 

Tongass National Forest on subsistence resources in the area. The Tongass 

Resource Use Cooperative Survey (TRUCS) was completed in 1988. Data from 

TRUCS are summarized in the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision 

FEIS.

From 1987 to 2001, interviews were conducted with 1,064 households in 24 

Southeast Alaska communities as part of the Tongass Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) subsistence administrative studies. This 

fieldwork was conducted cooperatively with the Forest Service, Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and the area's tribes and communities 

all participating. Summary data from this and past community harvest 

assessments were compiled from the ADF&G Subsistence Community Profile 

Database (www.state.ak.us) and harvest levels are presented by community and 

species in Figure 3.17-2. The data presented in Figure 3.17-2 are the most 

recent available in the ADF&G database. The year these data were collected 

does, however, vary by community and the data summarized in Figure 3.17-2 

should be considered a general overview of harvest patterns rather than an exact 

representation of current harvest activities.

The findings of this research are summarized in an unpublished paper by 

Schroeder and Mazza (2005) who identify a number of key subsistence 

characteristics that are evident in these data and generally consistent with the 

following past findings:

• Wild foods account for a large share of the diet for residents of the studied 

communities, ranging from 48 pounds per capita for Skagway in 1987 to over 

500 pounds per capita for Hydaburg in 2012 (see Figure 3.17-2). The 

average American diet includes about 225 pounds of meat, fish, and poultry 

on a per capita basis. In more than half of the identified communities, wild 

foods came close to, or exceeded, this national average (Figure 3.17-2). 

Although residents of subsistence communities purchase food, most could 

meet their entire protein need from wild sources.

• Marine resources, including fish, mammals, and plants, comprise the majority 

of subsistence harvests in all communities when measured by food weight. 

Marine resources account for more than half of total per capita harvest in all 

Southeast Alaska communities, ranging from 55 percent in Tenakee Springs

to 88 percent in Skagway (Figure 3.17-2). As a result, management activities 

that restrict access for subsistence harvest of land mammals have had a 

relatively small effect on overall subsistence harvest by weight.

• More recent subsistence harvest levels in the main Native communities and 

the larger non-Native communities appear very similar to harvest levels 

estimated in the late 1980s or before. Harvest levels identified in the recent 

assessments conducted in Angoon, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Kake, Petersburg, 

Wrangell, and Yakutat, for example, are very similar to those identified in 

earlier studies. In a few communities, such as Coffman Cove, Kasaan, 

Klawock, and Port Protection, there are larger differences in harvest levels 

over time. However, these differences seem to be more influenced by 

special events or small community sizes than by patterned changes in 

subsistence harvests.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-423 Subsistence

Figure 3.17-2

Per Capita Subsistence Harvest by Community and Resource Type

Note:

The year these data were collected varies by community, as follows:

1987: Elfin Cove, Gustavus, Hyder, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Pelican, Port Alexander, Skagway, and

Tenakee Springs

1996: Kake, Point Baker, Port Protection, and Sitka

1997: Craig, Hydaburg, and Klawock

1998: Coffman Cove, Edna Bay, Hollis, Kasaan, Naukati Bay, and Thorne Bay

1999: Saxman

2000: Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat

2012: Angoon, Haines, Hoonah, Hydaburg, and Whale Pass

Source: ADF&G (2006, 2014)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Skagway

Metlakatla

Haines

Petersburg

Wrangell

Hollis

Kake

Thorne Bay

Angoon

Sitka

Saxman

Craig

Gustavus

Naukati Bay

Whale Pass

Elfin Cove

Coffman Cove

Point Baker

Port Alexander

Klawock

Tenakee Springs

Hoonah

Hyder

Pelican

Edna Bay

Yakutat

Meyers Chuck

Port Protection

Kasaan

Hydaburg

Per Capita Harvest (Ibs)

Fish Marine Invertebrates Land Mammals Marine Mammals Plants and Other
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-424 Final EIS

• Subsistence harvest levels vary considerably from community to community. 

Recent research and other data suggest that intercommunity variability may 

not be fully explained by ethnicity, income, community size, or access to 

resources. Other factors, such as community demographic composition, 

cultural traditions and orientations, and community history, may have a larger 

influence on harvest levels than more easily analyzed standard 

socioeconomic variables.

• Subsistence harvesters use a wide variety of species, but use tends to be 

concentrated on a relatively small number of species. In Yakutat, for 

example, individual subsistence harvesters use as many as 65 of the 150 

different species that are harvested in the community, but 84 percent of 

overall community harvest (in food weight) involves just 10 species. That 

said, the contribution of a particular species to the total subsistence harvest 

generally appears to vary from year to year, although the overall total harvest 

in food weight may remain nearly constant.

• A small number of high harvesting households account for a disproportionate 

share of the total community harvest and tend to harvest more fish and 

wildlife than their family members can consume. The surplus is distributed to 

other subsistence users through a kinship network and through barter and 

trade. These networks are also used to distribute specialty subsistence 

products such as herring roe and hooligan oil, which are produced in large 

quantities in only a few communities. In Yakutat, for example, just 25 

percent of subsistence households account for about 75 percent of total 

community subsistence harvest (in terms of food weight), with the lowest 

harvesting 50 percent of households taking just 8 percent of the total 

community harvest.

Historically, subsistence use occurred where access to the resources cost less in 

energy than the resources gathered. Many of the gathering activities occurred in 

easily accessible areas. These activities occurred close to settlements where 

they could be accessed by foot or boat. Over time, as new technology 

developed, ease of access meant a movement outward into new resource use 

areas. The advent of motorized boats and the development of road systems 

associated with timber harvest activities have had a substantial influence on 

subsistence gathering activity in Southeast Alaska. Today, all communities use 

motorized boats and many are tied to nearby lands by road systems. 

The distribution of subsistence harvest activity is described in further detail in the 

1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision FEIS, with traditional household 

deer hunting areas mapped in Appendix H. These areas were identified based 

on the 1987 TRUCS (Kruse and Muth 1990). The traditional household deer 

hunting areas mapped in Appendix H show that the road systems are extensively 

used. This is particularly true on Prince of Wales Island. These maps also show 

that subsistence use tends to be concentrated in close proximity to individual 

communities and along beaches. 

Each of the communities in Southeast Alaska has a distinct home range where 

concentrated use occurs, with a wide range of use typically occurring on a less 

concentrated scale outside the normal home range. More than half (54 percent) 

of all households surveyed in rural Southeast Alaska in 1987 traveled a minimum 

of 11 miles by boat to reach the one reliable deer hunting area that they chose to 

describe in TRUCS (Kruse and Muth 1990). An additional 18 percent of all 

households also used boats to reach their reliable deer hunting area, but traveled

shorter distances (10 miles or less). Only 15 percent of all households used cars 

or trucks to travel to their most reliable areas. Thirteen percent used some other 

Subsistence Use 

Areas 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-425 Subsistence

form of transportation, such as airplanes, walking, all-terrain vehicles, and the 

Alaska Marine Highway System (Kruse and Muth 1990). 

While the majority of use occurs within about a 15-mile radius of rural 

communities, nearly all of the forested lands of the Tongass are used to some 

degree for subsistence deer hunting (USDA Forest Service 1997a). Appendix H 

in the 1997 Tongass Land Management Plan Revision FEIS also displays, by 

community, the individual Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) where approximately 

75 percent of the average annual deer harvest occurred.

Kruse and Muth (1990) found that nearly one-half of the households harvesting 

deer mentioned the existence of clearcuts of various ages occurring in presently 

reliable areas (44 percent), most-often-used areas (48 percent), and areas no 

longer used (55 percent). They also reported that old-growth forests were 

mentioned as most reliable by 90 percent of households harvesting deer, were 

most-often-used areas by 91 percent of households, and were areas no longer 

used by 90 percent of those households harvesting deer. 

Many of the fish and wildlife resource values of Southeast Alaska watersheds, 

based on the Value Comparison Unit (VCU) classification of the Tongass, are 

summarized in the 1998 Tongass Fish and Wildlife Resource Assessment 

(ADF&G 1998). This report shows the relative value of areas for black bear, 

brown bear, deer, sport fishing, salmon production, and subsistence use. This 

resource assessment also included a ranking of the VCUs that have the highest 

community use values.

Environmental Consequences

The analysis of the likely effects of the EIS alternatives on subsistence resources 

and uses is presented in two parts. Effects on subsistence resources and uses 

important to each rural community are discussed individually by community in the 

Subregional Overview and Communities section. This section provides a Forestwide evaluation that assesses the three factors related to subsistence uses 

identified by ANILCA: abundance and distribution, access, and competition. 

This general analysis relies on the community discussions and also on the 

Forest-wide effects analyses from the related resource sections (primarily Fish

and Wildlife) where abundance and distribution are of concern. 

Section 810 of ANILCA requires the Forest Service, in determining whether to 

withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition 

of NFS lands in Alaska, to evaluate the potential effects on subsistence uses and 

needs, followed by specific notice and determination procedures should there be 

a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence uses. The 

Alaska Land Use Council’s definition of “significantly restrict subsistence use” is 

one guideline used in the evaluation: 

“A proposed action shall be considered to significantly restrict subsistence 

uses, if after any modification warranted by consideration of alternatives, 

conditions, or stipulations, it can be expected to result in a substantial 

reduction in the opportunity to continue subsistence uses of renewable 

resources.” 

Considerations of abundance and distribution, access, and competition (by nonrural residents) are mentioned. 

It should be noted that the term “significant” as used in this context does not have 

the same definition as used in the implementing regulations for the National 
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-426 Final EIS

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). See 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Section 1508.27 for definitions of “significant” in a NEPA context.

The U.S. District Court Decision of Record in Kunaknana v. Watt provided 

additional clarification. In part it states: 

“restrictions for subsistence uses would be significant if there were large 

reductions in abundance or major redistribution of these resources, substantial 

interference with harvestable access to active subsistence-use sites, or major 

increases in non-rural resident hunting.” 

Abundance and Distribution

Based on the 1987 survey information compiled as part of TRUCS, 61 percent of 

subsistence resources (by weight) are fish or marine invertebrates, 21 percent 

are deer, 4 percent are other land mammals, and another 3 percent are marine 

mammals. More recent community data compiled by ADF&G (2014) indicate 

that fish and marine invertebrates still comprise the majority of subsistence 

harvest per capita (in pounds). As shown in Figure 3.17-2, the share of total 

subsistence harvest that consists of fish and marine invertebrates ranges from 55 

percent in Tenakee Springs to 88 percent in Skagway.

The subsistence analysis conducted for the 1997 Forest Plan Revision FEIS 

found that the primary subsistence resource likely to be significantly affected by 

the alternatives was Sitka black-tailed deer. Some effects to fish habitat may 

also result from land management activities, but the magnitude of the effects 

could not be calculated. Alternatives with more roads and timber production 

within riparian management areas and/or beach and estuary fringe would 

generally have the highest potential for adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

resources in the Tongass.

As a result of their association with old-growth forest habitat, which is the main 

terrestrial habitat type affected by the alternatives, deer are considered the 

“indicator” for potential subsistence resource consequences concerning the 

abundance and distribution of the resources. The community-based subsistence 

analysis (see the Subregional Overview and Communities section) focuses 

largely on deer, which is, in most cases, by far the largest terrestrial component 

of subsistence food resources. 

Both the 1997 Forest Plan Revision FEIS and 2008 Forest Plan Amendment 

FEIS concluded that deer habitat capabilities in several portions of the Tongass 

may not be adequate to sustain the current levels of deer harvests, and that 

implementation of any of the 1997 and 2008 alternatives could, therefore, be 

accompanied by a significant possibility of a significant restriction on the 

abundance and/or distribution of subsistence uses of deer. This possibility was 

largely due to the continuation of reduced habitat capabilities resulting from past 

habitat alterations, which is why it applied to all alternatives. 

The possibility of a significant restriction, resulting from a change in abundance 

or distribution, would be less than the possibility under the 1997 Forest Plan or 

2008 Forest Plan for all of the alternatives considered in this EIS because of the 

lower anticipated rates of timber harvest. Further, although the harvest of old 

growth is likely to have negative effects on deer habitat, the vast majority of the 

harvest proposed under the alternatives in this EIS represents the harvest of 

young-growth stands that are currently in the stem exclusion stage of plant 

succession. Harvesting these stands would convert them to the stand initiation 

stage or open them up to provide more light to forage, which is generally of much 

higher value to deer. As a result, the harvest under the alternatives in this EIS 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-427 Subsistence

would have both adverse and beneficial effects on deer habitat, depending on 

the stand (see Wildlife section).

Management of energy projects under the new Renewable Energy Plan 

Components identified in Chapter 5 of the amended Forest Plan under 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would not affect this conclusion. This would also be the 

case under Alternative 1 where the current Transportation and Utility System

classifications and the standards and guidelines in the current Forest Plan would 

continue to apply to energy projects.

In the short term, the risk of a significant restriction would be about the same 

under any of the alternatives because the effects of past harvest would override 

the effects of new harvest during the next 10 years. In the long term, those 

alternatives that limit the areas available for future harvesting of old growth the 

most would result in the largest reduction in risk. Total maximum harvest over 

100 years would range from about 273,000 acres under Alternative 1 to about 

368,000 acres under Alternative 2 (Table 3.4-3).

Access

Subsistence users typically hunt and fish in traditional areas surrounding their 

communities. Many of the communities in Southeast Alaska are compact, 

centralized places surrounded by undeveloped land with limited infrastructure. 

Most subsistence food production is supported by a central or core use area 

surrounding a community. Traditional household deer hunting areas are 

identified for 32 communities in Southeast Alaska in Appendix H to the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS. Access to and use of surrounding areas for subsistence 

activities may be guided by local customary rules, as well as federal and state 

regulation and economic considerations, with traditional use areas for different 

communities often overlapping at their margins. Customary rules guiding 

subsistence harvest may be related to local histories and social customs of clans 

and communities (Wolfe 2004).

Forest plans are programmatic, meaning that they establish direction and 

allowable activities for broad land areas, rather than schedule specific activities in 

specific locations. This makes it difficult to evaluate the effects of the alternatives 

on particular groups of subsistence users or resources. The following discussion 

addresses potential impacts at the programmatic or forest scale and assesses 

relative potential impacts in terms of overall proposed road construction and 

timber management activities. 

Viewed at this scale, none of the alternatives would directly limit the use of public 

lands for the purposes of subsistence gathering activities. Traditional access 

methods would remain available under all the alternatives for present and 

foreseeable future activities. Access methods differ by Game Management Unit 

(GMU). Those subsistence users who use a boat as their primary method of 

access may have temporary and localized disruptions under the alternatives that 

propose the most young-growth harvest in the beach fringe.

Data on documented deer harvest by transportation type are available at the 

GMU level. Data from the 2013 Deer Management Report are presented by 

transportation type and GMU in Table 3.17-1. GMU 4, the ABC Islands 

(Admiralty, Baranof, and Chicagof Islands), accounted for two-thirds (66 percent) 

of deer harvested in Southeast Alaska in 2011 (8,665 deer), with GMU 2, Prince 

of Wales Island, accounted for one-quarter (25 percent) (3,251 deer). Hunters 

accessing hunting areas by boat accounted for 63 percent of total deer harvest in 

2011. Hunters accessing the area by highway vehicle accounted for 23 percent 

of total deer harvest. The relative share of harvest by transportation type varies 
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-428 Final EIS

by GMU, with boat access, for example, accounting for 84 percent of harvest in 

GMU 4, but just 23 percent in GMU 2. Highway vehicle was the most frequently 

used method of access in GMU 2, Prince of Wales Island, accounting for 58

percent of deer harvest in 2011 (Table 3.17-1). This relatively high share reflects 

the more densely roaded nature of Prince of Wales Island and may be 

considered generally indicative of the effects of timber harvest and associated 

road building in areas connected to communities and the marine highway 

system. Most of the lands suitable for young-growth harvest in the beach fringe

are within GMUs 1A, 2, and 3.

Table 3.17-1

Deer Harvest by Game Management Unit and Transportation Type, 2011

GMU 

Number1 Area

Deer 

Harvested

Percent of Deer Harvested by Transportation Type2

Airplane Boat

3- or 4-

Wheeler

Highway 

Vehicle Foot

Unknown

1A Ketchikan3 176 NA NA NA NA NA NA

1B Petersburg4 83 1 84 3 4 7 2

1C Juneau 388 0 30 0 45 20 2

25 Prince of Wales Island 3,251 3 23 NA 58 8 8

3 Central Islands 514 1 45 12 26 5 11

4 ABC Islands5 8,665 6 84 2 3 3 3

Total 13,077 883 6,938 329 2,529 240 139

Percent of Total 100 8 63 3 23 2 1

Notes:

ABC Islands = Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof Islands 1

 Game Management Units (GMUs) are a geographic unit of measurement established and used by ADF&G. 2

 These data were compiled as part of ADF&G’s mandatory hunt report cards issued in conjunction with deer harvest tickets. 

Hunters report transportation method for traveling to their hunting areas. Numbers may not sum to 100 percent due to 

rounding. 3

 Airplane data are not available for this GMU. 4

 The foot category for this GMU includes 1 percent of hunters that used a horse/dog team to access their hunting area. 5

 In GMU 2, 3- or 4- Wheelers were accounted for in the Highway Vehicle category. 

Source: ADF&G (2013).

New road construction is likely to result in the development of new use patterns 

around some communities, but these changes are not likely to lead to a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence access to the 

resources. New use patterns may, however, favor some subsistence groups and 

disadvantage others. Subsistence access may be via a number of different 

transportation types and often involves more than one form of transportation. 

Subsistence users may, for example, access an area via boat followed by road 

(and on-foot) or via boat and on-foot, with types of access varying by location 

and user. Some hunters may access specific areas using more than one form of 

transportation, but others may favor one form of transportation over another, say 

highway vehicle over foot. 

While there would be some new road access under all alternatives in the long 

run, nearly all new roads constructed under the alternatives would be closed 

following harvest. These roads would, therefore, not be available for use by 

highway vehicles or high-clearance vehicles. They may, however, be available 

for access by other methods and would, as a result, have the potential to affect 

existing subsistence patterns.

Based on the miles of new road construction projected under each alternative 

and viewed at a programmatic level, Alternative 1 would involve the construction 

of most new roads over 25 years: 281 miles of new roads versus the next highest 

maximum of 267 miles under Alternative 5. However, Alternative 1 would require 

much less road construction on decommissioned roadbeds and road 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-429 Subsistence

reconstruction over this period than the other alternatives, with a maximum 

combined total length of 224 miles versus 306 miles (Alternative 4) to 381 miles

(Alternative 2) under the other alternatives. Viewed over 100 years, new road 

construction would range from 871 miles (Alternative 4) to 1,056 miles 

(Alternative 2), with road construction on decommissioned roadbeds and road 

reconstruction miles ranging from 1,315 miles (Alternative 1) to 1,791 miles 

(Alternative 2). Harvest would be limited to areas outside Inventoried Roadless 

Areas (IRAs) under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 and would, therefore, tend to 

increase road density in already roaded areas rather than provide new access to 

presently undeveloped areas.

Renewable energy development is not expected to substantially increase road 

density on the Forest under any of the alternatives.

Some subsistence users have a preference for unroaded areas. Viewed at a 

programmatic level, Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 would likely have the lowest impact 

on subsistence users who prefer unroaded areas because timber management 

would be primarily limited to areas outside the existing IRAs on the Tongass. 

Another potential access impact relates to the effects of clearcut harvesting on 

the landscape. Subsistence hunters have varying opinions on the effects of 

clearcut harvest on hunting success. Some hunters say that timber harvest 

clearcuts are productive for some years after harvest, while others prefer not to 

use clearcuts. Hunters interviewed on Prince of Wales Island, for example, 

reported that the best hunting in clearcut areas begins approximately 2 years 

after an area is logged, with hunt quality typically starting to decline 9 years after 

the area was cut (Brinkman 2006). Concern has been expressed by hunters that 

clearcuts in the process of regrowth become impassable to hunters after a period 

of time (Galginaitis 2004). Young-growth harvest would likely improve hunting in 

many previously harvested areas.

In addition to long-term access effects, timber management activities may also 

have short-term, temporary displacement effects for subsistence users because 

it is standard practice to close logging roads to outside traffic when logging is 

taking place. Subsistence users who use existing roads for access would be 

preempted from using those roads for the duration of logging activity in the 

affected area. These types of effects would, however, be short term and 

temporary, and would not be likely to lead to a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction of subsistence access to the resources. In addition, as 

previously noted, most or all new roads would be closed following harvest.

Competition

Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the population in Southeast Alaska in 2014 

resided in Juneau (44 percent) or Ketchikan (19 percent) and is, therefore, 

considered non-rural from a subsistence perspective (Alaska DOL 2014a). 

Residents in the remaining communities are considered rural. Competition for 

the more abundant wildlife and fisheries resources near rural communities is 

affected by a number of factors, including fish and game regulations, the mobility 

of community residents, the Forest-wide distribution of game species, decreases 

in resource populations as a result of habitat reductions and/or over-harvest, and 

types of community access, such as roads, ferries, and commercial air services.

The following assumptions were made for the purposes of evaluating potential 

impacts to competition:

• New road construction adjacent to communities with ferry access will result in 

increased competition from outside communities.
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-430 Final EIS

• New road construction adjacent to existing road systems where interties 

between communities exist will result in increased competition from 

surrounding communities associated with the interconnected roads.

• 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.

Given these assumptions, the 1997 Forest Plan Revision FEIS concluded that 

implementation of Alternative 11 (the Selected Alternative) would result in a 

significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of deer by 

increasing competition for some subsistence resources by non-rural, as well as 

rural residents. This was judged most likely to occur on Chichagof, Baranof, 

and/or Prince of Wales Islands, where competition for deer and some other land 

mammals was identified as heavy, and habitat capability had already been 

reduced as a result of timber harvest. 

The significant possibility of a significant restriction, resulting from a change in 

competition, would still exist but be less than the possibility under Alternative 11 

(the Selected Alternative) of the 1997 Forest Plan Revision FEIS for all of the 

alternatives considered in this EIS because of the much lower anticipated rates 

of timber harvest and road construction. 

Cumulative effects are discussed in four categories. 

1. Effects Resulting from Timber Harvesting of Private Lands. Native 

corporation lands adjacent to the Tongass National Forest support extensive 

timber harvest operations and old-growth forest wildlife habitat capability on 

Native corporation lands (especially that for deer) has declined. This decline 

has occurred primarily on North Chichagof, Kupreanof, Admiralty (localized), 

and Prince of Wales Islands, as well as in some mainland areas. The 

resulting lower habitat capabilities on these private lands are likely to 

increase hunting demands in adjacent National Forest areas, increasing 

competition and potentially leading to reduced hunter success, reduced or 

eliminated sport seasons, and in some places reduced or eliminated 

subsistence seasons. 

2. Effects from Past Activities. Timber harvest has been more influential in 

changing the landscape than any other use of the resources of the Tongass 

National Forest. Timber harvest has historically been accompanied by road 

building, log transfer facility development, and reductions in old-growth forest 

habitat. 

3. Effects of Present Activities. Implementation of the current Forest Plan 

allowed an annual maximum timber harvest of approximately 267 million

board feet (MMBF) (based on the Allowable Sale Quantity [ASQ]), with an 

annual conversion of up to 8,900 acres of old-growth habitat to young growth 

(although a much lower volume and acreage of old growth has been 

harvested in recent years). This timber harvest involved the projected 

construction of up to 106 miles of system roads each year. In reality, less 

than 25 miles of new system roads has been built each year since the plan 

was implemented. Two mining operations, the Greens Creek Mine on 

Admiralty Island and Kensington Mine north of Juneau, are currently 

operating. 

4. Effects of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities. Timber harvest 

activities have typically been accompanied by new access and often 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-431 Subsistence

increased use of subsistence resources by rural and non-rural residents. 

The effects of timber harvest on deer habitat capability would be reduced 

over time as harvest areas transition from old-growth to young-growth under 

all alternatives.

Counting all lands in Southeast Alaska, an estimated 86 percent of the 

original old growth remains today. After 100 years of implementing any of 

the alternatives, it is estimated that the percentage of the original old growth 

remaining would be 82 percent, due to combined harvest on NFS and nonNFS lands, assuming maximum rates of harvest. Although the percentage 

reduction would not be high overall, areas of concentrated harvest could 

have higher effects on subsistence. Areas of concentrated harvest are 

described in the Biodiversity section, which quantifies the estimated effects of 

cumulative future harvest on the amount of old growth by biogeographic 

province for all of Southeast Alaska (see Tables 3.9-16, 3.9-17, and 3.9-18). 

Timber harvest of Native corporation lands is anticipated to continue at a relatively 

low but constant level over the next decade. New land conveyances under Public 

Law 113-291 could result in some previously unharvested areas being logged. 

Actual mineral development is difficult to predict, but effects to subsistence 

resources would be highly localized where it does occur. Appendix C provides a 

full list of all the projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

An ANILCA Section 810 evaluation and determination is not required for approval 

of a Forest Plan amendment, which is a programmatic level decision and not a 

determination whether to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, 

occupancy, or disposition” of National Forest land. This EIS is part of the Forest 

Plan Amendment process and, therefore, does not require an ANILCA Section 

810 evaluation and determination. However, public hearings on subsistence 

issues for the proposed Forest Plan Amendment were held in several 

communities between the Draft and Final versions of this EIS. 

Subsistence testimony during these hearings did not provide specific examples 

of how the proposed action would affect the commenter’s subsistence use in 

terms of access or increasing competition. Some commenters were concerned 

in general that the proposed Forest Plan could impact subsistence and cultural 

heritage resources in RMAs, particularly in the beach and estuary fringe, or that 

by not improving forest and water ecosystems there could be a reduction in 

abundance and distribution of subsistence resources. The alternatives consider 

various levels of young-growth treatment in the RMAs and beach fringe. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 propose commercial thinning only in beach fringe and do not 

allow harvest in RMAs. Alternative 2 allows for even-aged management within 

the beach fringe for 15 years followed by commercial thinning for the life of the 

Forest Plan and allows commercial thinning up to 33 percent in the RMAs. 

Alternative 5 allows for up to 10-acre openings and/or up to 35 percent of the 

acres to be removed in the first 15 years in both RMAs and the beach fringe. 

ANILCA 

Determination
3 Environment and Effects

Subsistence 3-432 Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-433 Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites

Affected Environment......................................................................................3-433

Heritage Resources.....................................................................................3-433

Sacred Sites ................................................................................................3-435

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................3-436

Direct and Indirect Effects ...........................................................................3-436

Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................3-438

Affected Environment

The Tongass National Forest has a rich and varied history. Its early history is 

represented by the Tsimshian and Haida in southern Southeast Alaska, and the 

Tlingit who occupy areas from southern Southeast Alaska all the way to Yakutat

and the Copper River area. Tribal groups—or Kwáan within the Tlingit—have 

associated tribal boundaries; for example, the Stikine Tlingit (Stax’heen Kwáan), 

the Sitka Tlingit (Sheet’ka Kwáan), and the Hoonah Tlingit (Xuna Káawu) all 

claim traditional use areas.

Important historic properties and other cultural resources located throughout the 

Forest that represent Alaska Native migration into the area thousands of years 

ago and continued occupation of the area are exemplified by the well 

documented and publicized Ground Hog Bay, Hidden Falls, and On Your Knees 

Cave sites. In addition, there are pictograph and petroglyph sites, forts, and 

seasonal hunting and fishing sites. Oral histories and ethnographies provide 

evidence for sacred lands, battle sites, transportation and trade corridors, and 

traditional subsistence use areas.

Early contact with Europeans, and the subsequent exploitation and colonization 

of Southeast Alaska, resulted in historic properties representing early Russian 

occupation, fur farming, gold mining, large-scale fishing and canning operations, 

and the timber industry. Historic properties and other cultural resources

representing these different uses and periods in history are present within the 

Forest and are managed as part of the Heritage Program. Cultural resources are 

broadly defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and can include 

prehistoric and historic sites, cultural landscapes, artifacts, and sacred sites that 

may or may not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

Historic properties, on the other hand, are defined in the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and specifically refer to sites that either have the 

potential to be eligible or are eligible to be listed on the National Register. Historic 

properties that are identified, but have not yet had a “determination of eligibility” 

are treated as “eligible” properties for the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA. 

Properties identified as not eligible are managed in accordance with Forest 

Service policy, but still are analyzed as a cultural resource for NEPA purposes. 

National Register–eligible historic properties within the Tongass National Forest 

have met one or more of the four primary criteria to deem them significant 

enough for national recognition: they have been associated with events that 

made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; were

associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; embodied a distinctive 

characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or have yielded or 

may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. It is within 

this context that historic properties are discussed and the potential adverse 

effects are analyzed.

Heritage 

Resources
3 Environment and Effects

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites 3-434 Final EIS

The terms “cultural resources” and “historic properties” are generally used 

interchangeably even though they have different meanings within NEPA and 

NHPA. They may also be lumped under the broader category of “heritage 

resources.”

As of the end of June 2015, approximately 145,330 acres of Tongass National 

Forest lands have been inventoried for heritage resources. A total of 3,399

heritage resource sites have been identified, 46 of which have been listed on the 

NRHP, while 666 have been determined eligible for listing either through 

concurrence with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) or by a 

decision of the Keeper of the National Register. Of the remaining known sites, 

2,354 are currently unevaluated for National Register eligibility. 

Of the known sites, 1,436 represent the historic period beginning with the early 

contact period and include World War II sites, Civilian Conservation Corps–era 

shelters, historic canneries, trappers’ cabins, fox farms, shipwrecks, military 

installations, and early logging and recreational sites. Prehistoric sites total 

1,699 and are represented by pictographs, petroglyphs, Native villages, fish traps 

and weirs, lithic scatters, fortifications, burials sites, and rockshelters. The 

remaining known sites have not yet been classified as to associated time period. 

These known sites are distributed throughout the Forest and, with their 

associated features that enable their eligibility to the NRHP (such as integrity of 

location and sense of place), make up the “affected environment” for cultural 

resources. They are located throughout the Forest, in all ecosystems, from 

shoreline to alpine, along streams and rivers, in caves and in the open.

The majority of the known sites occur in close proximity to food and fresh water

sources, normally below 100 feet in elevation and near the shoreline. These 

areas are described as “high sensitivity areas” in the current predictive model for 

locating sites. Other types of heritage resources such as mineral resource areas, 

or rock cairns of unknown use, may occur in higher elevations, but in general 

they are less abundant and more sparsely dispersed, and are considered to be in 

“low sensitivity” areas.

Because a small percentage of the total acreage of the Forest has been 

surveyed for cultural resources, the heritage staff rely on a predictive model to 

understand and evaluate potential impacts in areas that have not benefitted from 

a current field survey. The current model predicts that most sites will be below 

100 feet in elevation and/or in areas of animal, plant, or mineral resource 

abundance was based on the assumption that the shorelines were static and had 

not changed through time. These are considered “high sensitivity areas.”

Because of a new understanding of elevation and sea level changes, both raising 

and lowering, after deglaciation, this model is no longer appropriate for some 

portions of the Forest and in particular for locating prehistoric sites. The model is 

still useful in predicting the locations of more recent human occupation, however.

A new model for locating historic properties looks at the changing landscapes of 

both emergent and submerging shorelines, and predicts sites both at higher 

elevations and lower elevations. The changing landscape situation is complex, 

and is not uniform across Southeast Alaska. It is difficult to predict where cultural 

resources, in particular archaeological resources, are located without having a 

good understanding of geomorphology, and in particular glacial geomorphology. 

It also should be noted that this model is for archaeological sites, only one type of 

historic property or cultural resource found throughout the Forest. 

Recent research has demonstrated the validity of a model that predicts the 

oldest, and potentially most important, sites for understanding the early 

prehistory of the Tongass may expect to be found between modern day sea level 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-435 Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites

and higher elevation relict beaches that are 60 or more feet above present-day 

sea level, depending on the geomorphology.

Identification and evaluation of heritage resources is an ongoing process. 

Historic research, literature reviews, oral interviews, and field surveys all provide 

information about the location or potential location of resources and insight into 

resource distribution and the sensitivity of sites to damage. Further scientific 

study will increase knowledge about early human migration, later exploration and 

development of the region, and human behavior in response to social and 

environmental change. Overall only a small portion of the Tongass National 

Forest has been surveyed; therefore, additional heritage sites are expected to be 

located within the Forest in the future. As heritage resources are located the 

Forest has the responsibility to evaluate the recovered data and to make 

determinations regarding eligibility to the NRHP. In addition, the Forest has the 

responsibility to curate collected artifacts and conserve records, photographs,

and other data specific to heritage resource projects and sites within an 

appropriate environment under 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 79 and in 

accordance with federal Records Management requirements. 

Numerous sacred sites have been identified throughout the Tongass National 

Forest. Sacred sites are defined by the persons who believe they are sacred. 

Generally, the authoritative voice is a tribal representative, but Traditional 

Cultural Practitioners and tribal members may also define what is sacred. 

Sacred sites and their definition can and do change through time. Sacred sites 

have both tangible and intangible qualities. They can include old village sites, 

pictographs, petroglyphs, burials, traditional hunting and gathering areas, 

traditional areas for collection of minerals or source materials for artifacts, as well 

as places that are visited for their “spiritual” qualities.

Many sacred sites are also considered cultural resources or historic properties. 

Those sites are managed as heritage resources subject to Section 106 review 

should they have the potential to be affected by a federal undertaking. 

In December 2014, Congress passed legislation that included the Sealaska Land 

Entitlement Finalization which conveys the remaining 70,075 acres on the 

Tongass specified in 1971 under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA). The conveyance includes 18 parcels of land totaling 69,585 acres and 

490 acres of land containing not more than 76 cemetery and historic sites. The 

conveyed parcels contain 15 heritage resource sites that will be deducted from 

the above total once conveyance is complete. All of the cemetery sites being 

conveyed are considered to be sacred sites. While these properties will be 

conveyed out of federal ownership, they may still be surrounded by Forest lands 

and developmental activities and will need to be considered in planning.

Other sacred sites might include places where traditional cultural practices occur 

such as healing ceremonies, certain subsistence practices, or places of spiritual 

qualities that cannot be measured or pointed to on a map. In order to protect and 

preserve Alaska Native religious practices, Executive Order 13007 and other 

laws and Executive Orders of the U.S. Government require the Forest Service, to 

the extent practicable, permitted by law, and not clearly inconsistent with 

essential agency functions to: 

• Accommodate access to, and ceremonial use of, Alaska Native sacred sites 

by Alaska Native religious practitioners,

• Avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of sacred sites, and

• Maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

Sacred Sites
3 Environment and Effects

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites 3-436 Final EIS

Alaska Native groups or an appropriately authoritative representative of an 

Alaska Native religion shall be responsible for identifying such sites to the Forest 

Service as the managing agency.

Further, the Culture and Heritage Cooperation Authority (25 United States Code 

[USC] 32a) provides for reburial of human remains on Forest lands. These sites 

are treated as sacred sites.

Burial sites are also considered sacred, and are generally discovered during 

ground-disturbing activities. The Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act covers inadvertent discoveries of Alaska Native remains and 

affords protection to these sites.

Environmental Consequences

Direct effects to heritage sites include damage or destruction caused

inadvertently or by intent. Inadvertent damage to archaeological sites can result 

from access and use around the site that causes soil compaction, or from other 

ground-disturbing activities. Other historic properties and cultural resources may 

be inadvertently damaged by careless behavior. Intentional damage includes

looting and vandalism, relic collecting, theft, and defacement and is a violation of 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. Damage or destruction of historic 

properties and cultural resources can result in the loss of information and 

change the eligibility of the property for National Register purposes and may 

cause a property to be delisted if the factors that contributed to listing no longer 

remain. 

While multiple-use activities have benefited heritage resources by providing 

opportunities for inventory, evaluation, and interpretation in remote areas of the 

Forest, ground-disturbing activities have the most potential to adversely affect 

these resources and their environmental settings. The amount of impact an 

activity has is determined largely by the location and nature of the activity, the 

characteristics of the soils, the degree of use, and the nature of the historic 

property or cultural resource. 

Under all of the alternatives, the preferred management of heritage resource 

sites eligible for, nominated to, or listed in the National Register is avoidance and 

protection in accordance with the Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines. If 

avoidance and protection are not possible, and a determination of “Adverse 

Effect to Historic Properties” is made, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with 

the State Historic Preservation Officer is required in order to mitigate the effects. 

If the historic properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the 

ACHP must also be invited to consult. Alaska Native tribes and other potential 

stakeholders also may be invited to be signatories on the MOA depending on the 

historic property or cultural resource in question. The potential for adverse 

effects, and therefore the need for mitigation, is diminished when the physical 

settings around significant heritage resources are allowed to retain their integrity 

of place (i.e., original location and setting, whether in a natural setting or a 

cultural landscape).

Direct effects are mostly likely to occur under Land Use Designations allowing 

timber harvesting, mining, and road construction. Existing standards and 

guidelines (e.g., those for riparian and beach and estuary buffer zones) result in 

the protection of many of the Forest’s heritage resources by eliminating or 

minimizing ground disturbing activities in those locales. However, all action 

alternatives would allow some harvest in Beach Fringe and Alternatives 2 and 5 

would allow harvest in Riparian Management Areas (Alternative 2 more than 

Alternative 5). 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-437 Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites

Indirect effects are mostly like to occur as a result of recreation and special uses 

simply because people want to recreate and use the forest in the same places 

people have for thousands of years. In many instances, retention of an historic 

property’s original setting, or cultural landscape, is crucial to imparting and 

protecting the values that qualify a heritage resource for National Register status.

Except for those sacred sites that are also considered archaeological sites or 

historic properties, the potential effects to sacred sites are difficult to evaluate 

because the ‘sacred’ nature of a site is determined by the tribes or their religious 

practitioners, and may or may not be obvious to a casual observer. Development 

on or near sacred sites with intangible or “spiritual” qualities may be considered a 

direct effect if the landscape or the qualities of that site are impaired.

An indirect effect common to all alternatives and prescriptions is that the 

discovery of new sites can lead to vandalism if locations become known to the 

public.

In applying the current model that predicts the majority of significant heritage 

resources located below 100 feet elevation, Alternative 3 has the least impact to 

old-growth areas below 100 feet (Table 3.18-1). Conversely, Alternative 1 would 

have the least impact to areas below 100 feet in young growth areas. 

Presumably, previous harvests have impacted areas now considered young 

growth; therefore, less harvest of old growth in Alternative 3 would be preferable 

from the standpoint of potential effects on heritage resources. While this is a 

presentation of the potential effects to heritage resources using the current 

quantifiable model, consideration will need to be given to the location of relict 

beaches and other refinements to the model in relation to future proposed sales. 

Table 3.18-1

Approximate Suitable Acres Under 100 Feet Elevation Likely to be 

Harvested over 25 Years

Alternative Old-Growth Harvest (Acres) Young-Growth Harvest (Acres)

1 692 243

2 255 4,797

3 169 3,421

4 338 1,931

5 350 2,387

In addition, Alternative 1 does not include any entry into beach or estuary fringes 

or riparian buffers. Therefore, heritage resources in those locations should be 

less subjected to impacts related to logging. Table 3.18-2 identifies the 

maximum estimated acres of old growth and young growth that can be harvested 

and miles of road likely to be constructed and reconstructed under each 

alternative over 25 years, and Table 3.18-3 presents harvest acreages and road 

miles over 100 years. These acreages and mileages provide relative indicators 

of potential adverse effects, with the alternatives having the most acreage and 

mileage likely to produce the highest risk of effects. Under this scenario, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 have the highest risk of effects because they include more 

area where development would be permitted. They would be followed by 

Alternatives 5, 4, and 1, in decreasing order of risk level. However, because 

project areas are inventoried for ancient and historic heritage resource sites and 

tribal consultation for sacred sites should occur prior to implementation and 

avoidance of impacts is the preferred option for resource protection, the levels of 

risk are considered relatively low for all alternatives. In addition, existing 

standards and guidelines should result in the protection of most heritage 

resources and sacred sites in those areas.
3 Environment and Effects

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites 3-438 Final EIS

While it is true that increased project activity might accelerate the loss of heritage 

resources, primarily by improving public access and increasing the probability for 

looting and vandalism of heritage resource sites, there are potential positive 

effects as well. Over time, decay, neglect, and natural landscape changes 

threaten the preservation of significant heritage resources. By expanding the 

Forest’s inventory of its heritage resources, development projects result in 

identification of many sites that might otherwise decay unnoticed. Once sites are 

known, the Forest has the opportunity to better protect them and encourage 

collection of information from a greater number of them. 

Table 3.18-2

Approximate Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested and Maximum 

Road Miles to be Constructed/Reconstructed over 25 Years

Alternative

Old-Growth 

Harvest

(Acres)

YoungGrowth 

Harvest

(Acres)

New Road 

Construction

(Miles)

Road Reconstruction & 

Roads Constructed on 

Decom. Roadbeds 

(Miles)

1 38,527 9,669 281 224 

2 15,027 63,787 260 381 

3 16,599 53,734 245 339 

4 23,255 40,760 257 306 

5 23,813 43,316 267 321 

Table 3.18-3

Approximate Maximum Acres Likely to be Harvested and Maximum 

Road Miles to be Constructed/Reconstructed over 100 Years

Alternative

Old-Growth 

Harvest

(Acres)

YoungGrowth 

Harvest

(Acres)

New Road 

Construction

(Miles)

Road Reconstruction & 

Roads Constructed on 

Decom. Roadbeds 

(Miles)

1 62,851 209,882 944 1,315

2 32,609 335,344 1,056 1,790

3 35,568 313,216 1,020 1,696

4 42,597 234,885 871 1,344

5 42,479 284,144 994 1,585

The vast majority of Southeast Alaska is occupied by the Tongass National 

Forest (16.7 million acres), so the disturbances described above for the Tongass 

are the major disturbances affecting heritage resources. However, Glacier Bay 

and Haines/Skagway National Park areas, Haines State Forest, and other 

ownerships in the Haines/Skagway area occupy 3.6 million acres, while state, 

Native corporations, and other ownerships inside the Forest boundary occupy a 

combined 1.1 million acres. Therefore, activities on these lands contribute to 

Southeast Alaska cumulative effects. However, extensive timber harvest, road 

construction, and renewable energy, mining, and infrastructure development for 

tourism-related activities occur on these ownerships, which have the potential to 

affect cultural resources. 

If Forest Service policy of avoidance and protection is followed, cumulative 

effects would be minimal with the implementation of this plan. However, if 

mitigation becomes the primary strategy for responding to potential adverse 

effects to historic properties, then the cumulative effects could be significant. 

Mitigation does not nullify cumulative effects. At present, there is no reason to 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-439 Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites

believe that the policy of avoidance and protection will not be followed, and 

cumulative effects are expected to be minimal.

Extensive landscape changes and ground disturbance have occurred and will 

continue to occur on many non-federal lands in Southeast Alaska. Projects that 

are on non-federal lands, and not funded or authorized by the federal 

government are not subject to the same protections for heritage resources. 

Heritage resources are nonrenewable, and once disturbed they are permanently 

damaged or destroyed; their information and values are lost and cannot be 

recovered. Preservation of these resources and values on federal lands is 

critical so that future generations can continue to enjoy the heritage and 

knowledge about our past that we enjoy today.

Appendix C of this Environmental Impact Statement provides a full list of all the 

projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis.
3 Environment and Effects

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites 3-440 Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-441 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Inventoried Roadless Areas

Affected Environment...............................................................................3-441

Current Situation...................................................................................3-441

Environmental Consequences ................................................................3-445

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ...............................................3-445

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-447

This section provides an overview of the existing conditions related to Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRAs) as defined in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule (2001 

Roadless Rule; USDA Forest Service 2000) and assesses the potential direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on these areas. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the United States District 

Court for District of Alaska’s 2011 reinstatement of the Roadless Rule on the 

Tongass National Forest. Consequently, the Roadless Rule remains in effect in 

Alaska and the Forest Service continues to apply the Rule to the Tongass 

National Forest. A second case involving the Roadless Rule is currently being 

adjudicated in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The 

Forest Service will comply with all court orders.

Affected Environment

IRAs in the Alaska Region include 9.2 million acres (57 percent) of the Tongass 

National Forest. Including Wilderness, Land Use Designation (LUD) II 

designated areas, and National Monument areas, the Tongass National Forest is 

currently more than 90 percent undeveloped and unavailable for timber harvest 

and road building. In some locations short-term “boom and bust” developments 

including fox farming, salmon canneries, mining, and military activity resulted in 

the temporary development and occupation of small areas mostly near the 

shoreline. Many of these areas have since been largely reclaimed by nature. 

Developed areas cover about 1.3 million acres, or about 8 percent, of the 

Tongass. Southeast Alaska residents (approximately 74,000) are, for the most 

part, surrounded by land that has many of the characteristics of wilderness. 

Routine travel and ordinary outdoor recreation activities typically require a higher 

degree of skill, risk-taking, and self-reliance than is usually required of 

adventurous backcountry visitors on other National Forests. 

Several characteristics of IRAs on the Tongass are unique relative to other areas 

in the National Forest System (NFS). The Tongass has very large undeveloped 

land areas that could potentially be managed as wilderness or in an unroaded 

condition. Several portions of the Forest constitute contiguous IRAs exceeding 1 

million acres, and thus represent large, unfragmented wildlife habitats and 

exceptional opportunities for solitude. 

Many of the Tongass IRAs represent wildlife habitats, ecosystems, and visual 

character, such as coastal islands facing the open Pacific, extensive beaches on 

inland saltwater, old-growth temperate rain forests, ice fields, and glaciers that 

exist nowhere else in the NFS. Many of these areas are remote and difficult to 

access for primitive recreation and many contain other important resources, such 

as timber, minerals, and salmon-producing streams. 

IRAs are defined as undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that 

meet the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act 

and were inventoried during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Review and 

Current 

Situation
Environment and Effects 3

Inventoried Roadless Areas 3-442 Final EIS

Evaluation (RARE) II process and subsequent updates and forest planning 

analyses. The Tongass is using the IRA boundaries associated with the 2001 

Roadless Rule (USDA Forest Service 2000), which are identified in a set of 

maps, associated with the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Volume 2, dated November 2000. 

These maps identify 9.2 million acres in IRAs on the Tongass and correspond 

closely with the 1996 roadless area inventory that was prepared for the 1997 

Forest Plan Revision (USDA Forest Service 1997c). The current acreage 

represents an approximately 292,000-acre reduction compared to the 2008 

Forest Plan due to land adjustments, refinements to boundaries, additional road 

construction, and mapping corrections. 

Roadless characteristics (i.e., values or features that make the area meet the 

minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act) are 

described in the Roadless Area Conservation FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2000, 

Vol. 1, pp. 3-3 to 3-7).

Detailed descriptions of the IRAs are included in Appendix C to the Tongass 

Land Management Plan Revision, Final Supplemental EIS (SEIS), Roadless 

Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations (USDA Forest Service 

2003b). These characteristics are also discussed in detail in the individual 

resource sections in this FEIS.

Table 3.19-1 summarizes the roadless characteristics considered and the section 

in this chapter where potential effects are discussed.

Table 3.19-1

Roadless Characteristics and Discussion Sections

2001 Roadless Rule Characteristics Chapter 3 Section

Biological Values

Diversity of plant and animal communities Wildlife, Biodiversity, Plants, Fish

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate, and sensitive species, and for those 

species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of 

land

Wildlife, Biodiversity, Plants, Fish

Physical Values

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air Soils, Geology, Karst and Caves, 

Water, Climate and Air

Sources of public drinking water Water

Social Values

Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and SemiPrimitive Motorized classes of dispersed recreation

opportunities

Recreation and Tourism

Reference landscapes Scenery

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality Scenery

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites

Other locally identified unique characteristics Recreation and Tourism; Heritage 

Resources and Sacred Sites

Source: USDA Forest Service 2000

The roadless area inventory displays the extent of the roadless resource and 

provides data for use by managers, legislators, and others to formulate land 

management proposals. Roadless areas may retain their roadless character by 

being managed in a way that emphasizes relatively large undeveloped or natural 

areas, such as areas usually required for old-growth habitat, scenic backdrops, 

or primitive recreation. Roadless areas identified in the inventory that are outside 

of the Wilderness LUD may be considered for wilderness recommendation, or 

managed for a wide range of other resource management activities.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-443 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Table 3.19-2 provides an overview of the IRAs identified in the 2001 Roadless 

Rule. These areas consist of approximately 9.2 million acres spread over 110 

separate IRAs ranging in size from just 466 acres (Fake Pass #532) to 1.19 

million acres (Juneau-Skagway Icefield #301). All but 5 of the 110 IRAs 

identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule are larger than 5,000 acres (Table 3.19-2). 

Table 3.19-2 also includes the amount of each area that is productive old growth

(POG). If the additional 5.8 million acres of the Tongass in Wilderness and 

Wilderness National Monument are combined with the IRA acreage, the resulting 

total (15.0 million acres) represents about 90 percent of the Tongass. 

Table 3.19-2

Tongass National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas Covered by the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Roadless 

Area Number Roadless Area Name

Roadless Rule 

National Forest 

Acres

Productive OldGrowth Forest

(Acres)

201 Fanshaw 48,118 29,247

202 Spires 533,366 65,442

204 Madan 67,878 32,357

205 Aaron 78,598 16,889

206 Cone 127,869 10,706

207 Harding 173,344 54,497

208 Bradfield 197,826 20,018

209 Anan 36,646 15,878

210 Frosty 37,369 17,511

211 North Kupreanof 114,318 25,083

212 Missionary 16,661 8,256

213 Five Mile 18,822 8,114

214 South Kupreanof 216,579 84,620

215 Castle 49,194 19,247

216 Lindenberg 25,797 11,419

217 Green Rocks 10,578 4,589

218 Woewodski 10,052 5,570

220 East Mitkof 7,922 2,973

223 Manzanita 8,385 4,781

224 Crystal 18,324 7,789

225 Kadin 2,023 1,979

227 North Wrangell 7,829 4,375

229 South Wrangell 14,193 6,096

231 Woronkofski 11,098 5,961

232 North Etolin 40,909 19,683

233 Mosman 53,118 24,718

234 South Etolin 26,230 9,740

235 West Zarembo 6,781 3,064

236 East Zarembo 10,845 5,084

237 South Zarembo 36,228 14,618

238 Kashevarof Islands 4,630 3,281

239 Keku 9,019 4,956

240 Security 31,370 20,491

241 North Kuiu 6,352 5,625

242 Camden 36,676 18,068

243 Rocky Pass 77,674 37,946

244 Bay of Pillars 27,083 19,177

245 East Kuiu 27,215 17,009

246 South Kuiu 61,906 36,408
Environment and Effects 3

Inventoried Roadless Areas 3-444 Final EIS

Table 3.19-2 (continued)

Tongass National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas Covered by the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Roadless 

Area Number Roadless Area Name

Roadless Rule 

National Forest 

Acres

Productive OldGrowth Forest

(Acres)

247 East Wrangell 7,269 4,689

288 West Wrangell 8,849 4,042

289 Central Wrangell 13,097 5,899

290 Southeast Wrangell 18,340 7,661

301 Juneau-Skagway Icefield 1,186,714 57,950

302 Taku-Snettisham 661,162 95,065

303 Sullivan 67,114 13,422

304 Chilkat-West Lynn Canal 194,888 45,554

305 Juneau Urban 100,412 39,212

306 Mansfield Peninsula 52,730 27,189

307 Greens Creek 26,965 16,648

308 Windham-Port Houghton 160,445 105,861

310 Douglas Island 24,382 13,234

311 Chichagof 552,423 176,502

312 Trap Bay 13,217 6,664

313 Rhine 22,830 6,779

314 Point Craven 10,726 6,706

317 Point Augusta 15,439 10,240

318 Whitestone 5,616 2,794

319 Pavlof-East Point 4,886 3,935

321 Tenakee Ridge 20,512 5,757

323 Game Creek 49,839 18,053

325 Freshwater Bay 43,132 15,924

326 North Kruzof 32,006 15,339

327 Middle Kruzof 14,698 7,643

328 Hoonah Sound 79,524 24,776

329 South Kruzof 54,639 16,340

330 North Baranof 311,224 75,786

331 Sitka Urban 110,803 12,942

332 Sitka Sound 13,270 5,970

333 Redoubt 67,652 28,392

334 Port Alexander 120,181 31,064

338 Brabazon Addition 498,364 0

339 Yakutat Forelands 320,932 75,272

341 Upper Situk 16,397 10,946

342 Neka Mountain 6,103 1,950

343 Neka Bay 7,056 3,729

501 Dall Island 103,861 61,050

502 Suemez Island 19,862 11,244

503 Outer Islands 98,303 51,366

504 Sukkwan 43,901 16,303

505 Soda Bay 63,371 20,559

507 Eudora 190,697 84,718

508 Christoval 9,079 6,867

509 Kogish 63,608 23,470

510 Karta 51,177 17,781

511 Thorne River 72,971 38,017

512 Ratz 5,322 2,444

514 Sarkar 51,876 25,141

515 Kosciusko 63,655 36,544

516 Calder 8,693 6,517

517 El Capitan 26,081 13,316

518 Salmon Bay 22,628 9,318

519 McKenzie 76,054 26,015
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-445 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Table 3.19-2 (continued)

Tongass National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas Covered by the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Roadless 

Area Number Roadless Area Name

Roadless Rule 

National Forest 

Acres

Productive OldGrowth Forest

(Acres)

520 Kasaan 7,576 3,060

521 Duke 44,650 6,152

522 Gravina 37,183 18,478

523 South Revilla 51,834 20,862

524 Revilla 29,049 9,962

525 Behm Islands 4,349 2,746

526 North Revilla 212,772 95,720

528 Cleveland 185,741 95,547

529 North Cleveland 105,132 46,154

530 Hyder 121,521 14,180

531 Nutkwa 40,810 21,894

532 Fake Pass 466 396

533 Hydaburg 11,021 6,382

534 Twelvemile 37,914 12,631

535 Carroll 11,268 4,421

536 Kasaan Bay 6,210 1,045

577 Quartz 142,889 46,978

Total Acres 9,224,182 2,560,474

Within IRAs, there are areas where roads were constructed that were either 

grandfathered in (i.e., constructed prior to the 2001 Roadless Rule) or 

constructed during the period following the December 30, 2003, Tongass 

Exemption (68 Federal Register [FR] 75136). These areas are referred to as 

“roaded roadless” in this FEIS. In total, 80,251 acres (0.9 percent) of current 

IRAs are considered roaded roadless. 

Environmental Consequences

There are currently 9,224,182 acres in IRAs on the Tongass (Table 3.19-2). Not 

all lands that are identified as suitable for timber production would actually be 

harvested. Some of the road construction associated with timber harvest or 

renewable energy sites would occur in areas already roaded. Some of the road 

construction would fragment existing IRAs, either creating new roadless areas (if 

more than 5,000 acres remains) or simply resulting in small blocks of 

undeveloped land surrounded by roads and harvest areas. In addition, not all of 

the effects of the alternatives would occur at once. 

For these activities to take place there would need to be a change in the 

Roadless Rule (rule making). Under current regulations, commercial timber 

harvest in IRAs is inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule; therefore, harvest 

activities in IRAs would be postponed until there was a change in the Roadless 

Rule or the Tongass Roadless Rule Exemption were reinstated.

Effects of Alternatives

Timber Harvest 

Estimated acres of old-growth harvest and young-growth harvest after 100 years 

within current IRAs are presented in Table 3.19-3 by alternative. Only 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would allow harvest within IRAs, butharvest would be 

deferred until agency rulemaking modifies 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) (2001). Under 

Alternative 2, 100 percent of the proposed old-growth harvest within IRAs is 

located within roaded roadless areas (areas that were roaded before the 2001 

Direct, 

Indirect, 

and 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Inventoried Roadless Areas 3-446 Final EIS

Roadless Rule and during the 2001 Roadless Rule exemption period). This 

alternative would harvest an estimated 2,171 acres of old-growth forest, and 

9,118 acres of young-growth, which is equivalent to 0.02 and 0.1 percent of total 

IRA acres, respectively (Table 3.19-3). If this alternative were selected, no 

harvest could occur in IRAs until agency rulemaking modifies 36 CFR 

294.13(b)(4) (2001).

Alternative 3 would allow young-growth and old-growth harvest in 2001 Roadless 

Rule areas and includes almost eight times more old-growth harvest within IRAs

than Alternative 2 (Table 3.19-3). An estimated total of 17,037 acres of oldgrowth would be harvested under Alternative 3 (0.2 percent of total IRA acres), 

with just 9 percent of this total located in roaded roadless. Alternative 3 includes

an estimated 11,810 acres of young-growth harvest (0.1 percent of total IRA 

acres), about 2,700 acres more than Alternative 2 (Table 3.19-3). Approximately 

77 percent of this estimated young-growth harvest would occur in roaded 

roadless areas (Table 3.19-3). If this alternative were selected, harvest in IRAs

would be deferred until agency rulemaking modifies 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) (2001).

Table 3.19-3

Estimated Old-Growth and Young-Growth Harvest After 100 Years within Current 

Inventoried Roadless Areas by Alternative

Alternative

Estimated Old-Growth Harvest Acres Estimated Young-Growth Harvest Acres

Acres

Percent of 

IRA Acres

Percent in 

“Roaded 

Roadless” Acres

Percent of IRA

Acres

Percent in 

“Roaded 

Roadless”

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 2,171 0.02 100 9,118 0.1 100

3 17,037 0.2 9 11,810 0.1 77

4 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 IRAs do not include Wilderness and Wilderness National Monument, even though they are roadless. Commercial timber harvest in 

IRAs is inconsistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule; harvest activities in IRAs would not be possible unless there was a change in the 

Roadless Rule or the Tongass Roadless Rule Exemption were reinstated.

Renewable Energy 

All renewable energy sites have to meet detailed local, state and, in most cases, 

federal laws, regulations, and requirements. Projects are also subject to 

Tongass National Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 2008 Forest Plan 

identifies three types of areas related to energy development on the Tongass 

based on the existing LUDs: windows, which represent areas potentially 

available for energy development; avoidance areas; and exclusion areas. 

Avoidance areas are those LUDs where development of energy projects is not 

allowed unless there is no feasible alternative. Exclusion areas preclude 

Transportation and Utility Systems. There are no exclusion areas on the Forest due 

to special authorities provided in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act, Title XI. These classifications and the standards and guidelines in the 2008 

Forest Plan would continue to apply under Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 

through 5, energy projects would be managed under the Renewable Energy Plan 

Components identified in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan. This is discussed in more 

detail in the Renewable Energy section of this FEIS.

The Forest Service has identified 11 proposed renewable energy projects that 

are on or considered likely to affect NFS lands and are currently active (Table 

3.12b-3). These projects consist of nine hydroelectric projects, one geothermal 

project, and one wave project.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-447 Inventoried Roadless Areas

Eight of the 11 proposed renewable energy projects on or likely to affect NFS 

lands are located in IRAs. These projects include seven hydroelectric projects 

and one geothermal project. Effects from the proposed projects would depend 

on site-specific plans. In general, project activities that would impact IRAs could 

include new access road construction (temporary and permanent), forest 

clearing, ground disturbance, temporary construction noise, and visual impacts 

depending on the location and design features. Any associated transmission 

lines would also impact the IRAs crossed through forest clearing and potential 

additional road construction. 

All potential impacts to IRAs would be addressed during the permitting and 

licensing of these projects, with most requiring project-specific National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment. Potential impacts would be 

mitigated, but some impacts, like the presence of a road in an IRA, would be 

unavoidable. Implementation of the Renewable Energy Plan Components under 

Alternatives 2 through 5 would simplify the development process for some 

projects, but would not necessarily result in an increase in the number of projects 

developed. The greatest effect may be in making the permitting process for 

developers less burdensome, resulting in more rapid development of sites rather 

than a substantial increase in the number of sites developed. Current existing 

and proposed renewable energy projects are widely distributed across the 

Forest, with 11 identified proposed renewable energy projects spread across six 

ranger districts. This would reduce the cumulative effects of these activities on 

any specific IRA. Overall, Alternatives 2 through 5 would likely have little 

additional adverse effects to IRAs relative to current conditions (Alternative 1). 

This section considers the incremental effects of the alternatives when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The effects of past and 

present actions on IRAs are included in the affected environment portion of this 

section, which discusses the existing IRAs on the Tongass. IRAs are identified 

based on past actions—specifically, timber harvest and road development, with 

all areas on the Forest within 1,200 feet of an existing road or within 600 feet of 

an existing harvest unit generally considered developed. Present actions include 

the impacts of current management policies on IRAs.

Reasonably foreseeable actions on NFS lands include the projected levels of 

future timber harvest, road construction, and renewable energy project 

development. The direct and indirect effects of these actions on IRAs are 

discussed above. The contribution to the timber program for the proposed 

alternatives would be largest under Alternative 3, followed by Alternative 2, as 

these alternatives include old-growth and young-growth suitable acres in IRAs. 

No suitable acres are identified in IRAs under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5. Harvest in 

IRAs would be deferred under Alternatives 2 and 3 until agency rulemaking 

modifies 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) (2001).

Other reasonably foreseeable actions include regional transportation 

development as defined by the State Transportation Plan and Forest Service 

Alaska Region Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as road paving on 

Prince of Wales Island, the closing of roads, and construction of the Angoon

Airport. In addition, the expansion of cities like Juneau and Ketchikan, 

recreational cabin development, and land auctions by the State could include 

additional road construction. 

If one or more of these actions crossed IRAs, the overall effect would be a 

reduction in the size of existing IRAs. It is not possible at this time to predict 

exactly which roads would be developed. None of the alternatives are expected 

to affect this type of future development, which would be expected to go or not go 

Cumulative 

Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Inventoried Roadless Areas 3-448 Final EIS

forward regardless of the selected alternative. The overall cumulative effect of 

these regional activities viewed in conjunction with the Forest Plan alternatives 

would be a reduction in existing IRAs. 

New utility line projects, if they were to go forward, would have similar effects. 

The 2010 Region 10 Energy Program Overview (USDA Forest Service 2010b) 

indicated that at least 20 new transmission line corridors being considered for 

Southeast Alaska would cross NFS lands, noting, however, that many of these 

are still in the early conceptual planning stage and applications have not been 

submitted to the Forest Service. Several organizations in Southeast Alaska have 

planned interconnected transmission lines and or interties that would connect 

multiple power projects and allow power sales and sharing throughout the region 

(USDA Forest Service 2010b). These include the Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie 

Project, completed in 2009, and the Kake to Petersburg Transmission Line 

Intertie Project, which is currently undergoing NEPA review; the DEIS was 

released in November 2014 and a FEIS and Draft Record of Decision is 

anticipated in July 2016. None of the alternatives would affect these 

developments, which would be expected to go or not go forward regardless of 

the selected alternative. The overall cumulative effects if one or more of the 

utility projects that cross IRAs were developed would be a reduction in the size of 

existing IRAs, which could occur under any of the alternatives. The potential 

reduction in existing IRA acres would be greatest under Alternatives 3 and 2, as 

described above. 

The Tongass National Forest comprises about 78 percent of the land area of 

Southeast Alaska. Over 90 percent of the Tongass is currently roadless or 

wilderness. The other major land ownership in Southeast Alaska is Glacier Bay 

Park and Preserve (12.5 percent of Southeast Alaska), the vast majority of which 

is managed as wilderness by the National Park Service. In addition, the State of 

Alaska and the Bureau of Land Management manage another 6 percent of

Southeast Alaska, a large portion of which is roadless. Combining all 

ownerships, approximately 90 percent of Southeast Alaska is currently roadless. 

At least 97 percent of all existing IRAs would remain roadless under any of the 

alternatives. As a result, the vast majority of existing wilderness and IRAs in 

Southeast Alaska would remain in wilderness or roadless after 100+ years, and 

the potential for cumulative effects is considered low. 

Appendix C in this FEIS lists and describes the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-449 Wilderness

Wilderness

Affected Environment 3-449

Introduction...........................................................................................3-449

Wilderness Overview............................................................................3-449

Wilderness in Alaska and the Tongass ................................................3-451

Relative Contribution of Tongass Wilderness ......................................3-452

Wilderness Management in Alaska......................................................3-457

Environmental Consequences 3-460

Direct and Indirect Effects ....................................................................3-460

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-461

Affected Environment

This section provides a general overview of wilderness, describes existing 

wilderness in Alaska and on the Tongass National Forest, discusses the relative 

contribution of Tongass wilderness to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System, and addresses wilderness management direction in Alaska. The only 

other National Forest in Alaska, the Chugach National Forest, currently has no 

designated wilderness, but includes 2 million acres of wilderness study area.

None of the alternatives evaluated in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

include new Wilderness recommendations.

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines wilderness “as an area where the earth and 

its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who 

does not remain.” The Act further elaborates on the definition to mean:

“an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character 

and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, 

which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions 

and which 1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially 

unnoticeable; 2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive 

and unconfined type of recreation; 3) has at least five thousand acres of 

land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and 

use in an unimpaired condition; and 4) may also contain ecological, 

geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historical value.”

Wilderness Character

The Wilderness Act does not define wilderness character, but according to 

Landres et al. (2005), wilderness character may be described as the 

“combination of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic ideals that distinguish 

wilderness from all other lands.” Landres et al. identify four qualities of 

wilderness that may be used to approximate wilderness character for the 

purposes of monitoring changes to wilderness character over time. These 

qualities, which were identified based on the Definition of Wilderness, Section 

2(c) from the 1964 Wilderness Act, and are described below, are equally 

important and reinforce one another. A fifth category, other features of value, 

has also been identified and is described below.

Untrammeled—The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area where the 

earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man” and “generally appears 

to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature.” This quality refers to 

Introduction

Wilderness

Overview
3 Environment and Effects

Wilderness 3-450 Final EIS

wilderness being essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or 

manipulation.

Natural—The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “protected and managed 

so as to preserve its natural conditions.” This quality refers to the intended and 

unintended effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness 

since the time of designation.

Undeveloped—The Wilderness Act states that wilderness is “an area of undeveloped 

federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent 

improvements or human habitation.” The undeveloped quality refers to the absence of 

structures, construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human presence or 

occupation, including the development level of trails and campsites.

The undeveloped quality also refers to the absence of mechanical transport and 

motorized equipment. Wilderness was partly established “in order to assure 

that...growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the 

United States...” (Wilderness Act, Section 2a). 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation—The Wilderness Act states that wilderness has “outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.” This 

quality includes the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge. 

Primitive recreation in wilderness has largely been interpreted as travel by 

nonmotorized and nonmechanical means. It also encompasses reliance on 

personal skills to travel and camp in an area. Unconfined encompasses 

attributes such as self-discovery, exploration, and freedom from societal and 

managerial controls.

Other features of value—Wilderness preserves other tangible features that are 

of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. This quality is based on the 

last clause of section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act which states that a wilderness 

“may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, 

educational, scenic, or historic value.” This quality captures important elements 

of the wilderness that may not be covered in the other four qualities, such as 

cultural or paleontological resources. This quality is preserved or improved when 

these resources are preserved; the loss of or impacts to such features degrades

this quality of wilderness character.

The existing wilderness on the Tongass was established under the 1980 Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and the 1990 Tongass 

Timber Reform Act (TTRA), which amended ANILCA. In ANILCA, Congress 

reaffirmed and expanded upon the purposes of wilderness as stated in the 1964 

Wilderness Act, specifically for wilderness established in Alaska. Except as 

otherwise expressly provided for in ANILCA, wilderness designated by this Act 

shall be administered in accordance with applicable provisions of the Wilderness 

Act. In recognition of unique situations and established uses in Alaska, ANILCA 

provided a number of important specific exceptions to the prohibitions of the 

Wilderness Act. These included exceptions related to subsistence, access, and 

public use cabins among others. These exceptions are addressed in detail in the 

final part of this Affected Environment section.

Wilderness Values

People value wilderness for a variety of reasons, but most reasons involve three 

central themes: the experiential value, the scientific and ecological resource 

value, and the symbolic and spiritual values (slightly modified from Hendee and 

Dawson 2002). The experiential value is the direct value of the wilderness 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-451 Wilderness

experience. The experience is seen as valuable in its own right because of its 

primitive recreation, aesthetic, closeness to nature, education, freedom, solitude, 

simplicity, spiritual, and mystical dimensions. The value of wilderness as a 

scientific and ecological resource includes the importance of wilderness to 

science, including its importance in preservation of fauna and flora, particularly 

those species requiring large tracts of unmodified habitats. Finally, the symbolic 

and spiritual values of wilderness are represented by the high values some 

people place on the knowledge that wilderness exists, whether they use it or not. 

In a world characterized by rapid change and complexity, wilderness symbolizes 

comforting stability and simplicity to many. 

Congress has the sole authority for designating additions to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. Fourteen wildernesses totaling 5.5 million 

acres were established under ANILCA. Two of these wilderness areas on

Admiralty Island and within Misty Fiords are encompassed by designated 

National Monuments.

1 Prior to ANILCA, there was no designated wilderness on 

the Tongass. The TTRA amended ANILCA and designated five new 

wildernesses and one wilderness addition totaling 296,080 acres. As a result of 

these two pieces of legislation, there are currently 5.8 million acres of wilderness 

on the Tongass in 19 separate wildernesses (Table 3.20-1).

Table 3.20-1

Existing Wildernesses on the Tongass National Forest

Name Total Acres

Non-National 

Forest Acres

National 

Forest Acres

Wildernesses Established December 2, 1980, by ANILCA

Kootznoowoo Wilderness (Admiralty Island National Monument) 988,0501 32,129 955,8581 

Coronation Island Wilderness 19,232 0 19,232

Endicott River Wilderness 98,729 0 98,729

Maurelle Islands Wilderness 4,937 0 4,937

Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness 2,142,907 600 2,142,307

Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness 46,849 0 46,849

Russell Fiord Wilderness 348,701 0 348,701

South Baranof Wilderness 319,568 0 319,568

South Prince of Wales Wilderness 91,018 50 90,968

Stikine-LeConte Wilderness 449,951 1,025 448,926

Tebenkof Bay Wilderness 66,839 27 66,812

Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness 653,179 0 653,179

Warren Island Wilderness 11,181 0 11,181

West Chichagof-Yakobi Wilderness 265,529 1,038 264,491

Wildernesses Established November 28, 1990, by the TTRA

Chuck River Wilderness 74,990 692 74,298

Karta Wilderness 39,894 5 39,889

Kuiu Wilderness 60,581 0 60,581

Pleasant-Lemusurier-Inian Islands Wilderness 23,151 55 23,096

South Etolin Wilderness 83,371 752 82,619

Total Acreage 5,788,657 36,436 5,752,221

1

 Kootznoowoo Wilderness includes 18,486 acres, including 24 acres of Non-National Forest System lands in the Young Lake 

Addition established by the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA), November 28, 1990. 

Source: Total acreages are as reported to Congress with official boundary maps. These wildernesses include only the public 

lands above mean high tide.

Wilderness recommendations were not considered in the 1997 Land and 

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) Final Environmental Impact Statement 

 1 Note that the Admiralty Island National Monument Wilderness was renamed the 

Kootznoowoo Wilderness by separate legislation in 1990.

Wilderness in 

Alaska and the 

Tongass
3 Environment and Effects

Wilderness 3-452 Final EIS

(FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) because additional wilderness had been 

created under the TTRA. In March 2001, the U.S. District Court of Alaska ruled 

in response to a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club (Sierra Club v. Lyons) and other 

environmental groups that the 1997 FEIS should have considered making 

additional wilderness recommendations and ordered the Forest Service to 

prepare a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) to evaluate wilderness recommendations 

and update the Analysis of the Management Situation (AMS) relative to roadless 

areas and their relative contribution to the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. The Forest Service subsequently updated the AMS and determined the 

eligibility of each of the inventoried roadless areas for wilderness 

recommendation. Eight alternatives that identified roadless areas within the 

Tongass for recommendation as potential wilderness were evaluated in a Final 

SEIS to the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS in 2003 (USDA Forest Service 2003b). The 

ROD for the Final SEIS concluded that it was not “the appropriate time for 

significantly changing land use designations on the Tongass National Forest” and 

did not recommend any additional wilderness on the Tongass at that time (USDA 

Forest Service 2003b).

Overview

The National Wilderness Preservation System includes almost 110 million acres, 

with more than half of this total (57 million acres) in Alaska (Figures 3.20-1 and 

3.20-2). In addition to having the largest total land area in wilderness, Alaska also 

has the highest proportion of its land area in wilderness (15.4 percent), followed 

closely by California (13.8 percent) (Figure 3.20-3). The states with both the 

greatest land area and highest percent land area in wilderness are Alaska, 

California, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, and Colorado (Wilderness.net 2014). 

Alaska also has the highest number of wilderness acres per resident, with almost 

90 acres per resident. This ratio increases to slightly more than 120 acres per 

resident when only Southeast Alaska is considered. The next closest state is 

Wyoming with about 6 acres of wilderness per resident.

Existing wilderness on the Tongass, approximately 5.8 million acres, represents 

about 34 percent of the forest land base and 28 percent of the land in Southeast 

Alaska. Viewed on a national basis, existing wilderness on the Tongass 

represents 16 percent of all wilderness on NFS lands and 5.3 percent of all lands 

in the National Wilderness Preservation System (Wilderness.net 2014). 

Two of the largest wildernesses on the Tongass, Misty Fiords National 

Monument Wilderness (2.1 million acres) and Kootznoowoo (Admiralty Island) 

Wilderness (almost 1 million acres), contain vast, intact ecosystems. Five other 

wildernesses are each more than 250,000 acres. The wildernesses of the 

Tongass are mostly in a pristine condition, with the imprint of humans generally 

not noticeable. They offer outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive 

recreation. 

Relative 

Contribution of 

Tongass 

Wilderness
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-453 Wilderness

Figure 3.20-1

Acres of Wilderness by State

Source: Wilderness.net (2014)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Vermont

North Carolina

West Virginia

New Hampshire

Arkansas

Hawaii

Virginia

Michigan

Georgia

Minnesota

Utah

Florida

New Mexico

Oregon

Wyoming

Nevada

Montana

Colorado

Washington

Arizona

Idaho

California

Alaska

Millions of Acres
3 Environment and Effects

Wilderness 3-454 Final EIS

Figure 3.20-2

Percent of Total Acres in the National Wilderness Preservation System by State

Source: Wilderness.net (2014)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

Minnesota

Utah

Florida

New Mexico

Oregon

Wyoming

Nevada

Montana

Colorado

Washington

Arizona

Idaho

California

Alaska

Percent of Total Acres in the NWPS
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-455 Wilderness

Figure 3.20-3

Percentage of Land Area in Wilderness by State

Source: Wilderness.net (2014)

In the remainder of this section, the Tongass National Forest is evaluated in 

terms of how well its landforms and ecosystems are represented in existing 

wilderness. 

Ecoregions

DeVelice and Martin (2001) provide a national summary of acreage in National 

Forest roadless areas versus designated wilderness, National Parks, and other 

areas primarily managed to maintain natural values (i.e., conservation reserves

or reserves). In Alaska, all but 1 of 15 ecoregions (as defined by Ricketts et al. 

1999) have greater than 12 percent of their area in reserves. No other region in 

the country surpasses Alaska in ecological representation in reserves.

Two ecoregions cover the Tongass National Forest: the Northern Pacific Coastal 

Forest and the Pacific Coastal Mountain Tundra and Ice Fields (Ricketts et al. 

1999). These two ecoregions extend from eastern Kodiak Island to the southern 

end of the Alaska panhandle. Approximately 19 percent of the Northern Pacific 

Coastal Forest and 37 percent of the Pacific Coastal Mountain Tundra and Ice 

Fields ecoregions are in reserves (DeVelice and Martin 2001). The portions of 

both of these areas protected in wilderness are above the 12 percent threshold 

considered by some authorities (e.g., World Commission on Environment and 

Development 1987) as the minimum area for representation (DeVelice and 

Martin 2001).

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Georgia

Virginia

New Mexico

Minnesota

Vermont

Oregon

Hawaii

Wyoming

Colorado

Washington

Alaska

Percent of Land in Wilderness
3 Environment and Effects

Wilderness 3-456 Final EIS

When the acreage of inventoried roadless areas is added to the acreage of 

conservation reserves in the two ecoregions, the percentage increases to 

64 percent for the Northern Pacific Coastal Forest and 66 percent for the Pacific 

Coastal Mountain Tundra and Ice Fields ecoregions (DeVelice and Martin 2001). 

These values are in the 25 to 75 percent range that Noss and Cooperrider (1994) 

argue is required to achieve representation and are higher than the 

12 percent threshold.

When one considers only NFS lands, the percentage of NFS lands area in 

wilderness in these ecoregions is 25 percent for the Northern Pacific Coastal 

Forest and 21 percent for the Pacific Coastal Mountain Tundra and Ice Fields. If 

all inventoried roadless areas are counted along with wilderness, the total area of 

wilderness plus inventoried roadless areas on the Tongass in these ecoregions 

increases to 69 percent and 79 percent, respectively (DeVelice and Martin 2001).

Land Cover Classes

The various ecosystems of Southeast Alaska are generally represented within the 

Tongass’ wilderness. These areas include glaciers and ice fields, off-shore islands and 

seacoasts facing both the open Pacific Ocean and inland passages, major river 

systems, and 1.5 million acres of old-growth temperate rain forests. Viewed in terms of 

broad National Forest land cover classes, designated Wilderness on the Tongass 

exceeds 12 percent of the area in five land cover classes that are prevalent in 

Southeast Alaska. These five classes are: 1) Evergreen Forest (23 percent), 2) Tundra 

(15 percent), 3) Barren Land (37 percent), 4) Water (23 percent), and 5) Glaciers-Snow 

(15 percent). Designated Wilderness does not exceed 12 percent of the area for 

Deciduous Forest (0 percent), Mixed Forest (0 percent), and Shrub-Brush (9 percent) 

(Martin et al. 2000). However, these latter three land cover types are not prevalent in 

Southeast Alaska. 

Biogeographic Provinces

The extent to which identifiable landform types and ecosystems are represented 

in the wildernesses (and other natural setting Land Use Designations [LUDs]) of 

the Tongass National Forest may be evaluated based on the extent to which the 

biogeographic provinces of Southeast Alaska are represented. The Tongass can 

be subdivided into 21 biogeographic provinces characterized by similar species 

composition, similar patterns in distribution for many species, similar geologic 

barriers and historic events (such as glaciation), and similar climatic conditions. 

These provinces are discussed in the Biodiversity section of this chapter. Table 

3.20-2 identifies the percentage of each biogeographic province that is included 

in existing wilderness. It also includes the percentage of each biogeographic 

province in other natural setting LUDs.

Twelve of the 21 biogeographic provinces on the Tongass have 20 percent or 

more of their lands within the National Forest boundary in Wilderness or National 

Monument; 16 of the 21 have 15 percent or more. Five provinces (Dall Island 

and Vicinity, Kupreanof/Mitkof Island, and North Central Prince of Wales) have 

from 1 to 6 percent in Wilderness or National Monument. However, these areas 

have from 37 to 80 percent of their land areas within wilderness or natural setting 

LUDs. Overall, 18 of the 21 provinces have more than 50 percent of their land 

areas in either wilderness or natural setting LUDs. The remaining three have 37

to 42 percent.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-457 Wilderness

Table 3.20-2

Percentage of Biogeographic Province in Existing Wilderness or 

Natural Setting LUDs

Province

Percent in

Wilderness or 

National 

Monument

Percent in 

Other Natural 

Setting LUDs1

Total Percent 

in Wilderness

or Natural 

Setting LUDs1

1 Yakutat Forelands 1 78 79

2 Yakutat Uplands 37 63 100

3 East Chichagof Island 6 50 56

4 West Chichagof Island 82 18 100

5 East Baranof Island 24 52 75

6 West Baranof Island 29 57 86

7 Admiralty Island 93 6 99

8 Lynn Canal 17 64 81

9 North Coast Range 23 56 78

10 Kupreanof/Mitkof Island 6 34 40

11 Kuiu Island 26 40 66

12 Central Coast Range 39 38 77

13 Etolin Island 16 26 42

14 North Central Prince of Wales 3 34 37

15 Revilla Island/Cleveland 18 42 60

16 South Outer Islands 16 57 73

17 Dall Island and Vicinity 3 77 80

18 South Prince of Wales 24 41 64

19 North Misty Fiords 82 14 95

20 South Misty Fiords 100 0 100

21 Ice Fields 33 62 95

Total 33 43 76

Management under the Wilderness Act

The Wilderness Act of 1964 mandates that designated “wilderness areas ... shall 

be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such a 

manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these areas, the 

preservation of their wilderness character, and for the gathering and 

dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness.” 

Subject to existing private rights, the Act prohibits permanent roads and, except 

as necessary for realizing the recreation and other wilderness purposes of the 

area, commercial enterprises. Temporary roads, the use of motor vehicles, 

motorized equipment, other mechanized equipment, motorboats, the landing of 

aircraft, and structures and installations are prohibited except as necessary to 

meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area as wilderness. 

The Act provides that the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses were

established prior to designation, may be permitted to continue subject to 

restrictions by the Secretary of Agriculture. In 1997, the Regional Forester 

decided to maintain a prohibition on recreational helicopter use within wilderness. 

Wildernesses were withdrawn from mineral entry as of December 31, 1983, and 

patenting of valid claims is limited to subsurface mineral rights.

Wilderness

Management in 

Alaska
3 Environment and Effects

Wilderness 3-458 Final EIS

Management under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act

In ANILCA, Congress reaffirmed and expanded upon the purposes of wilderness 

as stated in the Wilderness Act of 1964, specifically for wilderness established in 

Alaska. In recognition of unique situations and established uses in Alaska, 

ANILCA also provided a number of exceptions to the requirements of the 

Wilderness Act. 

Subsistence Policy (Applies to All Federal Lands)

Section 811 mandates that the Secretary “shall ensure that rural residents 

engaged in subsistence uses shall have reasonable access to subsistence 

resources on public lands.” This section further directs that, other laws (including 

the Wilderness Act) notwithstanding, the Secretary “shall permit on the public 

lands appropriate use for subsistence purposes of snowmobiles, motorboats, and 

other means of surface transportation traditionally employed for such purposes 

by local residents, subject to reasonable regulation.”

Transportation and Utility Systems

In Section 1101, Congress finds that:

“(a) Alaska’s transportation and utility network is largely undeveloped and the 

future needs for transportation and utility systems in Alaska would best be 

identified and provided for through an orderly, continuous decisionmaking 

process involving the State and Federal Governments and the public.”

Section 1105 provides that in any case in which there is no applicable law with 

respect to a transportation or utility system, the head of the federal agency 

concerned shall make recommendations to authorize the system within the 

Conservation Unit concerned (including Wilderness) if it is determined that the

system would be compatible with the purposes for which the unit was 

established, and there is no economically feasible and prudent alternative route 

for the system (see Section 1104 regarding National Environmental Policy Act 

[NEPA] procedural requirements). Section 1106(b) requires that following federal 

agency review and decision recommendation, the President has the authority to 

review and either approve or disapprove the application. If the application is 

approved by the President, Congress must issue a joint resolution approving the 

application by the transportation or utility system for the project to move forward 

(Section 1106(c)). ANILCA (Section 506) includes specific exceptions for 

Admiralty Island National Monument Wilderness regarding the right to develop 

hydroelectric resources and public access and use.

Special Access

Section 1110(a) requires that the Secretary “shall permit” on Conservation Units, 

which include Wilderness, “the use of snowmachines (during periods of adequate 

snow cover or frozen river conditions, in the case of Wild or Scenic rivers), 

motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized surface transportation methods for 

traditional activities (where such activities are permitted by this Act or other law) 

and travel to and from villages and homesites.” Such use is subject to 

reasonable regulation, but shall not be prohibited unless after notice and hearing 

the Secretary finds that such use would be detrimental to the resource values of 

the area.

Inholding Access

Section 1110(b) assures adequate and feasible access to state and private land 

and to valid occupancies, including valid mining claims.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-459 Wilderness

Navigation Aids and Facilities

Section 1310(a) provides that reasonable access to, and operation and 

maintenance of, existing air and water navigation aids, communication sites, 

facilities for national defense, and related facilities and existing facilities for 

weather, climate and fisheries research, and monitoring shall be permitted. 

“Nothing in the Wilderness Act shall be deemed to prohibit such access, 

operation and maintenance within wilderness areas designated by this Act.” 

Section 1310(b) provides that the establishment, operation, and maintenance of 

new such facilities shall be permitted within wilderness after consultation with the 

Secretary and in accordance with mutually agreed upon terms and conditions to 

minimize the adverse effects within the unit.

Aquaculture

Section 1315(b) provides that the Secretary may permit fishery research, 

management, enhancement, and rehabilitation activities within National Forest 

System Wilderness, in a manner that adequately assures protection, 

preservation, enhancement, and rehabilitation of the wilderness resource. 

Subject to reasonable regulations, permanent improvements and facilities such 

as fishways, fish weirs, fish ladders, fish hatcheries, spawning channels, stream 

clearance, egg planting, and other accepted means of maintaining, enhancing, 

and rehabilitating fish stocks may be permitted. 

Public Use Cabins

Section 1315(c) provides for the continued use, maintenance, and replacement 

of existing public use cabins within wilderness. Section 1315(d) authorizes the 

construction and maintenance of a limited number of new public use cabins and 

shelters, if necessary, for public health and safety, and also requires the 

Secretary to notify Congress of his intention to remove an existing or construct a 

new public use cabin or shelter.

Beach Log Salvage

Section 1315(f) allows the Secretary to permit or otherwise regulate the recovery 

and salvage of logs from the coastlines of National Forest Wilderness and 

National Monuments. Agency policy further defines the salvage of logs to

include only the recovery of logs that were harvested and then lost in transport. 

Downed trees resulting from natural forces, such as blow down, and stream bank 

or shore erosion shall not be sold or removed under this authority. Removal 

where allowed will normally be accomplished by the use of "pull boats" (boats 

that pull logs off the beach by long cable usually at high tides) without use of 

other mechanical devices on the beach.

Temporary Hunting and Fishing Facilities

Section 1316(a) provides that the Secretary shall permit, subject to reasonable 

regulation to ensure compatibility, the continuation of existing uses and future 

establishment and use of temporary campsites, tent platforms, shelters, and 

other temporary facilities and equipment directly and necessarily related to the 

taking of fish and game. Facilities and equipment shall be constructed, used, 

and maintained in a manner consistent with the protection of the area where they 

are located. New facilities shall be constructed of materials that blend with and 

are compatible with the surrounding landscape. Section 1316(b) allows the 

Secretary to deny new facilities and equipment upon making a determination, 

after public notice, that the establishment and use of new facilities or equipment 

would constitute a significant expansion of existing facilities or uses that would be 

detrimental to the purposes for which the unit was established, including 

“wilderness character.” 
3 Environment and Effects

Wilderness 3-460 Final EIS

Other Forest Plan Restrictions 

ANILCA defines “wilderness” as having the same meaning as when it is used in 

the Wilderness Act (Sec. 102(13)). Section 707 states that, except as expressly 

provided in ANILCA, wilderness designated by ANILCA “shall be administered in 

accordance with applicable provisions of the Wilderness Act governing areas 

designated by that Act as Wilderness.” Some of the restrictions identified for 

Tongass wilderness by the 2008 Forest Plan include the following:

• New roads, motorized trails, and airstrips are not permitted, except where 

authorized by ANILCA and to access state and private inholdings and valid 

mining claims, subject to stipulations for protection of natural and other 

values of the land.

• The landing of helicopters for access by the general public is prohibited. The 

administrative use of helicopters may be allowed on a case-by-case basis 

after evaluation of the need and full consideration of all alternative options for 

access.

• There is a group size limitation of no more than 12 persons for commercial or 

general public use, unless otherwise approved by the appropriate line officer. 

• No new permanent administrative facilities are allowed, except as consistent 

with ANILCA. 

Environmental Consequences

None of the alternatives include lands suitable for timber production. Therefore, 

there would be no direct effects to Wilderness from timber harvest. Potential 

indirect effects from timber harvest and direct and indirect effects from renewable 

energy development to Wilderness are discussed below. 

Existing wilderness on the Tongass, which encompasses approximately 5.7

million acres and represents about 34 percent of the forest land base and 28 

percent of the land in Southeast Alaska, would remain unchanged under all of 

the alternatives. The 19 wildernesses on the Tongass are identified in Table 

3.20-1. The acres of each biogeographic province presently in Wilderness areas 

on the Tongass would also remain unchanged (see Table 3.20-2).

Wilderness areas may be indirectly affected if old-growth or young-growth 

harvest, including associated road construction, takes place in an adjacent area. 

Depending on the actual location and extent of harvest, there could be edgerelated effects, increasing the potential for impacts to portions of Wilderness 

boundary areas. Such impacts could include introduced non-native or invasive 

plant species, vulnerability to windthrow events, noise from harvest activities, 

reduced scenic quality, and unauthorized recreation access. The effects of 

individual proposed harvest projects on Wilderness would be analyzed in a sitespecific NEPA analysis. 

All renewable energy projects built and operated in Southeast Alaska have to 

meet local, state and, in most cases, federal laws, regulations, and requirements. 

Projects are also subject to Forest Plan direction (e.g., standards and 

guidelines). The 2008 Forest Plan identifies three types of areas related to 

Transportation and Utility Systems, including hydroelectric power projects on the 

Tongass based on the LUD windows, which represent areas potentially available 

for transportation and utility development; avoidance areas; and exclusion areas. 

Avoidance areas are those LUDs where development of energy projects is only 

allowed if no feasible alternative exists outside of that LUD. Exclusion areas 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-461 Wilderness

preclude Transportation and Utility Systems. There are no exclusion areas on 

the Forest due to special authorities provided in ANILCA, Title XI. The 

Wilderness, Wilderness National Monument, and Non-Wilderness National 

Monument LUDs are identified as avoidance areas in the 2008 Forest Plan. 

These classifications and the standards and guidelines in the 2008 Forest Plan 

would continue to apply under Alternative 1. 

Under Alternatives 2 through 5, renewable energy direction in Chapter 5 of the 

Forest Plan would be applied to the LUDs, similar to how the forest-wide 

standards and guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan are applied to the 

LUDs. Renewable energy direction in Chapter 5 identifies the following with 

respect to the suitability of lands: “SUIT-RE-01: All NFS lands may be suitable for 

renewable energy sites on a case-by-case basis in consideration of the LUD, 

ecological and social values, and benefit to Southeast Alaska communities.” 

This direction also states that “(i)dentifying renewable energy sites as suitable is 

not a commitment but only an indication that the use might be appropriate.” 

Implementation of the renewable energy direction under Alternatives 2 through 5 

may simplify the administrative process for projects; however, the change would 

not likely result in an increase in the number of projects developed due to the 

ANILCA Title XI requirements for Forest Service assessment of alternatives and 

the requirement for Presidential and Congressional approval. All proposed 

projects would continue to be evaluated in accordance with applicable local, 

state, and federal regulations and requirements.

The Forest Service has identified 12 proposed renewable energy projects that 

are currently active (Table 3.12b-3). One of the identified projects is located in 

Wilderness. The Angoon Hydroelectric project is exempted from the requirements 

of the Wilderness Act through ANILCA Section 506 (a)(3)(D).

There would be no direct effects and minimal indirect effects to Wilderness from 

timber harvest under any of the alternatives. One of the 12 proposed renewable 

energy projects is located in Wilderness: the Angoon Hydroelectric project. The 

Angoon Hydroelectric project is exempted from the requirements of the 

Wilderness Act through ANILCA section 506 (a)(3)(D). Given the current 

regulatory protections in place for Wilderness, the potential for cumulative effects

associated with timber harvest or renewable energy development is low.

Appendix C provides a list and description of the past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis. 

Cumulative 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Wilderness 3-462 Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-463 Other Special Land Use Designations

Other Special Land Use Designations

Affected Environment...............................................................................3-463

Land Use Designation II Management Areas.......................................3-463

Experimental Forests............................................................................3-464

Research Natural Areas .......................................................................3-465

Special Interest Areas...........................................................................3-467

Wild and Scenic Rivers.........................................................................3-470

Environmental Effects ..............................................................................3-473

Direct and Indirect Effects.....................................................................3-473

Cumulative Effects................................................................................3-476

A number of areas on the Tongass National Forest have been allocated to 

special Land Use Designations (LUDs) because they possess outstanding 

resources, research opportunities, or other factors of special interest. These 

areas include LUD II management areas, Experimental Forests, Research 

Natural Areas (RNAs), Special Interest Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers. Each 

of these is described in this section, as are the effects of the alternatives on 

these areas.

Affected Environment

The Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (TTRA) amended the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), and designated 12 areas 

encompassing 726,862 acres to LUD II management areas (Table 3.21-1). On

December 19, 2014, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

20151 designated eight LUD II management areas (Table 3.21-1), encompassing

151,832 acres for a combined total of 878,694 acres (Table 3.21-1). The goal for 

LUD II areas is to manage them in a roadless state to retain their wildland 

character. Minor developments may be compatible with LUD II objectives 

depending on the specific proposal. Also, access by boats, aircraft, and 

snowmachines is permitted so long as such uses do not become excessive. 

Table 3.21-1

National Forest System Land and Non-National Forest 

System Land within LUD II Areas

LUD II Area Acres

LUD II Areas Established by the Tongass Timber Reform Act

Yakutat Forelands 137,477

Berners Bay 46,314

Anan Creek 38,326

Kadashan 34,124

Lisianski River/Upper Hoonah Sound 147,114

Mt. Calder/Mt. Holbrook 60,066

Nutkwa 21,445

Outside Islands 75,218

Trap Bay 6,471

Point Adolphus/Mud Bay 117,427

Naha 31,546

Salmon Bay 11,334

Subtotal 726,862

 1 Public Law No. 113-291, December 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3729, section 3720(e)(4).

Land Use 

Designation II 

Management 

Areas
3 Environment and Effects

Other Special Land Use Designations 3-464 Final EIS

Table 3.21-1 (continued)

National Forest System Land and Non-National Forest 

System Land within LUD II Management Areas 

LUD II Area Acres

LUD II Areas Established by Public Law 113-291

Bay of Pillars 20,836

Kushneahin Creek 33,515

Northern Prince of Wales 8,724

Western Kosciusko 8,023

Eastern Kosciusko 1,657

Sarkar Lakes 24,509

Honker Divide 19,809

Eek Lake and Sukkwan Island 34,759

Subtotal 151,832

Grand Total 878,694

Experimental forests provide areas for conducting forest management-related 

research. Natural resources in experimental forests are used or altered under 

controlled scientific studies. The Tongass has two experimental forests, 

Maybeso and Héen Latinee, with a combined area of about 36,264 acres. 

Maybeso

The Maybeso Experimental Forest (10,644 acres) was established in the early 

1950s as a part of an intensive research program to document the effects of 

large-scale harvesting on hydrology, fisheries, and timber productivity. The 

forest is located in a large steep-sided alluvial valley with a south to southeastfacing aspect near the central-eastern coast of Prince of Wales Island. By the 

early 1960s, most of the suitable forest land on the experimental area had been 

harvested. Permanent research plots were established and monitored to study 

hillslope erosion, movement of large woody debris in and through streams, forest 

regeneration, and silvicultural responses to precommercial thinning. Most of 

these plots are still monitored. The upper slopes of the Maybeso watershed are 

included in the Karta Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) (IRA # 510).

Because nearly all of the old-growth timber on the Maybeso Experimental Forest

has been harvested for research, the timber in the area is now primarily young 

growth. Consequently, while there are limited opportunities to design new oldgrowth harvest-related experiments, there exists the potential for experiments 

concerning young-growth timber which is now up to 45 years in age. Several 

recent young-growth studies have taken place in this area. 

Héen Latinee

Héen Latinee Experimental Forest (25,621 acres) was established on June 25, 

2009, as a site for coastal temperate rainforest research (USDA Forest Service 

2009c). Located 37 miles north of Juneau, the forest extends from temperate 

rain forests on the shores of Lynn Canal to alpine tundra bordering the Juneau 

Icefield. The area represents a nearly undeveloped watershed that is readily 

accessible and provides opportunities to study ecological systems ranging from 

glacier to marine environments. The Héen Latinee Experimental Forest was 

established to provide:

1. Lands for conducting scientific research that serves as a basis for the 

management of temperate rainforests in the Alaska Region of the Forest

Service; 

Experimental 

Forests
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-465 Other Special Land Use Designations

2. Opportunities and facilities for the general public, Forest Service staff,

and other cooperating organizations such as universities to pursue 

scientific inquiry and education; and 

3. Monitoring data to inform society about the trajectory and speed of 

climate change.

This Experimental Forest consists of Cowee and Davies Watersheds and is 

referred to as the Cowee-Davies Experimental Forest in the 2008 Tongass 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), Appendix L 

(USDA Forest Service 2008a).

Young Bay (de-established)

The Young Bay Experimental Forest (6,660 acres) was de-established in 2009 in 

the Record of Decision (ROD) that established the Héen Latinee Experimental 

Forest (USDA Forest Service 2009c). The Young Bay Experimental Forest was

located just south of Juneau on northern Admiralty Island. Originally selected for 

long-term hydrologic and fisheries monitoring with a paired comparison between 

streams, this site was used extensively for fisheries and hydrology research in 

the 1960s and 1970s. The area is currently managed as Semi-Remote 

Recreation LUD. 

RNAs are part of a national network of ecological areas designated for research 

and education and/or to maintain biological diversity of representative 

ecosystems on NFS lands. RNAs are used for non-manipulative research, 

observation, and study. These areas also may serve to carry out provisions of 

special acts, such as the Endangered Species Act and the monitoring provisions 

of the National Forest Management Act.

Current Situation 

Six RNAs were established within the Tongass National Forest prior to 1996. 

One of the six, Pack Creek, was declassified in the ROD for the 1997 Tongass 

Forest Plan due to a long history of human presence related to viewing brown 

bears. At the same time, Pack Creek was re-designated as a zoological area to 

be managed under the Special Interest Area LUD. Seven additional areas were 

classified as RNAs by the 1997 ROD. That action resulted in the current total of 

12 Tongass RNAs incorporating a total area of 66,998 acres. Brief descriptions 

of each follow below.

Cape Fanshaw RNA

Established in 1965, this 573-acre RNA is located at the junction of Frederick 

Sound and the Stephens Passage in Roadless Area 201. This area was 

established to represent undisturbed old-growth yellow-cedar and western 

hemlock forests. It represents a good example of cedar decline on the mainland, 

and has been used for long-term monitoring of changes in species composition 

and stand dynamics.

Dog Island RNA

Established in 1976, this 705-acre RNA is located on Dog Island in Roadless 

Area 521. The area represents a small island ecosystem containing the northern 

limit of Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), associated scrub timber, and low-volume,

mixed-conifer sites of southern Southeast Alaska. 

Research Natural 

Areas
3 Environment and Effects

Other Special Land Use Designations 3-466 Final EIS

Kadin Island RNA

Established in 1997, this 1,630-acre RNA is located just north of Wrangell in 

Roadless Area 225. Kadin Island experiences high winds blowing down through 

the Stikine River corridor. The high winds pick up silt from the unvegetated 

glacial river floodplain and cause the deposition of loess on the island at the 

river’s mouth. The continuing rain of loess onto the upper soil layers provides a 

supply of unleached, nutrient-rich soil material to the forests of the island. The 

loess deposition overcomes the process of acid bog formation (paludification) 

that overtakes most stable sites of moderate topographic relief on the Tongass 

National Forest. Few areas in the world have a combination of high rainfall and 

recent loess deposition, so the properties of the soils here are of special interest. 

The fringe of the island is subject to tidal influence and changes in water level 

because of shifts of the river. Wetland marsh communities are included in this 

area. The bald eagle nest concentration on Kadin Island is second only to parts 

of Admiralty Island, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Marten River RNA

Established in 1997, this 7,459-acre RNA is located within the Misty Fiords 

National Monument Wilderness adjacent to the Red River RNA. The Marten

River RNA contains riparian spruce stands and has excellent habitat for brown 

bears along its major mainland streams. 

Limestone Inlet RNA

Established in 1951 and expanded in 1971, this 8,964-acre RNA is located in 

Stephens Passage in Roadless Area 302. The area represents typical 

vegetation types common to the Juneau mainland, including many avalanche 

chutes and a mainland stream. In 1951, Limestone Inlet was considered the 

most pristine drainage in the northern mainland coast, making it an excellent 

area for documenting baseline conditions on the mainland. The Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has altered the native salmon runs 

since 1980 by operating a hatchery in nearby Snettisham Lake; however, upland 

areas remain intact.

Old Tom Creek RNA

Established in 1951, this RNA, 4,544 acres in size prior to Public Law 113-291,

has been reduced to 1,335 acres or about 30 percent of its original size. Located 

on central Prince of Wales Island in Roadless Area 519, this RNA is situated in a 

low-site, cedar-dominated watershed. Established as an example of cedarhemlock old-growth forest, the RNA also includes some examples of riparian 

spruce forest, extensive tidal meadows, and dense bald eagle and black bear

populations. The RNA also included a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging 

station. Prior to the reduction in size, this RNA was functioning as part of a 

medium old-growth reserve (OGR). Following the reduction, there is no longer a 

medium OGR. As a result, this area was one of the areas re-evaluated by an 

interagency team of biologists (Forest Service, USFWS, and ADF&G). The new 

location for a medium OGR in this area as proposed by this interagency team is 

discussed in detail in Appendix E.

Red River RNA

Established in 1980, this 8,004-acre RNA is located in Misty Fiords National 

Monument Wilderness. This RNA represents the northern range of Pacific silver 

fir (Abies amabilis).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-467 Other Special Land Use Designations

Rio Roberts RNA

Established in 1997, this 1,621-acre RNA is located on central Prince of Wales 

Island in Roadless Area 511. This area contains riparian flood plain spruce 

stands, upland old-growth and natural young-growth stands, and upland hemlock 

on drumlin fields. A high level of recreation use occurs in the area, including 

hiking, camping, boating, and fishing in the Thorne River near this RNA. As a 

result of Public Law 113-291, the Rio Roberts RNA is now included within the 

Honker Divide LUD II area.

Robinson Lake RNA

Established in 1997, this 6,473-acre RNA is located in the Misty Fiords National 

Monument Wilderness. This RNA focuses on a natural slump lake, forest types 

typical of the southern portion of mainland Southeast Alaska, and some 

uncommon plants of restricted distribution in Alaska. Robinson Lake formed 

when a natural earthslide dammed Robinson Creek. The area extends to the 

shore of Behm Canal to include habitat diversity associated with the shoreline 

and proximity to deep water.

Tonalite Creek RNA

Established in 1997, this 10,037-acre RNA is located south of Tenakee Springs

across Tenakee Inlet in Roadless Area 311. This RNA includes pristine 

examples of Sitka spruce, western and mountain hemlock, and yellow cedar 

forest types. The Tonalite drainage is a narrow glacial valley that supports runs 

of pink, chum, and coho salmon. The drainage is prime brown bear, Sitka blacktailed deer, and beaver habitat. 

Warm Pass Valley RNA

Established in 1997, this 8,401-acre RNA is located along the U.S.-Canada 

border between the Taku River and Chilkat Pass in Roadless Area 301; the 

valley includes the northernmost example of subalpine fir in Alaska. The valley is 

also an important area for interior vegetation species that mix with the coastal 

forest and tundra. The Warm Pass Valley RNA has a unique climate caused by 

a pronounced rain shadow effect. The valley supports a moose population that 

uses both the alpine shrub belt and riparian shrubs at lower elevation.

West Gambier Bay RNA

Established in 1997 to replace the Pack Creek RNA, this 11,976-acre RNA is 

located at the head of the west arm of Gambier Bay in Admiralty Island National 

Monument-Kootznoowoo Wilderness. The area includes long, narrow Pybus 

Lake and several smaller lakes; productive wildlife habitat; an anadromous fish

stream; and a variety of geological features, including karst. West Gambier Bay 

contains forest and nonforest vegetation types typically found on the islands of 

northern Southeast Alaska.

Special Interest Areas are areas possessing unique or unusual scenic, historic, 

prehistoric, scientific, natural, or other characteristics. The objective of 

designating and managing such areas is to protect their unique values and, 

foster public use and enjoyment of these areas. Special Interest Areas may be 

designated as scenic, recreation, historic, archaeological, geological, botanical, 

zoological, or paleontological areas. Special Interest Areas differ from RNAs in 

that management may promote public use as well as scientific study.

Special Interest 

Areas
3 Environment and Effects

Other Special Land Use Designations 3-468 Final EIS

Special Interest Area designations are intended to maintain natural to 

near-natural conditions in most cases; the Recreation Area designation may 

include developed facilities within a natural or near-natural setting. The 

resources contained within these areas are not available for development, except 

for public facilities designed to allow recreation use while protecting the values of 

the area, or for interpretation and scientific study. Each area may require unique 

management direction determined through individualized study and planning. 

Special Interest Areas may be withdrawn from mineral entry. The LUD for 

Special Interest Areas applies to all the designated areas.

Current Situation

Thirty-four Special Interest Areas have been designated within the Tongass 

National Forest. Eight of the 34 areas were designated prior to the 1997 Forest 

Plan:

• Mendenhall Glacier Recreation Area (5,791 acres)

• Ward Lake Recreation Area (440 acres)

• Walker Cove-Rudyerd Bay Scenic Area (93,540 acres)

• Admiralty Lakes Recreation Area (8,710 acres)

• New Eddystone Rock Geological Area (1 acre)

• Hubbard Glacier Geological Area (46,000 acres)

• Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Scenic Area (283,000 acres) 

• Naha Recreation Area (2,363 acres)

A further 16 Special Interest Areas, plus one expansion, were identified and 

designated with the 1997 Forest Plan as follows: 

• Arena Cove/Cape Felix Geological Area (9,465 acres)

• Bailey Bay Hot Springs Recreation Area (3,510 acres)

• Blind Slough Scenic and Zoological Area (8,150 acres)

• Blue River Lava Flow Geological Area (13,520 acres)

• Clear River Zoological Area (11,530 acres)

• Duke Island Zoological Area (44,650 acres)

• Falls Creek Windthrow Botanical Area (820 acres)

• Fish Creek Hot Springs Recreation Area (100 acres)

• Karst Areas Geological Areas (multiple areas totaling 13,635 acres)

• Keku Islets Geological and Scenic Area (2,300 acres)

• Mount Edgecumbe Geological Area (49,050 acres)

• North Hamilton River Redcedar Cultural and Botanical Area (80 acres)

• Pack Creek Zoological Area (5,837 acres)

• Patterson Glacier Geological and Botanical Area (13,900 acres)

• Pike Lakes Recreation Area (2,340 acres)

• Soda Springs Geological Area (3,515 acres)

• Ward Lake Recreation Area Expansion (7,535 acres)
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-469 Other Special Land Use Designations

The remaining 10 Special Interest Areas were identified and designated in the 

2008 Forest Plan. These areas are all geologic areas and most of them contain 

unique karst features. The 10 geologic areas are described in Appendix L to the 

2008 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2008a).

• Big Creek Geological Area (2,000 acres)

• Blake Channel Geological Area (700 acres)

• Calamity Creek Caves Geological Area (200 acres)

• Dall Island Geological Area (13,600 acres)

• Eastern Chichagof Geological Area (23,900 acres)

• Heceta Geological Area (4,100 acres)

• Kosciusko Geological Area (8,700 acres; reduced by 700 acres by Public 

Law 113-291)

• Northern Prince of Wales Geological Area (2,400 acres; reduced by 400 

acres by Public Law 113-291)

• North-Central Prince of Wales Geological Area (700 acres)

• Suemez Island Volcanics Geological Area (7,100 acres)

Eight of the Special Interest Areas are within Wildernesses, National Monuments, 

or LUD II areas. These areas are managed in a way that accounts for the 

Wilderness, National Monument, or LUD II area surrounding them. They include 

the following:

• Admiralty Lakes Recreation Area (Admiralty Island National Monument and 

Kootznoowoo Wilderness)

• Blue River Lava Flow Geological Area (Misty Fiords National Monument and 

Wilderness)

• Hubbard Glacier Geological Area (Russell Fiord Wilderness)

• Naha Recreation Area (Naha LUD II)

• New Eddystone Rock Geological Area (Misty Fiords National Monument and 

Wilderness)

• Pack Creek Zoological Area (Admiralty Island National Monument and 

Kootznoowoo Wilderness)

• Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Scenic Area (Tracy Arm-Fords Terror Wilderness)

• Walker Cove-Rudyerd Bay Scenic Area (Misty Fiords National Monument 

and Wilderness)

The Tongass also contains a portion of the 5-acre Fort Durham National Historic 

Landmark (most of which is on private land). 

Special Interest Areas are not considered suitable for timber production, and 

roads are allowed only if they are compatible with the interpretive goals of a 

particular area. Other restrictions may be imposed on a case-by-case basis to 

protect an area’s unique values. These could include closures to off-highway (or 

off-road) vehicle use, and withdrawals from mineral entry. The Mendenhall 

Glacier, Ward Lake, and Naha Recreation Areas are withdrawn from mineral 

entry. The need for restrictions for newly designated or expanded areas may be 

determined during Forest Plan implementation.
3 Environment and Effects

Other Special Land Use Designations 3-470 Final EIS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended, provides a means for 

recognizing and protecting the “outstandingly remarkable” scenic, recreation, 

geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, ecological, and other values of selected 

rivers. The intent of including a river in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System is to preserve the free-flowing condition of the river itself, as well as the 

characteristics of the river’s immediate environment for the enjoyment and benefit 

of present and future generations. The U.S. Congress is responsible for final 

designation of rivers to be included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Rivers are eligible to be considered for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

River System if they are essentially free-flowing (without major dams, diversions, 

or channel modifications), and if they possess at least one “outstandingly 

remarkable” scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar value. These values should be a unique or exceptional 

representation for the area studied, and must be related to the river or its 

immediate environment. 

The classification for each eligible stream segment was done according to the 

criteria in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act with segments identified as Wild, 

Scenic, or Recreational Rivers, which are defined as follows:

• Wild River areas are defined as those rivers or sections of rivers that are free 

of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds 

or shorelines essentially primitive in character and waters unpolluted. 

• Scenic River areas are defined as those rivers or sections of rivers that are 

free of impoundments with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and 

shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

• Recreational River areas are defined as those rivers or sections of rivers that 

are readily accessible by road or railroad, that may have undergone some 

development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past.

Eligible rivers are further evaluated for “suitability.” Generally this analysis 

considers the appropriateness of Congressional designation as a Wild, Scenic, or 

Recreational River in light of social and economic values, the resource 

opportunities enhanced, curtailed, or foregone, and the effect on private lands 

and other uses of the area. Suitable rivers may be recommended to Congress 

for designation. If designation occurs, a final boundary is established and a 

management plan developed.

A total of 26 rivers in central and northern Alaska were designated as 

components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under ANILCA in 

1980, with an additional 12 rivers designated as “study rivers.” No rivers in

Southeast Alaska or the Tongass National Forest were designated. One of the 

12 study rivers is located in Southeast Alaska on the Tongass National Forest. 

This river, the Situk River, is located near the community of Yakutat.

The Situk River, including the West Fork and Old Situk Creek, was studied in 

1983 and was found to possess outstandingly remarkable fish, wildlife, and 

recreational values of national significance, but was not recommended for 

designation. The community of Yakutat, the local and regional Native 

corporations, the Citizens Advisory Council of Federal Areas, the Governor of the 

State of Alaska, and the Regional Forester on behalf of the Forest Service signed 

an agreement to recognize each other’s responsibility in cooperative 

management of the Situk River corridor in lieu of designation as a Wild and 

Scenic River. The Alaska Land Use Council supported development of a 

management plan for the Situk River, rather than designation as a Wild and 

Wild and Scenic 

Rivers
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-471 Other Special Land Use Designations

Scenic River (USDA Forest Service 1993) and the Secretary of the Interior 

formally determined to not recommend designation of the Situk River. The Situk 

River continues to be managed through a cooperative process. 

The National Park Service initiated an evaluation to determine the eligibility of the 

rivers within the National Parks and Preserves in Alaska. The Alsek River near 

Yakutat is included in that evaluation. The Tongass National Forest includes the 

surface and west bank of an 18-mile segment that was found to be eligible and 

meeting a “Scenic” classification. 

The planning process for the 1997 Forest Plan evaluated and identified rivers 

that could be eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 

There are nearly 900 watersheds on the Tongass National Forest containing 

some 42,500 miles of perennial stream. As part of this process, all of the rivers 

and streams on the Forest were examined and evaluated for eligibility for the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A total of 300 rivers and streams were 

initially identified for further study, with 112 of these rivers encompassing a total 

of 1,394 stream miles subsequently determined to be eligible for consideration as 

components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. More detail about 

the process that was used and the individual rivers studied is available in the 

1997 Tongass Forest Plan Revision Final Environmental Impact Statement 

(FEIS) (USDA Forest Service 1997a).

Based on a suitability analysis, the Regional Forester recommended 32 of the 

112 eligible rivers for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as 

either Wild, Scenic, or Recreational. Appendix E of the 1997 Tongass Land 

Management Plan Revision Final EIS provides descriptions of each river, and the 

1997 ROD contains the rationale for the decision made for each river (USDA 

Forest Service 1997b, 1997c). 

Table 3.21-2

Rivers (Segments) Recommended for Inclusion in National Wild and Scenic 

River Program in miles

River Name Wild Scenic Rec.

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values

FishWildlifeRecreatioScenicHist./CultGeologyEcology

Aaron, Oerns, Berg Creeks - 21 16 X X X X - - -

Anan Creek 17.5 .5 - X X X - - - -

Blind River - - 5 X X X - - - X

Blue River 26 - - - X - X - X X

Chickamin River 94 2 - X X X X X X -

Essowah Lake and Streams 13 - - X X - X - - -

Fall Dog Creek (local) 4 - - X X - X X - -

Farragut River 29 1 - X X - X - - -

Gilkey River 9 - - - - - X - X -

Glacial River 10 - - - - - X - X X

Gokachin-Mirror-Low-Fish Creeks 30 - - X X X X X - -

Harding River - 16 - X X X - - - -

Hasselborg River and Lakes 24 - - X X X - X - -

Kadake Creek - - 23 X X X X X - -

Kadashan River - 8 - X X - - - - X
3 Environment and Effects

Other Special Land Use Designations 3-472 Final EIS

Table 3.21-2 (continued)

Rivers (Segments) Recommended for Inclusion in National Wild and Scenic 

River Program (in miles)

River Name Wild Scenic Rec.

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values

FishWildlifeRecreatioScenicHist./CultGeologyEcology

Kah Sheets Creek and Lake 5 4 - X X X - X - -

Katzehin River 10 - - X - - X - X -

Kegan Lake and Streams 9 - - X - X X - - -

King Salmon River 8 - - X X - - - - -

Kutlaku Creek and Lake 2 - - X - - - - - -

LeConte Glacier 6 - - - - - X - X -

Lisianski River 5 - - - X - - - - X

Naha River 17 2 - X X X - X - -

Niblack Lakes and Streams1/ 5 - - X - - - - - -

Orchard Creek and Lake 10 - 16 X X X X - - X

Petersburg Creek 7 - - X - X X X - -

Salmon Bay Lake and Stream 4 2 - X X - X - - -

Santa Anna Creek - L. Helen - 4 - X - X - - - X

Sarkar Lakes 14 3 2 X X - X X - -

Thorne River-Hatchery Creek - 24 18 X X X X - - -

Virginia Lake and Creek - - 9 X - X - - - -

Wolverine Creek-McDonald Lake 6 - - X X X - - - -

Total Miles2 359.5 87.5 89.0

Rec. = Recreational river

1 In November 1998, a non-significant Forest Plan amendment subsequently rescinded the Wild and Scenic 

River recommendation and associated LUDs for Niblack Lakes and Streams (USDA Forest Service 1999), 

leaving 31 potential Wild, Scenic, and/or Recreational Rivers

2 The total miles of recommended Wild River do not include the 5 miles for Niblack Lakes and Streams, which 

were, as noted above, removed from the recommended list.

Current Situation

Congress has not yet designated any rivers on the Tongass National Forest to be 

included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The goal for 

management of the rivers that were recommended for Wild and Scenic 

designations is to maintain their outstandingly remarkable values and their freeflowing conditions. The objective is to manage the 31 rivers (or segments), 

pending designation by Congress as Wild, Scenic, or Recreational Rivers, to 

maintain the eligibility of the total miles of river for the Wild, Scenic, or 

Recreational classification.

The 1997 Forest Plan directs that the rivers be managed, within the existing 

authorities of the Forest Service, to retain their free-flowing character and 

outstandingly remarkable values. Three LUDs were created for these rivers, one 

for each classification: Wild River, Scenic River, and Recreational River. The 

1997 Forest Plan includes goals, objectives, desired conditions, and specific 

management prescriptions for each LUD. These are summarized below and 

described in more detail in the 1997 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1997a).

Wild River LUD. This is the most restrictive of the three LUDs. Scheduled 

timber harvest and construction of major recreation facilities, roads, and 

hydroelectric power projects is not allowed. Mining may be allowed or the area 

may be withdrawn from mineral entry by Congress at the time of designation as a 

Wild River. Some fish and wildlife habitat enhancements are permitted. This is a 

Transportation and Utility Systems “Avoidance Area,” but corridors will be 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-473 Other Special Land Use Designations

allowed in accordance with ANILCA, Title XI. Twenty-three river segments

encompassing a total of 359.5 river miles are currently managed under this LUD

(Table 3.21-2).

Scenic River LUD. Hydroelectric power projects are not allowed, but timber 

harvest is allowed if the adjacent LUD allows timber harvest. Major recreational 

developments may be compatible with this LUD and minor recreational 

developments are allowed. The construction of NFS roads is allowed and 

bridges may occasionally span the river. Mining and some fish and wildlife 

habitat enhancement are permitted. Like the Wild River LUD, this is a 

Transportation and Utility Systems “Avoidance Area” but corridors will be allowed 

in accordance with ANILCA, Title XI. Twelve river segments encompassing a 

total of 87.5 river miles are currently managed under this LUD (Table 3.21-2).

Recreational River LUD. Although hydroelectric power projects are not allowed, 

many other management activities are permitted in this LUD. Timber harvest is 

allowed if the adjacent LUD allows timber harvest. Major and minor recreational 

developments and NFS roads that make the river easily accessible are allowed. 

Mining and some fish and wildlife habitat enhancements are permitted. This is a 

Transportation and Utility Systems “Avoidance Area,” but corridors will be 

allowed in accordance with ANILCA, Title XI. Seven river segments

encompassing a total of 89 river miles are currently managed under this LUD

(Table 3.21-2).

The LUDs for adjacent land can have significant influence on the management of 

resources inside Wild, Scenic, or Recreational River LUDs. Many of the 

corridors designated to the Wild River, Scenic River, or Recreational River LUD

are narrow and include the width of the river plus 0.25 mile on each side. The 

most obvious example of adjacent LUD influence relates to timber, with harvest 

allowed in Scenic or Recreational River LUDs if it is allowed in the adjacent LUD. 

A total of 13 miles of recommended river are in this situation. Adjacent LUDs can 

also more indirectly influence other resources, such as scenery or recreation, 

particularly in Scenic or Recreational River LUDs. For example, if the 

surrounding land is designated Remote Recreation where no new roads are 

allowed, it is less likely that a road will be proposed for a Scenic or Recreational 

River area. New road construction is not allowed in the Wild River LUD.

Of the 536 miles of recommended Wild, Scenic, or Recreational Rivers, 221 

miles of seven rivers (41 percent of the total recommended river miles) are 

located in Wilderness or National Monument Wilderness. Most of the remaining 

Wild, Scenic, or Recreational River miles outside of designated wilderness are 

surrounded by land currently in non-development LUD designations. Although 

there are differences in specific management prescriptions for each of the LUDs, 

there are some common directions. In general, non-development LUDs do not 

permit commercial timber harvest, and new roads are not allowed or are 

restricted to specific uses. While minor recreational development is consistent 

with most non-development LUDs, major recreational development is consistent 

only with Semi-Remote Recreation LUD. Generally, the non-development status 

and resulting management prescriptions in these adjacent lands tends to reduce 

the likelihood of development in Scenic or Recreational River LUDs.

Environmental Effects

Timber Harvest

There is no proposed old-growth harvest activity within special LUDs under any 

alternative. Any effects from old-growth harvest would be indirect effects associated 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Other Special Land Use Designations 3-474 Final EIS

with changes in areas adjacent to special LUDs. Alternatives 2 and 3 include 

young-growth harvest activity in a subset of special LUDs, including Special Interest 

Areas and Recreational and Scenic Rivers. The acreage of land suitable for younggrowth timber production would be similar under both alternatives (Table 3.21-3). 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 do not include lands suitable for timber production for 

young-growth harvest in these areas; timber production would continue to be an 

allowed activity under the Forest Plan in Special Interest Areas and 

Recreational/Scenic River LUDs if they are adjacent to a Development LUD. 

Table 3.21-3

Estimated Maximum Acres (with Full Plan Implementation) of Young-Growth 

Timber Harvest in Special LUDs by Alternative1

Alternative

Maximum 25-Year Harvest (acres) Maximum 100-year Harvest (acres)

Special 

Interest Area

Recreational 

River

Scenic 

River

Special 

Interest Area

Recreational 

River

Scenic 

River

2 705 329 94 3,705 1,729 493

3 617 229 71 3,596 1,337 416 1 No harvest is proposed in experimental forests, research natural areas, or LUD II areas. 2 No harvest is proposed in Special Interest Areas or Recreational River or Scenic River LUD under Alternatives

1, 4, and 5. However, if a Special Interest Area or Recreational/Scenic River LUD is adjacent to a 

Development LUD, then timber harvest is an allowed activity. 

LUD II Areas

There would be no land suitable for timber production for old- or young-growth 

harvest in LUD II areas under any alternative. Any potential effects of harvest 

would be indirect effects associated with changes in areas adjacent to LUD II 

areas. Depending on the location and extent of harvest, there could be edgerelated effects, increasing the potential for impacts to portions of LUD II area 

boundaries. Such impacts could include introduced non-native or invasive plant 

species, vulnerability to windthrow events, noise from harvest activities, reduced 

scenic quality, and unauthorized recreation access. The effects of proposed 

harvest projects on LUD II areas would require assessment under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Experimental Forests

There would be no land suitable for timber production for old- or young-growth 

harvest within experimental forests under any alternative. Any potential effects of 

harvest for commercial purposes would be indirect effects associated with 

changes in areas adjacent to the two experimental forests. Limited timber 

harvest could continue to occur within the experimental forests as part of 

approved research projects. 

Research Natural Areas

There would be no land suitable for timber production for old- or young-growth 

harvest areas within RNAs under any alternative. Any potential effects of harvest 

would be indirect effects associated with changes in areas adjacent to RNAs.

Indirect effects would be similar to those described above for LUD II areas. 

Special Interest Areas

Alternatives 2 and 3 include acres that are suitable for harvest in Special Interest 

Areas. The 25-year and 100-year maximum young-growth harvest scenarios 

under Alternative 2 are 705 acres and 3,705 acres; the corresponding numbers 

for Alternative 3 are 617 and 3,596 acres (Table 3.21-3). These totals represent 

a small fraction of the total acreage dedicated to Special Interest Areas. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-475 Other Special Land Use Designations

Potential direct effects to individual Special Interest Areas from proposed specific 

young-growth harvest would be subject to additional analysis under NEPA. 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 do not include any lands suitable for timber production for 

young-growth harvest within Special Interest Areas; however, timber production 

would continue to be an allowed activity if the adjacent LUD is a Development 

LUD. This would also be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3. Further, limited 

salvage harvest is allowed in some Special Interest Areas. Any proposed 

harvest would be subject to additional analysis under NEPA. 

The acreage of the Special Interest Areas is sufficient to include and protect the 

resources of interest for each respective unit. Therefore, none of the alternatives 

are expected to result in indirect effects associated with harvest activities that 

might occur adjacent to Special Interest Areas.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

All five alternatives include the Wild, Scenic, and/or Recreational River LUD

designation recommendations for the 31 existing river segments designated as 

potential Wild, Scenic, and/or Recreational Rivers under the 2008 Forest Plan,

and at their current respective acreages. These river segments would continue 

to be managed to protect the outstandingly remarkable values that make them 

eligible for designation as Wild, Scenic and/or Recreational Rivers by Congress.

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 do not include any acres of suitable forest land for younggrowth harvest within Wild, Scenic, or Recreational River LUDs. No acres of 

suitable forest land are proposed within Wild River LUDs under any alternative. 

In Scenic and Recreational River LUDs, timber production would continue to be 

an allowed activity in areas where the adjacent LUD is a Development LUD. Any 

proposed harvest would be subject to further analysis under NEPA.

Alternatives 2 and 3 include acres suitable for young-growth harvest within 

Recreational River and Scenic River LUDs. The 25-year and 100-year maximum 

young-growth harvest scenarios in Recreational River LUDs under Alternative 2 

are 329 acres and 1,729 acres; the corresponding numbers for Alternative 3 are 

229 and 1,337 acres (Table 3.21-3). The 25-year and 100-year maximum 

young-growth harvest scenarios in Scenic River LUDs under Alternative 2 are 94 

acres and 493 acres; the corresponding numbers for Alternative 3 are 71 and 

416 acres (Table 3.21-3). The presence of suitable acres for young-growth 

harvest does not guarantee harvest will take place in the future. Actual harvest 

locations will depend on the specific purpose and need for future harvest, and 

would be sited to avoid or minimize conflicts with Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines. Effects from harvest could include reduced scenic quality and 

recreation access restrictions, particularly during active harvest operations. Sitespecific effects to Recreational or Scenic River segments from proposed younggrowth harvest would be subject to further analysis under NEPA. 

The majority of Wild, Scenic, or Recreational River miles are located in areas 

surrounded by land in non-development LUDs or designated Wilderness and 

National Monument Wilderness. Timber harvest is not generally allowed in the 

non-development LUDs, and new roads are not allowed or are restricted to

specific uses. Therefore, none of the alternatives are expected to result in 

indirect effects associated with harvest activities in most parts of Wild, Scenic, or 

Recreational River LUDs. For the 13 miles of Scenic or Recreational Rivers 

adjacent to LUDs where harvest is allowed, indirect effects could occur if the 

proposed harvest is visible to visitors or otherwise impedes use of the area for its 

scenic or recreational purpose. 
3 Environment and Effects

Other Special Land Use Designations 3-476 Final EIS

Renewable Energy 

Alternative 1 (no action) would continue the current Transportation and Utility 

System (TUS) LUD system, under which all special LUDs are considered TUS 

“Avoidance Areas” and where feasible would be avoided through site-specific 

analysis during project-level planning. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, energy 

direction in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan would be applied to the LUDs, similar to 

how the Forest-wide standards and guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan 

are applied to the LUDs. This is discussed in more detail in the Renewable 

Energy section of this EIS. 

The Forest Service has identified 11 proposed renewable energy projects in 

Southeast Alaska that are active (Table 3.12b-3). None of these projects are

located within, or in the vicinity of, any special LUD areas. Should a project be 

proposed in the future that could affect a special LUD, it would be subject to 

further analysis under NEPA. 

Under all alternatives, there would be no change in the number of units or acres 

with special LUDs and no direct or indirect effects from proposed renewable 

energy projects. Under Alternatives 1, 4, and 5, there would be no land suitable 

for old-growth or young-growth timber production in special LUDs. Timber

production would continue to be an allowed use if the adjacent LUD is a 

Development LUD. As a result, there may be cumulative effects associated with 

special LUDs under these alternatives if harvest is proposed at a future time. 

Cumulative effects of any harvest in special LUDs would be further assessed 

during a project-specific NEPA review process. 

The main difference for Alternatives 2 and 3 are the lands suitable for timber 

production for young-growth harvest in Special Interest Areas and Scenic and 

Recreational River LUDs discussed above. The presence of land suitable for 

timber production does not guarantee that harvest will take place. In addition, no 

other reasonably foreseeable projects in special LUDs are known at this time. 

Given current management goals and regulatory protections in place for special 

LUDs, the potential for cumulative effects is considered low. 

Appendix C of this FEIS provides a full list of all the projects considered in the 

cumulative effects analysis. 

Cumulative 

Effects
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-477 Economic and Social Environment

Economic and Social Environment

Introduction ................................................................................................ 3-477

Regional and National Economy.............................................................. 3-478

Affected Environment................................................................................ 3-478

Regional Economic Overview................................................................ 3-478

Natural Resource-Based Industries....................................................... 3-481

Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 3-506

Direct and Indirect Effects...................................................................... 3-506

Cumulative Effects................................................................................. 3-523

Introduction

The Tongass National Forest stretches roughly 500 miles northwest from 

Ketchikan to Yakutat and includes approximately 80 percent of the land area in 

Southeast Alaska. The region is sparsely settled with an estimated 74,280 

people living in more than 30 towns and villages located in and around the Forest

in 2014 (Alaska Department of Labor [DOL] 2014d). The communities of 

Southeast Alaska depend on the Tongass National Forest in various ways, 

including employment in the wood products, commercial fishing and fish

processing, recreation, tourism, and mining and mineral development sectors. 

Many residents depend heavily on subsistence hunting and fishing to meet their 

basic needs. In addition, natural amenities and recreation activities associated 

with the Tongass National Forest form an important part of the quality of life for 

many residents of Southeast Alaska. Since there is very little private land in the 

region to provide these resources and opportunities, appropriate management of 

the Tongass National Forest is extremely important to local communities and the 

overall regional economy. 

The Tongass National Forest is also an important national and international 

resource. An estimated 1,037,000 people visited Southeast Alaska in 2011, with 

cruise ship passengers accounting for 85 percent of this total (McDowell Group 

2012a). For many, a visit to the Tongass is a once-in-a-lifetime experience and 

spending by these visitors helps drive the recreation and tourism sector. The 

Tongass National Forest contains large areas of essentially undisturbed forest 

lands, which represent increasingly scarce and, therefore, increasingly valuable 

ecosystems. These lands have value for many people who may never visit 

Southeast Alaska, but benefit from knowing that the Tongass National Forest is 

there. This type of value, often referred to as non-use value, includes existence, 

option, and bequest values. These values represent the value that individuals 

obtain from knowing that the Forest exists, knowing that it would be available to 

visit in the future should they choose to do so, and knowing that it will be left for 

future generations to inherit. 

The economic and social assessment prepared for this Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) is divided into two main parts: 1) Regional and National 

Economy, and 2) Subregional Overview and Communities. The first part, 

Regional and National Economy, evaluates the potential regional and national 

economic effects of the proposed plan alternatives. The second part, 

Subregional Overview and Communities, assesses impacts to the economic and 

social environment at the subregional and community level. 
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-478 Final EIS

Regional and National Economy

Affected Environment

Southeast Alaska is divided into eight boroughs and two census areas (CAs). 

The eight boroughs – Haines, Juneau, Ketchikan Gateway, Petersburg, Sitka, 

Municipality of Skagway, Wrangell, and Yakutat – correspond with the county 

governments found elsewhere in the United States. The remaining areas that 

are not part of a borough are allocated to two CAs: the Hoonah-Angoon CA and 

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA. CAs are only statistical units, but are widely 

recognized from a data reporting standpoint by federal agencies and most state 

agencies as county equivalents. Boroughs and CAs are collectively referred to 

as “boroughs” in the remainder of this section.

More than 74,000 people lived in the towns, communities, and villages of 

Alaska’s southeastern panhandle in 2014, most of which are located on islands 

or along the narrow coastal strip (Alaska DOL 2014d). Only four of Southeast 

Alaska’s 34 communities met the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 definition of an 

urban cluster (population greater than 2,500) in 2014 (Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan, 

and Petersburg). Juneau, which is the state capital and a regional trade center, 

accounted for 45 percent of Southeast Alaska’s total population in 2013 (Alaska 

DOL 2014d). Ketchikan Gateway Borough, the second largest borough in 

Southeast Alaska, accounted for about 19 percent of the region’s population in 

2013. Ketchikan is a smaller regional trade center that serves Prince of Wales 

Island and the surrounding area. Population is discussed in more detail in the 

Subregional Overview and Communities section of this EIS.

The remote nature of the region is reflected in a population density of 

approximately two persons per square mile, which is much lower than the United 

States’ average of 88.9 persons per square mile. Population densities by 

borough/census area in 2013 ranged from 0.1 in the City and Borough of Yakutat

to 12.2 in the City and Borough of Juneau (Alaska DOL 2014e; U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014a). Many locations are accessible only by boat or plane, and 

landing strips or seaplane facilities are located in virtually all communities. The 

Alaska State ferry system transports people and vehicles between several ports 

in Southeast Alaska, and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and Bellingham, 

Washington. Haines and Skagway, at the northern end of the Forest, and Hyder

at the southern end, offer access to interior and Southcentral Alaska via the 

Alaska Highway, and Canada via the Cassiar Highway. 

The following sections provide an overview of the social and economic conditions 

in Southeast Alaska and provide a baseline against which the potential effects of 

the proposed alternatives are measured.

Employment in Southeast Alaska increased by approximately 7 percent between 

2000 and 2012, which translates into an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent (Table 

3.22-1). This annual growth rate was less than half of the state average over this 

period (0.5 percent versus 1.2 percent), but more broadly comparable to the 

national average (0.6 percent). Data compiled by the Alaska DOL indicate that 

employment in Southeast Alaska has fluctuated over the last decade with a year 

of job growth often followed by a year of net job loss (Alaska DOL 2015b). The 

largest drop in annual employment occurred between 2008 and 2009, with a net 

decrease of 750 jobs, approximately 2 percent of total regional employment.

Adjusted for inflation, total personal income in Southeast Alaska increased by 

about 17 percent between 2000 and 2012, an annual growth rate of 

approximately 1.2 percent. This annual growth rate was less than half of the 

Regional 

Economic 

Overview
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-479 Economic and Social Environment

state average over this period (1.2 percent versus 2.5 percent), and more 

generally comparable to the national average (1.4 percent) (Table 3.22-1). Per 

capita income in Southeast Alaska was 16 percent higher in 2012 than 2000, 

increasing at a slightly slower annual rate than Alaska as a whole (1.2 percent 

versus 1.3 percent), about twice as fast as the national increase of 0.6 percent 

over this same period (Table 3.22-1). Average earnings per job in Southeast 

Alaska, adjusted for inflation, were 7 percent higher in 2012 than 2000, an

increase of 0.5 percent per year, compared to state and U.S. annual growth rates 

of 0.8 percent and 0.5 percent over the same time period (Table 3.22-1).

Table 3.22-1

Southeast Alaska Economic Overview

Economic Indicator

SE AK

2000 to 2012

SE AK 

Percent

Change

SE AK 

Growth 

Rate (%)

Alaska 

Growth 

Rate (%)

U.S. 

Growth 

Rate 

2000 2012 (%)

Total Personal Income (Million 

2014 dollars)

3,452 4,054 17% 1.2 2.5 1.4

Population 72,937 73,687 1% 0.1 1.2 0.8

Average Annual Employment 50,276 53,833 7% 0.5 1.2 0.6

Per Capita Personal Income 

(2014 dollars)

47,325 55,016 16% 1.2 1.3 0.6

As percent of Alaska Average 109% 107% - - - -

As percent of U.S. Average 112% 120% - - - -

Average Earnings per Job 

(2014 dollars/year)

45,820 49,050 7% 0.5 0.8 0.5

As percent of Alaska Average 92% 88% - - - -

As percent of U.S. Average 95% 95% - - - -

Non-Job Related Earnings Per 

Capita (2014 dollars)

15,682 18,819 20% 1.4 0.9 1.4

As percent of Total Per Capita 

Income

33% 34% - - - -

SE Alaska Unemployment Rate 6.2 6.8 - - - -

Alaska Unemployment Rate 6.2 6.9 - - - -

U.S. Unemployment Rate 4.0 8.1 - - - -

Notes:

SE AK = Southeast Alaska

1 Income and earnings figures for 2000 and 2012 are adjusted for inflation and presented as the amount they would 

be worth in 2014. 2 Full- and part-time employment includes self-employed workers. Employment data are by place of work, not place 

of residence, and therefore include people who work in Southeast Alaska but do not live there. The nonresident and 

nonlocal Alaska resident shares of total employment in Southeast Alaska in 2012 were estimated to be 24 percent and 

12 percent, respectively (Kreiger et al. 2014). Employment is measured as the average annual number of jobs, fulltime plus part-time, with each job that a person holds counted at full weight.

Source: Alaska DOL 2014e; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a, 2014b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014

Per capita income in Southeast Alaska was higher than both the statewide and 

national averages in 2012. Average earnings per job were lower in Southeast 

Alaska in 2012, equivalent to about 88 percent and 95 percent of the Alaska and 

national averages, respectively (Table 3.22-1). The region’s unemployment rate 

(6.8 percent) was lower than the state (6.9 percent) and national (8.1 percent)

averages in 2012 (Table 3.22-1). The unemployment rate in Southeast Alaska 

remained below the state and national averages in 2013, 6.4 percent versus 6.5 

percent and 7.4 percent, respectively (Alaska DOL 2014f; U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 2014).
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-480 Final EIS

Southeast Alaska employment is summarized by sector in Table 3.22-2. State 

and local government, consumer services, and retail trade were the largest 

employers in 2001 and 2013. Total employment increased by 5,081 jobs or 11 

percent between 2001 and 2013, with self-employed workers (proprietors) 

accounting for 71 percent of this increase. Large absolute growth occurred in the 

social services sector, primarily in health care and social assistance, with the 

largest relative increase occurring in the mining sector, with an 11-fold increase 

from 50 jobs in 2001 to 649 jobs in 2013. Mining and other natural resourcebased industries are discussed in more detail below.

Table 3.22-2

Southeast Alaska Employment by Sector, 2001 and 2013

Economic Sector

Number of Jobs

Share of Total 

(percent)

Percent 

Change 2013 Location 

Quotient4 2001 2013 2001 2013 2001 to 2013

Total full-time and part-time

employment1 48,064 53,145 100 100 11 1.0

Type of Employment

Wage and salary employment 37,256 38,743 77.5 72.9 4 0.9

Proprietors employment 10,808 14,402 22.5 27.1 33 1.3

Wage and Salary Employment by Industry2

Farming 70 59 0.1 0.1 -16 0.6

Forestry, fishing, related activities, and 

other 591 1,108 1.2 2.1 87 0.9

Mining 50 649 0.1 1.2 1198 0.3

Construction 2,465 2,660 5.1 5.0 8 0.9

Manufacturing 1,621 2,034 3.4 3.8 25 1.1

Wholesale trade 59 86 0.1 0.2 46 0.1

Retail trade 5,374 5,281 11.2 9.9 -2 1.0

Transportation and warehousing 2,699 2,524 5.6 4.7 -6 0.9

Finance and insurance 846 1,243 1.8 2.3 47 0.9

Real estate and rental and leasing 1,011 1,458 2.1 2.7 44 0.8

Services (Consumer)3 6,956 7,035 14.5 13.2 1 0.9

Services (Producer)3 2,092 3,124 4.4 5.9 49 0.5

Services (Social)3 3,316 4,721 6.9 8.9 42 0.7

Federal government 2,817 2,699 5.9 5.1 -4 0.5

State and local government 11,078 11,248 23.0 21.2 2 1.5 1 See Table 3.22-1, note 2. 2These data were initially compiled at the borough level and combined here to form a regional overview. Employment counts are not 

provided for sectors with less than 10 jobs or for sectors where counts would disclose confidential information and employment counts 

were not provided for all sectors. These numbers are, however, included in the totals. As a result, employment by industry estimates do 

not sum to the total full- and part-time employment estimates, and the corresponding percentages do not sum to 100. 3 Nine 2-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories are combined into these three divisions for ease of 

presentation. Consumer service includes: other services; arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food services. 

Producer services includes: information; professional and technical services; management of companies and enterprises; and 

administrative and waste services. Social services includes: educational services; and health care and social assistance.

4 The location quotient is a relative measure of industry specialization that compares the percentage of employment concentrated in each 

sector in the study region with a benchmark region, in this case the State of Alaska. A location quotient of 1.0 indicates that the study 

region has the same percentage of employment in this sector as the benchmark region does. Location quotients above or below 1.0 

indicate that the study region is over or under represented in this sector, respectively.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014c. 

The location quotients in Table 3.22-2 (see note 4) compare the regional 

employment distribution with the state average and indicate Southeast Alaska’s 

economy is relatively specialized in the state and local government sector. The 

relative concentration in the government sector largely reflects the location of the 

state capital in Juneau, but the relatively high proportion of government 

employment in the other Southeast Alaska communities also plays a part. With 

the exception of manufacturing and retail trade, which have respective location 
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-481 Economic and Social Environment

quotients of 1.1 and 1.0, all other sectors in Southeast Alaska are relatively 

underrepresented. 

The government sector is the main source of year round employment in all the 

communities in Southeast Alaska. In addition to direct employment in the 

government sector, many of the area’s private sector jobs are also dependent on 

government funding and contracts. Private sector activities dependent on 

government funding include road construction and health services, with the 

region’s largest private employer, Southeast Alaska Regional Health Corporation, 

relying heavily on government funding (Gilbertson 2004).

Recreation and tourism is an important part of the economy of Southeast Alaska. This 

is not readily apparent from Table 3.22-2 because recreation and tourism is not 

classified or measured as a standard industrial category and employment and income 

data are not specifically collected for this sector. Components of recreation and 

tourism activities are instead partially captured in other industrial sectors, mainly retail 

trade and consumer services. The share of the total workforce that is self-employed in 

Southeast Alaska is higher than the state average, 27 percent compared to 21 percent 

(location quotient of 1.3), and higher than the national average of 22 percent. Much of 

this self-employment is associated with the retail trade and consumer services sectors

and is sensitive to recreation and tourism activity. Commercial fishing also accounts 

for a large share of self-employment in Southeast Alaska.

The following section discusses the relative contribution of natural resourcebased industries to the regional economy.

Direct Employment

Direct employment in natural resource-based industries accounted for slightly 

more than one-quarter (26 percent) of total employment in Southeast Alaska in 

2013 (Table 3.22-3). The estimated distribution of resource-dependent 

employment is shown by industry in Figure 3.22-1. The visitor industry (which is 

used to approximate the recreation and tourism sector) accounted for more than 

half (56 percent) of this total, followed by the fish processing and seafood 

harvesting sectors, which accounted for 21 percent and 15 percent of total 

resource-based employment, respectively (Table 3.22-3). Mining accounted for 

6 percent and wood products made up 3 percent.

Table 3.22-3

Natural Resource-Based Employment by Sector, 2013

Industry Direct Employment Percent of Regional Total

Percent of ResourceBased Total

Timber 325 1% 3%

Visitor 6,707 15% 56%

Seafood Harvesting 1,750 4% 15%

Fish Processing 2,510 5% 21%

Mining 756 2% 6%

Total Resource-Based 12,048 26% 100%

Southeast Alaska Total 46,011 100% na

Notes:

1 These data were compiled on behalf of Southeast Conference based on data collected by the Alaska DOL and the U.S. 

Census Bureau. The Alaska DOL data are for 2013 for non-agricultural wage and salary employment. These data do not 

include proprietors or self-employed workers, and are, therefore, supplemented using data from the 2012 US Census 

Nonemployer Statistics, which specifically count proprietors and the self-employed. These numbers are collected in different 

ways and do not exactly match those compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (Tables 3.22-1 and 3.22-2).

Source: Southeast Conference 2014 

Natural 

Resource-Based 

Industries
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-482 Final EIS

Figure 3.22-1

Natural Resource-Based Employment by Sector, 2013

Notes: 

Total = 12,048 Employees

Source: See Table 3.22-3.

Nonresident and Seasonal Employment

Nonresident and seasonal employment are two important and related aspects of 

resource-dependent employment in Southeast Alaska. Many nonresidents work 

a relatively short time in Alaska, often for just two or three months, generally 

spend the bulk of their earnings elsewhere, and, as a result, contribute less to the 

regional economy than resident workers.

Data compiled by the Alaska DOL indicate that nonresidents account for a 

relatively large share of resource-dependent employment in Southeast Alaska. 

These data are based on Alaska unemployment insurance records and Alaska 

Permanent Fund Dividend data and do not include federal employees or the selfemployed. Estimates are worker counts not employment estimates. Worker 

counts identify the cumulative number of people working in an occupation over 

the course of a year; employment estimates identify the number of filled jobs. 

Worker counts are usually higher than annual job counts because a single 

position can be filled by more than one person over the course of a year and 

workers in seasonal industries are often employed for less than a year (Kreiger et 

al. 2015). 

Nonresidents accounted for approximately 25.8 percent of employment in 

Southeast Alaska in 2013, compared to 20.6 percent for the state as a whole, 

with an additional 8.2 percent of non-local workers in Southeast who normally 

reside elsewhere in Alaska (Kreiger et al. 2015; Alaska DOL 2015c). Within 

Southeast Alaska, the nonresident share of employment ranged from 24.5 

percent in Juneau to 68.7 percent in Skagway. The relatively low level of 

nonresident employment in Juneau reflects the importance of the government 

sector, which accounted for 35 percent of employment in Juneau in 2013 (U.S. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014c). 

Timber

3%

Visitor

56%

Seafood 

Harvesting

14%

Fish Processing

21%

Mining

6%
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-483 Economic and Social Environment

Viewed by resource-dependent sector, nonresident and nonlocal employment 

combined ranged from 46 percent for the leisure and hospitality sector (used 

here to represent recreation and tourism) to 76 percent for the manufacturing 

sector compared to 34 percent region wide (Figure 3.22-2). Nonresident 

employment is high in the manufacturing sector because 80 percent of 

manufacturing employment in Southeast Alaska in 2013 was in the seafood 

processing sector. Seafood processing had the highest percentage of 

nonresident workers in Alaska in 2013, with almost three-quarters of the labor 

force (74.2 percent) comprising nonresidents (Krieger et al. 2015). Nonresidents 

accounted for approximately 67 percent of employment in the fish processing 

sector in Southeast Alaska in 2012, ranging from 35.7 percent of fish processing 

workers in Skagway to 90.3 percent in Haines Borough (Alaska DOL 2014f; 

Table 3.22-12). 

Figure 3.22-2

2013 Nonresident Share of Direct Employment in Southeast Alaska.

Total and Resource-Dependent Industries

Notes: 

1/ The forestry, fishing and hunting sector also includes agriculture, which employs very few people in 

Southeast Alaska.

2/ Leisure and hospitality consists of two sectors: Arts, Entertainment and Recreation, and Accommodation 

and Food Services. These sectors are used here to represent the recreation and tourism sector.

3/ Seafood processing accounted for 80 percent of employment in the manufacturing sector in 2013.

Source: Alaska DOL 2015c

Most salmon and other fish harvesters are self-employed and exempt from 

reporting employment and wages. As a result, information on the nonresident 

share of total employment in this sector in Southeast Alaska is not available. 

However, statewide, Alaska DOL estimates that nonresidents made up an 

estimated 51.3 percent of the fisheries harvest workforce in 2013 (Krieger et al. 

2015).

Southeast Alaska’s economy is highly seasonal. Average annual seasonal 

variations in employment are shown for the mining and logging, leisure and 

hospitality, seafood processing, salmon harvesting, and government sectors, and 

25.8

71.3

39.5

45.7

44.5

8.2

4.7

6.7

19.7

16.8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Southeast Alaska Total

Manufacturing

Leisure and Hospitality

Forestry, Fishing and Hunting

Mining

Percent

Nonresident Nonlocal
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-484 Final EIS

the region as a whole in Figure 3.22-3.

1 As shown in this figure, seasonal 

variations in resource-based employment—the difference between peak levels of 

employment in the summer and dips in the winter—are often quite pronounced. 

The measure shown in the figure is calculated by dividing the difference between 

summer maximum and winter minimum employment by annual average 

employment. Expressed as a percentage, this figure allows comparison between 

different industries and the regional economy as a whole. Salmon harvesting 

and seafood processing in particular show very high degrees of seasonal 

variation. Data presented for the Leisure and Hospitality sector in Figure 3.22-3 

(as a proxy for recreation and tourism) show a degree of variation substantially 

lower than the salmon harvesting and seafood processing sectors, but more than 

twice the Southeast Alaska average. Annual seasonal variation for mining and 

logging was lower than the Southeast Alaska average. Data are also presented 

for the government sector, which showed much less seasonal variation than the 

Southeast Alaska average (Figure 3.22-3). 

Figure 3.22-3

Average Annual Seasonal Variation in Employment 2013 (percent)

Notes:

1/ Average seasonal variation is calculated here by dividing the difference between summer maximum and winter 

minimum employment by annual average employment. The resulting measure is expressed as a percentage.

2/ Data for the Leisure and Hospitality sector are used here to represent recreation and tourism. 

3/ Data for salmon harvesting are for 2012.

Source: Alaska DOL 2015b

Industry-Specific Descriptions

The following subsections contain more detailed descriptions of the following 

resource-dependent industries: wood products, recreation and tourism, 

commercial fishing and seafood processing, and mining and mineral 

development. 

 1 Management decisions have the potential to affect salmon and, therefore, data are 

presented for the salmon fishery. Data available for the seafood processing industry do 

not allow for an easy distinction between salmon processors and other firms, and, 

therefore, data presented for the seafood processing sector include the entire seafood 

processing industry.

30

8

292

229

74

21

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Southeast Alaska Total

Government

Salmon Harvesting

Seafood Processing

Leisure and Hospitality

Mining and Logging

Percent
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-485 Economic and Social Environment

Wood Products

Employment

Timber employment in Southeast Alaska peaked at the end of the 1980s, with 

slightly more than 3,500 jobs in 1989 and 1990, before dropping sharply in the 

1990s. Much of this job loss was associated with closure of the large pulp mills 

in Sitka (1993) and Ketchikan (1997), which together accounted for 899 jobs in 

1990. Timber employment has continued to decline since the 1990s, falling from 

a recent high of 561 jobs in 2003 to 249 jobs in 2014, reaching a recent low of 

216 jobs in 2009 (Table 3.22-4; Figure 3.22-4). Tongass National Forest-related 

employment in logging and sawmilling declined from 199 jobs in 2003 to 147 in 

2014, with a low of just 86 jobs in 2012. Non-Tongass timber employment also 

declined over this period, falling from a recent high of 362 jobs in 2003 to 102 

jobs in 2014, a decrease of 77 percent (Table 3.22-4). Sawmill employment has 

historically been supported by Forest Service timber sales, with state timber 

harvest also contributing. Logging employment is generated from all ownerships, 

including Native Corporation lands. 

Table 3.22-4

Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002-2014

Year1

Tongass 

Logging

Tongass 

Sawmill

Total TongassRelated 

Employment

Other 

Logging

Other 

Sawmill

Total Other 

Timber

Employment

Total Timber

Industry

Employment

2002 63 110 173 299 40 339 512

2003 108 91 199 298 64 362 561

2004 82 95 177 220 53 273 450

2005 88 96 184 263 52 315 499

2006 81 77 158 217 46 263 421

2007 44 70 114 225 63 288 402

2008 52 70 122 118 24 142 264

2009 48 39 87 110 19 129 216

2010 61 46 107 133 7 140 247

2011 62 47 109 150 3 153 262

2012 39 47 86 147 11 158 244

2013 75 48 123 106 14 120 243

2014 87 60 147 95 7 102 249

Average 68 69 137 183 31 214 352

Note:: 1 Data are presented by calendar year.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2015l 
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-486 Final EIS

Figure 3.22-4

Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002-2014

Harvest 

Timber harvest in Southeast Alaska also peaked in the late 1980s, with harvest 

levels slightly below 1,000 million board feet (MMBF) in 1989 and 1990. Total 

harvest in 2011 was 76.8 MMBF, about 8 percent of peak levels Harvest on the 

Tongass accounted for almost half (48 percent, 36.7 MMBF) of this total, with 37 

percent (28.1 MMBF) of the total provided by Native Corporation lands and 16 

percent (12.0 MMBF) provided by the State of Alaska (Table 3.22-5; Figure 3.22-5). 

Table 3.22-5

Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 

2002–2014

Year1

Tongass 

National Forest State of Alaska2 Native Corporation Total

2002 33.8 57.3 101.7 192.8

2003 50.8 34.8 105.7 191.3

2004 46.3 24.2 98.9 169.4

20053 49.5 42.9 103.9 196.3

20063 43.1 44.6 71.2 158.9

 20073 4 18.7 44.6 50.0 113.3

2008 28.0 11.9 52.3 92.2

2009 28.4 13.5 51.8 93.7

2010 35.4 10.5 66.4 112.3

2011 32.6 16.3 63.1 112.0

2012 17.5 10.8 56.1 84.4

2013 41.2 11.2 47.0 99.4

2014 36.7 12.0 28.1 76.8

Average 35.5 25.7 68.9 130.2

Notes: 

1 Timber harvest volume reported by calendar year, in million board feet (MMBF), and includes both sawlog 

and utility. 

2 State of Alaska includes Division of Forestry, Mental Health Trust, and University of Alaska public lands. 

3 The relative increase in State harvest was an effort to provide additional timber to make up for a shortfall in 

supply from the Tongass.

4 The relative drop in Tongass harvest in 2007 was the result of an injunction that stopped Tongass logging 

over most of the operating season.

Source: USDA Forest Service 2015l

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Jobs

Tongass Logging Tongass Sawmill Other Logging Other Sawmill Total
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-487 Economic and Social Environment

Figure 3.22-5

Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2002-2014

Current Status of the Industry

Existing Sawmills

The wood products industry in Southeast Alaska in its current form consists of 

individual- and family-owned sawmills and independent logging businesses. The 

Forest Service has conducted an annual onsite survey of sawmills across the 

Tongass National Forest since 2000. The most recent available survey, 

conducted for calendar year 2013, identified 10 active and 2 inactive sawmills, 

with a total installed production capacity of 116.9 MMBF (Table 3.22-6). To 

maintain consistency, the only mills included in the survey are those assessed in 

previous survey years. The original list of mills to be surveyed, initially identified 

in 2000, consisted of 20 sawmills that regularly operated and met the criteria for 

medium to large size classification. Of these 20 mills (increased to 22 in 2007), 

10 were active and 2 were inactive in 2013, as noted above; the other 10 had 

been decommissioned or were no longer in production (Parrent and Grewe 

2014). No new sawmills of equal size classification have been established since 

2000. However, many small sawmills that operate on a seasonal, part-time, or 

contingent basis operate across the region, each with varying degrees of 

success. These mills do not meet the criteria originally established for the mill 

survey and are, therefore, excluded from the annual Tongass Sawmill Capacity 

and Production Report.

0

50

100

150

200

250

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

MMBF

Tongass State Alaska Native Corporations Total
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-488 Final EIS

Table 3.22-6

Forest Service Mill Survey: Estimated Mill Capacity, Production, and Utilization, 2013

Mill Name1, Location

Estimated 

Capacity 

(MMBF)2

Estimated 

Production 

(MMBF)3

Percent 

Utilization

Icy Straits Lumber & Milling Co.4 Hoonah 3.0 0.4 13.3%

Viking Lumber Co. Craig 80.0 15.0 18.8%

D&L Woodworks Hoonah 1.8 0.1 3.1%

Western Gold Cedar Products Thorne Bay 6.5 0.7 10.0%

Falls Creek Forest Products5 Petersburg 3.0 0.02 0.7%

Good Faith Lumber Co. LLC6 Thorne Bay 5.5 0.8 14.3%

Thuja Plicata Lumber Thorne Bay 7.5 0.3 3.3%

Porter Lumber Co. Thorne Bay 2.5 0.2 8.1%

St. Nick Forest Products7 Craig 1.2 0.2 14.8%

The Mill Petersburg 6.0 0.1 1.0%

Total Active8 Southeast Alaska 116.9 17.6 15.0%

Northern Star Cedar (NSC) Thorne Bay 2.5 Idle NA

Thorne Bay Enterprises Thorne Bay 1.0 Idle NA

Total Idle Southeast Alaska 3.5 Idle NA

Overall Total8 Southeast Alaska 120.4 17.6 14.6%

Notes:

MMBF – million board feet

NA – not applicable 1 Data is presented for those mills included in the Forest Service’s annual onsite survey only. 

2 Estimated mill capacity is an estimate of the processing capability of the mill based on the amount of net sawlog volume 

(Scribner log scale) that could be utilized by the mill as currently configured, during a standard 250-day per year, two shifts 

per day, annual operating schedule, not limited by availability of employment, raw materials or market. 3 Estimated Mill Production is the estimated net sawlog volume used during the year to manufacture sawn products.

4 Estimated capacity for the Icy Straits mill was reduced from 21 MMBF as a result of a major mill fire in July 2010. Mill 

production occurred prior to the fire. 5 Formerly Southeast Alaska Wood Products.

6 Formerly Thorne Bay Wood Products. 7 Formerly W.R. Jones & Son Lumber Co.

8 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Parrent and Grewe 2014

Estimated total production for the mills included in the annual mill survey has 

decreased from 87.1 MMBF in 2000 to a low of 11.5 MMBF in 2011, a net 

reduction of 75.6 MMBF or 87 percent. Production has increased somewhat 

since 2011, with total production for these mills estimated to be 17.6 MMBF in 

2013 (Parrent and Grewe 2014). This total (17.6 MMBF) represented 15.0 

percent of total active processing capacity in 2013, and 14.6 percent of total 

active and idle capacity (Table 3.22-6). The capacity utilization rate of the last 

operating medium-sized sawmill in Southeast Alaska (Viking Lumber) in 2013 

was estimated at about 19 percent (Table 3.22-6). By comparison, sawmills in 

Idaho, Oregon, California, and Montana generally utilize more than 80 percent of 

their capacity, unless there is a severe economic downturn (USDA Forest 

Service 2011c).

The Tongass National Forest supplied about 13.8 MMBF or 78 percent of the

total volume processed by the mills identified in Table 3.22-6 in 2013 (17.6 

MMBF), with State lands responsible for most of the remaining 22 percent 

(Parrent and Grewe 2014). The Tongass share of timber processed locally (13.8 

MMBF) comprised 33 percent of the total volume harvested (41.2 MMBF) on the 

Tongass in 2013. Viking Lumber processed 15 MMBF or 85 percent of the total 

volume (17.6 MMBF) processed in 2013 (Table 3.22-6).
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-489 Economic and Social Environment

Additional Sawmills

As noted above, the annual mill survey discussed above is not a comprehensive 

inventory of all sawmills in Southeast Alaska. The number of active mills and 

timber operators in Southeast Alaska varies at any given time. A review of 

business licenses in January 2015, for example, identified 12 additional sawmills 

in Southeast Alaska that are not included in the survey summarized in Table 

3.22-7. The additional mills identified through this business license review are 

listed in Table 3.22-7. The University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and 

Economic Research (BBER), in conjunction with the Pacific Northwest Forest 

(PNW) Inventory and Analysis Program of the U.S. Forest Service, conducted a 

census of timber processors in Alaska in 2011 and identified 27 sawmills in 

Southeast Alaska, with almost half this total (12 facilities) located on Prince of 

Wales Island (Berg et al. 2014).

Table 3.22-7

Additional Sawmills in Southeast Alaska Based on a Review of 

Business Licenses, 2015

Mill Name1 Location

Cutting Edge Wood Products Ketchikan

Dale R. Bakula Construction Ketchikan

Eagle Wood Products Craig

Fair & Square Milling Coffman Cove

JR's Custom Lumber and Resaw Thorne Bay

Mike Allen Enterprizes Wrangell

Pacific Log and Lumber Ketchikan

Peavey Log Thorne Bay

Seakwood.com Petersburg

The Woodshed Petersburg

Windy Point Sawmill and Bobcat Service Craig

Wood Marine Klawock

Note:

1 These businesses were identified through a review of business licenses in January 2015. This 

table identifies additional sawmills that are not included in the Forest Service’s mill survey (see 

Table 3.22-6). 

Data compiled by the Forest Service and the State of Alaska for the Big Thorne 

Project identified 25 mills and timber operators on Prince of Wales Island, 

including six of the active sawmills and two inactive sawmills identified in the 

2013 mill survey (USDA Forest Service 2013d). The other, smaller mills on the 

island produce sawtimber and other value-added products. The highest 

concentration of small mills is in the Goose Creek Industrial Subdivision of 

Thorne Bay, but there are also operators in Craig, Klawock, Coffman Cove, and 

Edna Bay. These smaller operators included 14 businesses not included in the 

Tongass Sawmill Capacity and Production Report or identified in the January 

2015 business license review. Smaller operators located elsewhere in the 

region, include small mills in the towns of Wrangell, Petersburg, Ketchikan, 

Juneau, Hoonah, Gustavus, and Tenakee Springs.

R10 Limited Export Shipment Policy

Initially established in 2007, the Limited Export Policy is intended to boost 

appraised timber values, provide economic sale opportunities for purchasers, 

and provide additional processing options for purchasers. The policy has 

continued since 2007 with modifications that have provided additional 

opportunities for purchasers. The limited export policy is reviewed on an annual 

basis. The Regional Forester noted in the 2015 review that, while improvements 

occurred nationally over the past three years, challenges continue for purchasers 

seeking domestic markets for Alaska timber. The current policy allows the 

limited export of unprocessed western hemlock and Sitka spruce logs up to 50 
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-490 Final EIS

percent of the total sale sawtimber volume upon Regional Office approval. In 

2012, the Regional Forester agreed to begin reviewing requests to allow 

increased export of these species on a case-by-case basis, in exchange for 

purchasers providing an equivalent amount of Alaska yellow-cedar to small 

business operators who would process the timber locally. The Limited Export 

Policy is discussed in detail in Appendix H to this EIS.

Volume Under Contract

Volume under contract refers to the volume included in timber sales that have 

been purchased, but not yet logged or only partially logged. Volume under 

contract is, therefore, essentially a measure of inventory that changes on a 

regular basis, increasing as timber is sold and added to the total and decreasing 

when sales are actually harvested. 

Various purchasers had an estimated total of 90.8 MMBF of uncut timber under 

contract with the Forest Service in April 2016 (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

Viking Lumber accounted for more than half (61 percent; 55.5 MMBF) of this 

total, followed by Alcan Forest Products LLP with 26 percent (23.7 MMBF), and 

the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities with 4 percent (3.6 

MMBF) (Figure 3.22-6). Viking Lumber was the only one of these three 

purchasers operating a mill in Southeast Alaska in 2016. Alcan Forest Products, 

based in Ketchikan, does not operate a processing facility on the Tongass, but 

must follow the Limited Export Shipment Policy, and sell logs that cannot be 

exported to a processing facility in the state. Thirty-eight other purchasers had

uncut volume under contract; in all cases but three, the amount under contract 

was less than 1 MMBF (USDA Forest Service 2016b).

Figure 3.22-6

Volume under Contract by Owner, 2016

Source: USDA Forest Service 2016

Demand Indicators

Demand can be thought of as the different amounts of a product buyers are 

willing to purchase at different prices. Demand is a series of price-quantity 

relationships, not a single number. The same is true of supply. The quantity and 

price of goods produced and consumed is determined by the combination of 

supply and demand. When we talk about timber on the Tongass we are talking 

about a range of products that are not necessarily interchangeable with one 

Viking Lumber

61%

Alcan Forest 

Products

26%

DOT/PF State 

of Alaska 4%

Amalgamated Minerals 3% Other (37 Purchasers) 6%

Viking Lumber

Alcan Forest Products

DOT/PF State of Alaska

Amalgamated Minerals

Other (37 Purchasers)
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-491 Economic and Social Environment

another or other sources of timber from non-NFS lands. Timber includes a 

number of different species and log types range from utility logs to high quality 

saw logs. Old-growth and young-growth timber also differ from one another.2 

Markets and demand and the associated prices for these timber products can 

vary substantially. The ability of timber to satisfy markets also differs based on 

the location of the stands relative to mills and other infrastructure.

Accurately projecting future demand is difficult, with the interaction between 

demand and supply ultimately determining trends in markets. Market demand for 

Southeast Alaska timber and wood products depends upon numerous difficult to 

predict factors, including changes in technology, growth and exchange rates in 

key markets, changes in consumer tastes and preferences, as well as 

developments in other producing regions whose products compete with those of 

Alaska. 

Pacific Northwest Research Station Projections

For the past 25 years, the Forest Service has commissioned the PNW Research 

Station to prepare a number of long-term projections of demand for Tongass 

timber over time, including Brooks and Haynes (1990, 1994, 1997) and Brackley 

et al. (2006a, 2006b). The PNW Research Station has prepared a similar 

analysis in support of this proposed amendment of the Forest Plan (Daniels et al. 

2016) to transition to young-growth timber. Using methods adapted from the 

previous PNW Research Station analyses, Daniels estimates demand for 

Tongass timber using a materials balance approach based on projected trends in

product markets. The analysis projects future demand for timber (“derived 

demand”) based on the overall end-market demand in foreign and domestic 

markets and the portion of that demand Alaska is likely to fill (based on historic 

trends). 

Timber Products and Existing Markets

The 2015 PNW Research Station study identified five primary timber products

harvested from Southeast Alaskan forests: softwood sawlogs, utility logs, 

softwood lumber, mill residue, and other products. The following subsections 

summarize the existing markets identified by the study for each product type. 

Softwood sawlogs. The majority of timber harvested in Southeast Alaska is 

exported to Pacific Rim (China, Japan, South Korea) destinations as 

unprocessed sawlogs. More than 90 percent of exported logs were sent to 

Pacific Rim destinations in 2005 and 2011, mainly China. Modest shipments 

were also sent to Canada.

Utility logs. Much of the harvested volume of utility logs is left in the woods 

because of their low economic value. Daniels (2015) was unable to find 

evidence of any existing markets for this material.

Softwood lumber. Data from 2002 to 2013 showed that shipments of Southeast 

Alaskan lumber were sent to markets in the Pacific Rim, the lower 48 states, and 

remained locally in Alaska. Based on data compiled as part of the Forest 

Service’s annual onsite survey of sawmills, the five year average share (2009 to 

2013) of lumber production sent to these markets was 57 percent to the Lower 

48 states, 32 percent to Pacific Rim, 10 percent to local Alaska markets, and 1 

percent to Canada. While these data are for those mills included in the survey 

 2 Young-growth timber refers to forest growth that has regenerated naturally or has been planted after 

some disturbance to the previous forest growth. Forms of disturbance include clearcut harvest, 

serious fire, catastrophic windthrow, and insect attack.
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-492 Final EIS

only (see the above discussion), Daniels (2015) note that these findings are 

consistent with the 2005 and 2011 BBER surveys.

Mill residue. Using data compiled as part of the BBER surveys, Daniels (2015) 

were able to identify the proportion of mill residues that were sold (88.2 percent) 

versus unsold (11.8 percent), and the portion of the sold residues that were sold 

for energy purposes (32.1 percent) versus other uses (56.0 percent). Daniels 

(2015) found little evidence that markets for residue from Alaska processors exist 

outside of Alaska. 

Other products. Other products identified through the BBER surveys include 

bowls, furniture, house logs, molding, shakes, posts and poles, and siding, 

combined here as other to capture niche markets. The majority of these 

products remained in Alaska or were shipped to the Lower 48 States, with 

modest shipments sent to Canada and the Pacific Rim.

Baseline Model and Scenarios

The PNW Research Station study developed a baseline model that was then 

used to construct three potential scenarios representing different potential futures 

for timber harvest in Southeast Alaska (Daniels et al. 2016).

Baseline Model. Baseline demand projections Tongass timber were developed 

in three stages: 1) historic estimates of Alaska forest products output by product 

and destination were gathered and projected from 2015 to 2030; 2) the raw 

material requirements necessary to support this projected output were estimated 

by product type; and 3) the timber harvest equivalent was calculated and 

allocated by owner (Daniels et al. 2016). The resulting baseline projections of 

timber harvest by product are shown in Table 3.22-8. Projected baseline harvest 

by owner is shown in Table 3.22-9 and Figure 3.22-7. The majority of projected 

harvest is allocated to Native Corporation lands, followed by the Tongass and 

State of Alaska lands (Table 3.22-9; Figure 3.22-7).

Table 3.22-8

Projected Baseline Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Product 

Type (MMBF) all owners

Year

Sawlog 

exports Sawmills

Utility 

logs

Mill 

Residue

Other

Products Total

2015 84.5 12.9 7.5 12.1 1.5 118.7

2016 86.6 14.3 7.4 13.4 1.5 123.3

2017 88.7 14.5 7.3 13.5 1.6 125.6

2018 90.8 14.7 7.1 13.7 1.6 127.9

2019 92.9 14.9 7.0 13.8 1.6 130.2

2020 95.0 15.1 6.8 14.0 1.6 132.5

2021 97.1 15.3 6.7 14.2 1.6 134.8

2022 99.2 15.5 6.6 14.3 1.6 137.1

2023 101.3 15.6 6.4 14.5 1.6 139.4

2024 103.3 15.8 6.3 14.7 1.6 141.7

2025 105.4 16.0 6.1 14.8 1.6 144.0

2026 107.5 16.2 6.0 15.0 1.6 146.4

2027 109.6 16.4 5.9 15.2 1.7 148.7

2028 111.7 16.6 5.7 15.3 1.7 151.0

2029 113.8 16.8 5.6 15.5 1.7 153.3

2030 115.9 16.9 5.4 15.6 1.7 155.6 1 Projected harvest levels by product type are based on projected overall end market demand and the 

portion of that demand Southeast Alaska is likely to fill.

2 A summary overview of these product types is provided in the main text.

Source: Daniels et al. 2016
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-493 Economic and Social Environment

Table 3.22-9

Projected Baseline Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Owner

(MMBF)

Year Tongass State Native Corporations Total

2015 40.0 17.8 60.8 118.7

2016 41.8 18.7 62.8 123.3

2017 42.6 19.0 64.0 125.6

2018 43.3 19.3 65.3 127.9

2019 44.0 19.7 66.5 130.2

2020 44.8 20.0 67.7 132.5

2021 45.5 20.3 69.0 134.8

2022 46.2 20.6 70.2 137.1

2023 47.0 21.0 71.5 139.4

2024 47.7 21.3 72.7 141.7

2025 48.4 21.6 74.0 144.0

2026 49.2 22.0 75.2 146.4

2027 49.9 22.3 76.5 148.7

2028 50.7 22.6 77.7 151.0

2029 51.4 22.9 78.9 153.3

2030 52.1 23.3 80.2 155.6 1 Projected harvest levels by owner are based on projected overall end market demand and the 

portion of that demand Southeast Alaska is likely to fill, allocated by land ownership.

Source: Daniels et al. 2016

Figure 3.22-7

Projected Timber Harvest in Southeast Alaska by Ownership, 2015-

2030

The following sections discuss the three potential scenarios developed by 

Daniels (2015). The first scenario (Scenario 1) establishes a timeline for the 

young-growth transition and projects demand assuming the other conditions 

assumed in the Baseline Model remain unchanged. The second scenario builds 

upon the transition modeled in Scenario 1 by adding an expansion of bioenergy 

markets. Scenario 3 also builds on the transition modeled in Scenario 1, but 

assumes increased demand for lumber from the Lower 48 States.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030

MMBF

Tongass State Alaska Native Corporations
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-494 Final EIS

Scenario 1. This scenario assumes that the transition to young growth will occur 

by 2025, with old-growth harvest constrained to 5 MMBF for small sales and 

micro-sales from that point onward. The key identified impact from a demand 

perspective would be on markets for high quality lumber. Daniels (2015) 

assumed that purchasers in the Pacific Rim would not be willing to substitute 

dimension grade lumber in place of shop grade.

3 They also assumed that U.S. 

demand for dimensional lumber from Southeast Alaska would remain unchanged 

from the baseline projections. The transition to young growth would in effect 

result in a reduction in Pacific Rim demand for lumber that would in turn cause a 

decline in harvest from the Tongass relative to the baseline rate. Total harvest 

on the Tongass is, as a result, projected to drop by 3.4 MMBF from 2024 to 

2025. By 2030, Scenario 1 would see a 5.5 MMBF decline in harvest on the 

Tongass relative to the Baseline Model (Table 3.22-9; Figure 3.22-8).

Scenario 2. Scenario 2 builds upon Scenario 1 by adding markets for wood 

energy products based on the assumption that 30 percent of existing heating fuel 

use in Southeast Alaska would be replaced by wood based fuel over time 

(Daniels et al. 2016). This scenario is based on a Forest Service goal to support 

a transition of 30 percent of the heating oil use in Southeast Alaska to biomass

over the next decade (Deering 2014). Timber harvest is assumed to provide two 

main sources of wood based fuel – sawmill residues and low- and utility-grade 

logs – that could be used to meet this 30 percent bioenergy conversion target. 

Logging slash is not considered a suitable potential source by Daniels (2015) 

because of its high moisture content and associated transport costs. 

Based on an assumed 5 percent annual rate of conversion (starting in 2016), 65 

percent combustion efficiency, and 10 percent moisture content, Daniels (2015) 

estimates that the wood-based fuel available under this scenario would be able 

to meet slightly more than two-thirds of the 30 percent conversion target by 2030. 

Harvest on the Tongass would be considerably higher than the baseline 

projection under this scenario based on the growth of markets for mill residues 

and low and utility grade logs (Table 3.22-10; Figure 3.22-8). Harvest under this 

scenario would also be substantially higher than the baseline projections for 

Native Corporation and State of Alaska lands.

Table 3.22-10

Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline 

Model and Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF)

Year Baseline Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three 

2015 40.9 40.9 40.9 40.8

2016 41.6 41.6 41.6 41.6

2017 42.3 42.3 43.4 42.5

2018 43.1 43.1 46.3 43.3

2019 43.8 43.8 49.2 44.1

2020 44.5 44.5 52.1 45.0

2021 45.3 45.3 55.1 45.8

2022 46.0 46.0 58.0 46.7

2023 46.7 46.7 60.9 47.5

2024 47.5 47.5 63.8 48.4

 3 Using definitions from the Western Wood Products Association, Daniels (2015) characterize 

dimension lumber as a structural framing product graded for strength and other properties, with 

appearance of secondary importance. Shop lumber is characterized as an industrial product graded 

for the recovery of clear pieces typically available from old-growth logs. Shop lumber is characterized 

as generally higher quality and worth more than dimension lumber. Data from the 2011 BBER survey 

indicate that Alaska lumber shipments to Pacific Rim markets consisted entirely of higher quality shop 

grade lumber (Daniels 2015).
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-495 Economic and Social Environment

Table 3.22-10 (continued)

Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline 

Model and Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 (MMBF)

Year Baseline Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three 

2025 48.2 44.0 63.0 45.0

2026 48.9 44.5 65.7 45.6

2027 49.7 45.0 68.4 46.2

2028 50.4 45.5 71.0 46.8

2029 51.1 45.9 73.7 47.4

2030 51.9 46.4 76.4 47.9

Figure 3.22-8

Projected Timber Harvest on the Tongass under the Baseline Model and 

Scenarios 1, 2, and 3

Scenario 3. Scenario 3 differs from Scenario 1 by using a different rate of 

projected growth for domestic lumber consumption based on the growth rate 

prior to the 2007-2009 recession, rather than the more conservative (postrecession) growth rate employed in the Baseline Model and Scenarios 1 and 2. 

Adjusting demand in this way affects Southeast Alaska harvest and production 

by increasing domestic demand for both lumber and unprocessed logs. Market 

shares for Southeast Alaska producers are assumed to remain constant. The 

results of this scenario are more similar to the baseline projections than the other 

two scenarios, with increased domestic demand partially offsetting the projected 

young-growth-related reductions described above for Scenario 1 (Table 3.22-10; 

Figure 3.22-8).

Sensitivity of the Model. As part of their analysis, Daniels et al. (2016) 

incorporated and addressed uncertainty in two primary ways: 1) by developing 

three management scenarios; and 2) by conducting a sensitivity analysis that 

examined the effects of changes in individual elements of the projections. This is 

discussed further in Daniels et al. (2016, p.45).

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

MMBF

Baseline Scenario One Scenario Two Scenario Three
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-496 Final EIS

Other Potential Demand Indicators

Another way to consider the potential timber volumes that might be demanded up 

to and following the young-growth transition is to consider: 1) existing sawmills 

and demand, and 2) potential lumber and non-lumber applications identified in 

previous studies.

Existing Sawmills and Demand

The existing mills in Southeast Alaska are generally configured to process oldgrowth timber, which has been the mainstay of the local industry. Viking Lumber 

is the largest sawmill presently operating in the region (Table 3.22-6). Viking is 

also the most modern sawmill in the region, with two processing lines: a large log 

side that uses a carriage and band mill setup typical of most large log mills in 

North America; and a small log side that uses an “end-dogging circle saw” as the 

primary breakdown (Beck Group 2009). In a study conducted for The Nature 

Conservancy, the Beck Group (2009) indicated that Viking Lumber’s current 

small log line processes approximately 8 MMBF of logs annually, running one 

shift per day, 40 hours per week. The Beck Group identified three primary 

modifications to Viking’s current small log line that would improve productivity 

(the volume of lumber produced per hour) and recovery rates (the board feet of 

lumber produced per board feet of lumber used), reduce manufacturing costs, 

and allow the small log side to process at least twice the current amount of 

volume using the same schedule. They also noted that young-growth logs could 

be run through Viking’s small log side as presently configured without much 

modification, and the proposed modifications could be phased in over time as the 

supply of young growth increases. 

The Viking mill is the only facility in Southeast Alaska with small diameter 

processing capabilities. Other existing regional sawmills have equipment 

designed for relatively large-diameter material and cannot efficiently process 

smaller, young growth timber (Alexander et al. 2010). Manufacturing costs are 

typically higher for smaller mills because they have lower productivity rates 

relative to larger more complex mills, especially when sawing smaller logs. As a 

result, smaller mills in Southeast Alaska tend to process larger logs and produce 

high value products such as appearance grade lumber and cedar shingles. 

These mills are typically very simple in design and cannot be practically modified 

to process young-growth logs (Beck Group 2009). The Beck Group (2009) noted 

that, combined, these smaller mills on Prince of Wales Island processed around 

5 MMBF a year, and observed that the Forest Service should be able to supply a 

sufficient volume of logs for these operations from salvage and micro-sales for 

the foreseeable future. 

Potential Lumber Markets

Old-growth trees on the Tongass typically yield significant volumes of clear or 

nearly clear lumber with tight grain suitable for appearance grade lumber and 

other high value applications. In contrast, young-growth trees typically grow 

faster and have wide growth rings, as well as more limbs, which results in lumber 

with many small knots. These characteristics made young growth less desirable 

for appearance grade lumber, but do not restrict its use in structural lumber 

applications, such as dimension lumber for house building (Beck Group 2009). 

Citing work by the Forest Service’s Sitka Wood Utilization Center, the Beck 

Group (2009) identifies a potential local market for structural lumber in Alaska of 

approximately 100 MMBF per year. This potential market could be served by 

products using locally processed young-growth timber at some point in the future 

but obstacles to bringing Alaskan structural lumber to Alaska markets at 

competitive prices currently exist, including the lack of grading agency support in 

Southeast Alaska, and the existing transportation infrastructure in Southeast 

Alaska.
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-497 Economic and Social Environment

Information on existing facilities in the Lower 48 states provides general insight 

regarding the volume of timber that new or modified young-growth facilities could 

potentially process. As part of their evaluation for The Nature Conservancy, the 

Beck Group (2009) identified sawmills in the coastal regions of Oregon and 

Washington that currently process western hemlock for framing lumber 

production, using comparable equipment configurations as Viking Lumber to 

process logs of comparable size and quality. These generally comparable 

sawmills processed on average 23 MMBF of logs per year, based on operating a 

single shift per day (Beck Group 2009). Another young-growth evaluation 

identified the Vaagen Brothers mill in Colville in eastern Washington as an 

example of the type of facility that could be developed to process young-growth 

timber in Southeast Alaska. In 2014, the Vaagen Brothers mill in Colville 

produced a total of 273 MMBF of lumber; approximately 135 to 140 MMBF of this 

total was also sawn at the Colville mill. The remainder was sawn at one of 

Vaagen Brothers’ other facilities in Midway, British Columbia or Usk, Washington 

and transported to the Colville facility for surfacing. The overrun for the Colville 

sawmill is approximately 1.2, meaning that approximately 113 to 117 MMBF of 

timber was required to produce this volume (135 to 140 MMBF) (Vaagen 2015).

Non-Lumber Applications

Potential non-lumber applications of young-growth material, including logging 

debris (tops, limbs, and unmerchantable stems), that have been identified in past 

studies include the production of wood pellets and briquettes for home and 

industrial heating use, electrical cogeneration uses, and biomass for central 

heating. Drawing mainly from the scenarios evaluated in the young-growth study 

prepared by the Beck Group (2009), potential raw material requirements to 

operate new facilities that would manufacture wood pellets and briquettes and 

generate electricity using cogeneration technology are summarized in Table 

3.22-11. The sizes of these facilities are based on the scenarios evaluated in the 

Beck Group report. Larger facilities could be developed if markets were to 

develop and a sufficient supply of young-growth material were available. The 

following sections provide a brief overview of these potential non-lumber 

applications.

Table 3.22-11

Potential Non-Lumber Applications of Young Growth Timber in 

Southeast Alaska

Product

Raw Material Requirements Final Product 

(Pellets/ 

Briquettes/ 

Green (MBF) Electricity) 1/ Green (tons) 2/ Bone Dry (tons)

Wood Pellets 2,944 18,400 7,700 7,573 tons

Briquettes 3,097 19,356 8,100 8,604 tons

Electrical 

Cogeneration

2,485 15,532 6,500 1,950 MWh

MWh – megawatt hours 1 Assumes 1 green ton = 160 board feet

2 Assumes green material has 58 percent moisture content

Wood Pellets. Most wood pellet plants in the U.S. have historically relied on 

sawmill residues (sawmill dust and planer shavings) for their raw materials, but 

other pellet plants that rely on roundwood have recently started operation, 

including facilities in British Columbia, Colorado, and Arizona. Existing facilities 

in the United States typically range from about 10,000 tons to more than 500,000 

tons of wood pellet production per year (Beck Group 2009). Using information 

from surveys conducted by the Forest Service’s Sitka Wood Utilization center 

and the University of Alaska, the Beck Group estimated that current annual 
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-498 Final EIS

demand for wood pellets from households in Southeast Alaska is approximately 

5,400 tons. For the purposes of analysis, the Beck Group evaluated the 

feasibility of a potential wood pellet facility capable of producing about 7,500 tons 

of wood pellets a year, which would require about 18,400 tons of green material 

to operate (assuming 58 percent average moisture content). Their analysis 

found that this size facility would return a positive value to the raw material, but 

this value would be less than the delivered cost of forest residues (logging debris 

and slash). This finding, they concluded, suggests that this type of facility were it 

to be established would likely seek lower cost mill residues (sawdust, bark, 

shavings, and chips), rather than roundwood or forest residues that would require 

transport.

Briquettes. Wood briquettes, also known as firelogs or biobricks, are another 

non-lumber product that could be produced using young-growth material. Unlike 

wood pellets, briquettes do not require a specialized heating appliance for use in 

residential or other heating systems. Briquettes can be burned in regular 

household wood stoves and fireplaces, as well as industrial and institutional 

boiler systems. Recognizing that markets would need to be developed over time, 

the Beck Group evaluated the feasibility of a briquette plant capable of producing 

8,600 tons of briquettes per year, which would require about 8,100 tons of bone 

dry material to operate. Similar to their conclusion with respect to wood pellets, 

the Beck Group found that this size briquette facility would return a positive value 

to the raw material, but this value would be less than the delivered cost of logging 

residues, again suggesting that were this type of facility to be developed, it would 

likely seek lower cost mill residues. 

Electrical Cogeneration. Electrical cogeneration is an established technology 

that yields both electricity and heat. Two common sources of biomass for 

cogeneration fuels are forest residues (logging debris and slash) and mill 

residues (sawdust, bark, shavings, and chips). For the purposes of analysis, the 

Beck Group evaluated the feasibility of a 275 kilowatt (KW) woody biomass 

fueled steam turbine generator, which they identified as the smallest practical 

capacity for this type of facility. A 275 KW turbine operating 8,500 hours a year 

would generate about 1,950 megawatt-hours (MWh) of electricity. Annual 

operation of this facility would require an estimated 15,500 tons of green material 

(Beck Group 2009). The analysis prepared by the Beck Group found that this 

size facility would return a positive value to the raw material, but would still likely 

seek lower cost materials where possible.

Biomass Central Heating. Several programmatic efforts have been initiated to 

explore opportunities to increase the utilization of wood for energy and bio-fuels 

production in Alaska, including the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task 

Group and the Southeast Alaska Wood-to-Energy Initiative, the latter initiated as 

part of the Tongass Transition Framework. Wood biomass systems have already 

been successfully installed in non-industrial facilities in Alaska. Systems 

presently operating in Southeast Alaska include the system used to heat the 

Craig, Alaska elementary and middle schools and the nearby community pool, 

which operates on mill residues. Other operating systems in Southeast Alaska 

include those serving schools at Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove on Prince of 

Wales Island, the Forest Service’s Southeast Alaska Visitor Information and 

Discovery Center and the GSA Federal office building in Ketchikan, the 

Ketchikan Public Library, and the U.S. Coast Guard facility in Sitka (USDA Forest 

Service 2013g). As noted with respect to the PNW Research Station’s Scenario 

2 (above), the Forest Service has a goal to support a transition of 30 percent of 

the heating oil use in Southeast Alaska to biomass over the next decade 

(Deering 2014).
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-499 Economic and Social Environment

Recreation and Tourism

Recreation and Tourism in Southeast Alaska 

Trends in Visitation. Summer visitors to Southeast Alaska more than doubled 

between 1993 and 2006, increasing from 502,800 in 1993 to 1,160,000 in 2006 

(McDowell Group et al. 2007). Statewide, the total number of visitors increased 

by 40 percent over the same period. The relatively large increase in visitation to 

Southeast Alaska over this period reflects the dramatic growth in the number of 

cruise ship passengers visiting the region. An estimated 1,037,000 people 

visited Southeast Alaska in 2011, with most of these visitors (85 percent) arriving 

by cruise ship (McDowell Group 2012a). Additional information on trends in 

visitation is provided in the Recreation and Tourism section of this EIS.

Employment and Contribution to the Regional Economy. Recreation and 

tourism-related employment is difficult to accurately quantify because visitors 

spend their money throughout the local economy. As noted above, recreation 

and tourism is not classified or measured as a standard industrial category. 

Components of travel and tourism activities are instead partially captured in other 

economic sectors, such as retail trade (e.g., grocery stores and gift shops), 

transportation, hotels and other lodging places, and amusement and recreation 

services. 

According to the Alaska DOL, visitor-related jobs accounted for 11 percent of the 

summer economy in Southeast Alaska in 2014, compared to 4 percent statewide 

(Bell 2015). Visitor-related jobs in Southeast Alaska are concentrated in Juneau, 

Ketchikan, and Skagway, which together accounted for more than three-quarters 

of the regional total in 2014. Transportation is the largest visitor-related 

economic sector in Southeast Alaska making up about one-third of visitor-related 

employment, with jobs ranging from whale watching boats, to tour buses, to 

airlines (Bell 2015). The highest paying visitor-related occupations are also in 

the transportation sector, including captains and mates of water vessels (Bell 

2015).

In a separate study prepared on behalf of the Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), the visitor industry supported 

10,800 jobs and $405 million in labor income in Southeast Alaska from May 2013 

through April 2014 based on total visitor industry spending of $1.09 billion 

(McDowell Group 2015). These estimates are for total employment and labor 

income, meaning that they include workers employed directly by the visitor 

industry (direct jobs and income), as well as jobs and income supported 

elsewhere in the economy (indirect and induced jobs and income).4 A separate 

estimate of direct employment developed from Alaska DOL and U.S. Census 

data identified a total of 6,707 direct jobs supported by the visitor industry in 

2012/2013 (Table 3.22-3). 

Nature-Based Tourism. A study prepared by the Institute of Social and 

Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage provides insight into 

the contribution of nature-based tourism to the regional economy. This study, 

which involved field research conducted in the summers of 2005, 2006, and 

2007, focused on a limited number of communities and sought to provide insight 

into revenues generated, the types of nature-based activities attracting tourists, 

and the resulting flows of money through the economy (Dugan et al. 2009). The 

findings of the study indicate that nature-based tourism generates substantial 

revenues in the region, with an estimated $277 million generated in annual direct 

 4 Economic activity in one sector generates activity in others as firms purchase services and materials 

as inputs (termed “indirect” effects) and employees spend their earnings within the local economy 

(“induced” effects). 
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-500 Final EIS

business revenues for the companies surveyed in Sitka, Juneau, Chichagof 

Island, Prince of Wales Island, Petersburg, and Wrangell (Dugan et al. 2009). 

Dugan et al. (2009) also found that nature-based tourism takes a number of 

different forms and the ratio of cruise ship passengers to independent travelers 

varies by location. Most nature-based activities that originate in Ketchikan, for 

example, fell into four general categories: flightseeing, marine charters, 

adventure experiences, and general sightseeing. In all cases, the majority of 

clients participating in these activities were cruise ship passengers. Naturebased tourism on Chichagof Island, on the other hand, included a mix of cruise 

ship passengers and independent travelers, depending on the location and 

activity involved (Dugan et al. 2009). 

Another study conducted on behalf of ADF&G estimated that residents and 

visitors to Southeast Alaska spent $363 million hunting and viewing wildlife in 

2011, with visitors viewing wildlife accounting for an estimated 59 percent of this 

total (ECONorthwest 2014). Estimated expenditures fell into four categories: triprelated goods and services (lodging, meals, transportation, licenses); trip 

package expenditures, such as guided trips; hunting and wildlife viewing gear 

and equipment (guns, ammunition, clothing, all-terrain vehicles, sleeping bags); 

and expenditures to purchase or maintain hunting- or wildlife viewing-related real 

estate. Based on these estimated expenditures, the study estimated that hunting 

and wildlife viewing, respectively, supported 390 and 1,390 direct jobs and a 

combined total of $107 million in labor income in Southeast Alaska in 2011, with 

additional indirect and induced jobs and income supported elsewhere in the 

economy (ECONorthwest 2014).

Recreation on the Tongass National Forest

While it is reasonable to assume that the majority of visitor recreation and 

tourism activity in the region is related to the natural environment, not all of the 

activity generating this employment can be directly linked to the Tongass 

National Forest. Many visitors experience the Tongass from the deck of a cruise 

ship without directly using the forest for recreation purposes. In addition, while 

the Tongass includes approximately 80 percent of the land area in Southeast 

Alaska, there are other lands that offer wildland recreation opportunities in the 

region, including 3.3 million acres of National Park Service (NPS) lands, and 

recreation lands managed by the State of Alaska. Further, other popular 

recreation and tourism activities, such as saltwater fishing, sea kayaking, and 

shopping, do not take place on the Tongass. 

The Alaska Region of the Forest Service (Region 10) has been participating in 

the Forest Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program since 

2000. Based on the results of the NVUM program and supplemental survey 

results for 2008 and 2009, White and Stynes (2010) calculated a visitation 

estimate of 1,885,500 annual visits to the Tongass National Forest, with 71 

percent of these visits made by local residents.

5 Half of Alaska residents 

surveyed who live in Southeast Alaska reported using a boat or plane to access 

the national forest. Almost half (49.7 percent) of non-resident visits to the 

Tongass National Forest involved the use of a guide or outfitter at some point, 

with local cruises, wildlife viewing, and flightseeing reported most frequently. 

Alaska residents in contrast were found to very rarely use outfitters or guides 

(White and Stynes 2010). More detailed information on recreation use on the 

Tongass is presented in the Recreation and Tourism section of this EIS. 

 5 More recent estimates based on NVUM Round 3 (2010 to 2014) surveys are discussed in the 

Recreation and Tourism section of this EIS. Based on these surveys, an estimated total of 1,836,000 

annual visits were identified (USDA Forest Service 2015n).
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-501 Economic and Social Environment

Spending profiles were estimated for residents and non-residents visiting the 

Forest based on data compiled during the NVUM surveys. Average spending 

per Forest visit was estimated to be $46.03 and $341.58 for residents and nonresidents, respectively, with every 10,000 visits (a mix of residents and nonresidents) supporting 13.7 direct jobs and 3.9 jobs elsewhere in the regional 

economy. Using these coefficients, White and Stynes (2010) estimated that 

1,885,513 annual visits generated about $250 million in spending and supported 

2,589 direct jobs and an additional 728 jobs elsewhere in the regional economy. 

This overall estimate is equivalent to about 30 percent of the regional visitor 

estimate developed for Alaska DCCED (McDowell Group 2015), and the direct 

component is about 38 percent of the direct jobs estimated by Southeast 

Conference (2014). 

Commercial Fishing and Seafood Processing

Salmon accounted for more than half (58 percent) of the total commercial catch in 

Southeast Alaska in 2013, with the remainder divided among halibut (15 percent), 

sablefish (9 percent), crab (6 percent), herring (4 percent), and shellfish (7 percent)

(Warren 2014). There is an important connection between salmon and other 

wildlife and fish species on the Tongass. Crab, halibut, herring, bears, eagles, and 

other species depend on the juvenile salmon produced in the Tongass streams 

and lakes and the annual return of millions of salmon. As a result, management 

decisions that affect salmon indirectly affect other species that are commercially 

fished. These relationships are, however, poorly understood and difficult to 

quantify. The commercial fishing discussion presented in this section, therefore, 

focuses on the salmon fishery. Data available for the seafood processing industry, 

however, do not allow for an easy distinction between salmon processors and 

other firms. Data presented for the seafood processing sector, therefore, include 

the entire seafood processing industry.

Commercial fish harvest in the waters of Southeast Alaska can fluctuate widely 

from year to year. Overall, recent commercial salmon harvest (since early to 

mid-1990s) has generally been high but with large fluctuations in the last decade 

due to the relatively weak returns of pink salmon in even years. Pink salmon

have averaged 76 percent of total commercial harvest since 1962 (Conrad and 

Gray 2014) (see Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 in the Fish section of this EIS). Record 

harvest of salmon occurred in 2013, with 112 million salmon captured.

Based on the estimate of salmon produced from streams originating in the 

Tongass National Forest, estimated annual commercial salmon harvest from 

1984 to 2013 has averaged over 176 million pounds, with a wholesale value (exvessel value) of more than $93 million (adjusted to 2013 dollars) (Figure 3.6-3 in 

the Fish section of this EIS). More than 335 million pounds of salmon were 

harvested in Southeast Alaska in 2013 with a wholesale value of more than $153 

million (Figure 3.6-3). 

Employment in the seafood harvesting and processing sectors varies from yearto-year, but remains relatively stable compared to the fluctuations in the volumes 

and value of salmon harvested each year. Salmon harvesting employed 1,456 

people in Southeast Alaska in 2013, with an additional 1,054 people employed 

harvesting other fish. A further 1,750 people were employed in fish processing 

for a combined total of 4,260 jobs, an increase of 360 jobs or 9 percent from the 

preceding year (Figure 3.22-9). As indicated in Figure 3.22-3, employment in the 

seafood harvesting and processing sectors is highly seasonal.
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-502 Final EIS

Figure 3.22-9

Seafood Harvesting and Fish Processing Employment in Southeast 

Alaska, 2000 to 2013

Note:

1/ Other seafood harvesting includes crab, groundfish, halibut, herring, shellfish, and sablefish.

Source: Alaska DOL 2014f, 2015b; Warren 2014

Unlike other basic sectors of Southeast Alaska’s economy, components of the 

seafood industry are spread throughout the region with an important presence in 

virtually every community. Seafood processing workers, for example, were 

employed in all of the boroughs in 2012, ranging from 14 workers in Skagway to 

1,041 workers in Ketchikan Gateway Borough (Table 3.22-11). The commercial 

fishing and seafood processing industries are generally characterized by high 

degrees of nonresident participation. As noted above in the Nonresident and 

Seasonal Employment subsection, information on the nonresident share of 

employment in the fish harvesting sector is not available for Southeast Alaska. 

Statewide, ADOL estimates that nonresidents accounted for an estimated 51.3 

percent of the fish harvesting workforce in 2013 (Krieger et al. 2015).

Nonresidents accounted for approximately 67 percent of employment in the fish

processing sector in Southeast Alaska in 2012, ranging from 35.7 percent of 

workers in Skagway to 90.3 percent in Haines Borough (Table 3.22-12). Local 

processing workers defined as those who claimed residency in the same 

borough as the employer comprised 27.1 percent of the processing workforce in 

2012 (Alaska DOL 2014f). 

In addition to high seasonality and low resident hire, the seafood processing 

sector is generally characterized by low hourly wages with a median annual 

wage of $24,689 in 2013 (Strong 2014). The industry does, however, have a 

number of higher paid occupations, including ship engineers, captains, mates, 

boat pilots, and general and operations mangers, which accounted for just 1.2 

percent total employment, but 6 percent of wages, with a median annual wage of 

$66,720 (Strong 2014). 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Average Annual Employment

Year

Salmon Harvesting Other Seafood Harvesting Seafood Processing
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-503 Economic and Social Environment

Table 3.22-12

Seafood Processing Workforce by Borough, 2012

Borough 

Processing 

Workers

Percent of Workers 

Nonresident

Haines Borough 257 90.3

Hoonah-Angoon Census Area 41 36.6

Juneau City and Borough 549 64.5

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1,041 75.8

Petersburg Census Area 683 63.3

Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area 471 53.9

Sitka City and Borough 769 63.3

Skagway Municipality 14 35.7

Wrangell City and Borough 260 69.2

Yakutat City and Borough 80 42.5

Southeast Total1/ 4,106 67.0

Notes:

1 Workers were counted by place of work. Some workers worked in more than one borough or 

census area in 2012, but were only counted once in the regional total. As a result, the number 

of workers by borough and census total do not sum to the total shown here.

Source: Alaska DOL 2014e

Mining and Mineral Development

Mineral exploration and mining have been a part of life in Southeast Alaska for 

more than a century. Data compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis for 

2013 indicated that at least 649 workers were directly employed by the mining 

industry (Table 3.22-2). This may, however, underestimate total direct employment 

in the mining industry in Southeast Alaska because data were withheld for the 

mining sector for several of the boroughs that comprise the region. 

Separate estimates developed using Alaska DOL data found that a total of 756 

workers were employed in the mining sector in Southeast Alaska in 2013 

(Southeast Conference 2014). According to a recent economic impact study 

prepared for Alaska’s mining industry, the Greens Creek and Kensington mines 

employed 390 workers and 300 workers in 2012, respectively (McDowell Group 

2013a). Average annual wages in the mining sector were $98,000 in 2011, with 

these high wages reflecting the skilled nature of the job, as well as the demands 

of working in remote locations (Abrahamson 2013). 

According to Southeast Conference (2014), employment in the mining sector in 

Southeast Alaska has more than doubled over the past decade, increasing from 

291 jobs in 2003 to a peak of 815 jobs in 2012, before dropping to 756 jobs in 

2013. Much of this increase was due to the opening of the Kensington Mine, 

which began operations in 2010. The region’s mining industry is closely tied to 

global metal prices, which peaked in 2011 after 11 years of growth, and have 

since declined. Despite falling metal prices, production was higher in 2013 than 

the preceding year in both of the region’s large mines (Greens Creek and 

Kensington) (Southeast Conference 2014).

The nonresident share of mining employment in Alaska has increased along with 

overall employment, with 35 percent of mine employees identified as 

nonresidents in 2011 (Abrahamson 2013). Both the Greens Creek and 

Kensington mines are located in the City and Borough of Juneau. Greens Creek 

Mine is located on Admiralty Island; Kensington Mine is located on the mainland 

approximately 45 miles north of Juneau. Alaska resident employees of both 

mines live throughout the region. About two-thirds of Greens Creek employees 

live in Juneau. The other one-third live in other Southeast Alaska communities or 

elsewhere in the region (McDowell Group 2012b).
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-504 Final EIS

Two proposed underground mine projects on Prince of Wales Island received 

approval for financial assistance through the Alaska Industrial Development and 

Export Authority in June 2014 (Bradner 2014). Senate Bill 99 authorized $145 

million and $125 million in infrastructure and construction financing, respectively,

for the proposed Bokan Mountain and Niblack projects. 

The Bokan Mountain project is a rare earths mine that would include on-site ore 

processing facilities. The McDowell Group (2013b) in a study prepared for the Bokan 

Mountain project estimated that construction of the project would last 2 years and 

employ an average construction workforce of 200, with peak employment potentially 

reaching 300 workers. Operation would be expected to employ 190 workers with 

approximately $18 million in annual payroll (McDowell Group 2013b). The Niblack 

Project is a proposed underground copper-gold-zinc-silver mine. The project owners 

estimate that the construction and operation phases of the project would both employ 

approximately 200 workers (Niblack Project LLC 2015).

Natural Amenities and Quality of Life 

Natural amenities and local quality of life have been recognized as important 

factors determining the economic prospects of many rural communities in the 

American West and elsewhere (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000). While local 

amenities and life quality do not directly generate income in the same sense as, 

say, a sawmill or tourist lodge, they do act to attract and keep residents. This, in 

turn, supports communities and their economies in several ways. First, many of 

these residents may earn a substantial proportion of their income from non-job 

related sources that are independent of local economic activity. Much of this 

income will then be spent locally, resulting in additional employment and income 

in the community. Second, residents bring with them important skills and energy 

that constitute valuable assets for the community. Broadly termed “human 

capital” by economists, these skills (and the energy with which residents apply 

them) can earn additional outside income as well as provide essential social 

resources to the community. These residents may also help attract and retain 

businesses that are dependent on a skilled labor force, but otherwise relatively 

footloose from a location standpoint.

Since it is tracked as a separate category in standard income statistics, nonwage income and its contribution to local economies is directly measurable. 

Investment income (dividends, interest, and rent) and transfer payments from 

government are the two major categories of non-wage income. Non-job related 

income (i.e., transfer payments and dividends, interest, and rent) accounted for 

33 percent of total income in Southeast Alaska in 2013, 32 percent statewide, 

and 36 percent for the United States as a whole (Table 3.22-13; Figure 3.22-10).

Table 3.22-13

Components of Per Capita Income 2013

Per Capita Income

Southeast Alaska Alaska United States

Total ($)

Percent of 

Total Total ($)

Percent of 

Total Total ($)

Percent of 

Total

Total 54,722 100 50,150 100 44,765 100

Earnings1 36,464 67 33,964 68 22,977 64

Transfer payments2 7,331 13 7,087 14 4,863 17

Dividends, interest, and rent 10,927 20 9,099 18 5,209 19

Notes:

1 Earnings includes wages and salaries, other labor income, and proprietors’ income. 2 Transfer payments consist mainly of government payments to individuals, including retirement, disability, and 

unemployment insurance benefit payments, income maintenance payments, and veterans benefit payments. 

Government payments to individuals in Alaska include Alaska Permanent Fund benefits, which are derived from 

oil revenues and paid to every resident.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-505 Economic and Social Environment

Figure 3.22-10

Components of Per Capita Income 2013

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014a

Transfer payments consist mainly of government payments to individuals, with 

social security payments and medical benefits being among the most important

(Table 3.22-14). Transfer payments per capita in 2013 comprised a smaller 

share of total income in Southeast Alaska and Alaska than they did in the U.S. as 

a whole (Table 3.22-12). Per capita transfer payments were, however, higher in 

absolute terms in Southeast Alaska and Alaska than the U.S., and this was also 

the case with dividends, interest, and rent (Table 3.22-14; Figure 3.22-10).

Compared to the U.S. as a whole, retirement and disability and medical 

components comprised a smaller share of total transfer payments in Southeast 

Alaska, and still smaller shares of the state as a whole (Table 3.22-14). The “other 

payments” category, which includes Alaska Permanent Fund dividend payments, 

in contrast, comprised a much larger share of transfer payments in Alaska, 

accounting for 11 percent of total transfer payments in Southeast Alaska and the 

state as a whole compared to less than 1 percent nationwide (Table 3.22-14).

Retirees comprise the most common source of non-wage income in many rural 

communities (Colt 2001). In fact, this has given rise in some places to local 

marketing strategies specifically aimed at attracting retirees and thereby 

developing the local “retirement industry.” The growing economic importance of 

retirees was not readily apparent in Southeast Alaska in Tables 3.22-13 and 

3.22-14 because the relatively large size of the “other payments” category tends 

to overshadow the other categories. However, although retirement and disability 

payments and medical payments comprise a relatively small share of total 

income by national standards, both increased as a share of transfer payments in 

Southeast Alaska between 2000 and 2013 accounting for a combined total of 66 

percent of transfer payments in 2013 compared to 41 percent in 2000. This is

partially the result of natural aging processes, as the median age in Southeast 

Alaska has continued to increase since 2000, but may also indicate that Alaska is 

becoming more attractive for people as a place to live and not merely as a place 

to earn money.

36,464 33,964

22,977

7,331 7,087

4,863

10,927

9,099

5,209

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Southeast Alaska Alaska United States

Earnings Transfer payments Dividends, interest, and rent
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-506 Final EIS

Table 3.22-14

Components of Per Capita Transfer Payments, 2013

Southeast Alaska Alaska USA

Total ($)

Percent 

of Total Total ($)

Percent 

of Total Total ($)

Percent 

of Total

Retirement and disability 1,985 27% 1,608 23% 1,678 35%

Medical payments 2,829 39% 2,624 37% 2,096 43%

Income maintenance benefits 964 13% 1,124 16% 539 11%

Unemployment insurance 285 4% 267 4% 126 3%

Other payments1 793 11% 782 11% 7 0%

Miscellaneous other2 475 6% 682 10% 415 9%

Total transfer payments 7,331 100% 7,087 100% 4,863 100%

Notes:

1 Consists largely of Bureau of Indian Affairs payments, education exchange payments, Alaska Permanent Fund 

dividend payments, compensation of survivors of public safety officers, compensation of victims of crime, disaster 

relief payments, compensation for Japanese internment, and other special payments to individuals. 2 Miscellaneous other includes veterans benefit payments, Federal education and training assistant payments 

(excluding veterans), payments to nonprofit institutions, and business payments to individuals.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014b

Although it is difficult to directly measure the importance of natural amenities in 

attracting and keeping residents, proximity to natural environments and the 

recreational activities they support are undeniably a benefit enjoyed by residents, 

especially in the more rural communities of Southeast Alaska. A recent survey 

conducted on behalf of ADF&G, for example, found that 60 percent of surveyed 

residents in Southeast Alaska identified wildlife as extremely (27 percent) or very 

(33 percent) important to their quality of life, with a similar share (58 percent) 

identifying wildlife as an extremely (30 percent) or very (28 percent) important 

reason influencing their decision to live in Alaska (ECONorthwest 2014), 

At the same time, the atmosphere of a community also constitutes an important 

amenity, and this may often be linked to more traditional forms of economic 

activity, such as fishing or timber. In other words, changes in the local economy 

such as a shift to tourism may impact local atmosphere and amenities even if the 

surrounding natural environment remains essentially unchanged. These impacts 

are often assumed to be negative as tourism leads to crowding and the loss of 

traditional charm, but this need not always be the case. Certain tourism 

establishments, such as restaurants, meeting centers, or entertainment facilities, 

may often serve local residents as well, thus adding to the amenities available to 

them. Finally, the size of a community also has important effects on the local 

amenities available. If a community is too small, or too poor, it cannot provide 

many of the basic social and economic amenities many residents require, local

natural amenities notwithstanding. 

Environmental Consequences

This section describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative economic and 

social effects of the five alternatives examined in detail in the EIS. 

Wood Products

The Secretary of Agriculture directed the Forest Service in Memorandum 1044-

009 (July 2013) to transition to a young-growth-based timber management 

program on the Tongass National Forest over the next 10 to 15 years, so that at 

the end of this period the vast majority of timber sold by the Tongass will be 

young growth. The Secretary’s memorandum indicates that this transition should 

be implemented in a manner that preserves a viable timber industry that provides 

jobs and opportunities for Southeast Alaska residents. 

Direct and 

Indirect Effects
 Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-507 Economic and Social Environment

Comments received during public scoping were concerned that a premature 

transition to young growth would result in mill closures because it would not allow 

existing mills sufficient time to retool so that they can process young-growth logs. 

Commenters stated that if existing mills were to close, it would not be possible to 

maintain the economies of scale and infrastructure necessary to support a viable 

timber industry. Other comments emphasized that the transition should support 

local jobs through local, value-added manufacturing, and end existing export 

policies on the Tongass that allow unprocessed logs to be exported.

Using methods adapted from previous PNW Research Station analyses (Brooks 

and Haynes 1990, 1994, 1997; Brackley et al. 2006a, 2006b), the PNW 

Research Station developed a baseline projection of annual demand for Tongass 

timber for 2015 to 2030 (Daniels et al. 2016). This baseline projection anticipates 

that demand would gradually increase from an estimated 40.0 MMBF in 2015 to 

52.1 MMBF in 2030 (Table 3.22-10; Figure 3.22-8). All five alternatives 

evaluated in this EIS would provide an annual average harvest of 46 MMBF prior 

to the transition. This harvest volume would consist of old-growth and younggrowth harvest, with old growth decreasing as a share of this total volume (46 

MMBF) over time as more young growth becomes economic to harvest. Oldgrowth volume offered would continue to decrease until it reaches 5 MMBF per 

year, at which point it would be stabilized at 5 MMBF per year to support a small 

sale and micro sale industry, and would remain at that level for the remainder of 

the planning period.6 Once this point is reached, the amount of timber offered for 

sale would be allowed to increase above 46 MMBF as more young growth 

becomes economic to harvest. The speed of the transition (i.e., how many years 

it would take for the young-growth supply to reach 41 MMBF) and the amount of 

young-growth timber available following the transition would vary by alternative.

Estimated Tongass timber supply, assuming maximum harvest levels, is 

presented by alternative for Years 1 to 100 in Table 3.22-15. Estimated volumes 

are expressed as average annual volumes in 5-year increments. This table 

shows how many 5-year periods it would take for average annual young-growth 

harvest to reach 41 MMBF. The shaded cells indicate the 5-year increment 

when the transition to young-growth harvest is expected to be completed. Table

3.22-15 also shows the amount of young-growth timber that would be available 

following the transition. 

Maximum young-growth harvest is shown graphically by alternative for the 100-

year study period in 5-year increments in Figure 3.22-11. The available volume 

would increase over time under all of the alternatives with the highest available 

volumes, once they are reached, expected to remain constant and extend over 

several decades (Figure 3.22-11).

 6 The current sawmills that comprise the small sale and micro sale industry tend to process larger 

logs and produce high value products such as appearance-grade lumber and cedar shingles. These 

mills could continue to process up to 5 MMBF of old-growth timber following the transition. However, 

there may not be enough old-growth timber to support the current small mill industry. If this were the 

case and not enough old-growth timber was made available, mills would either have to scale back, 

switch to young growth timber or close. See Forest Plan Appendix B.
3 Environment and Effects 

Economic and Social Environment 3-508 Final EIS

Table 3.22-15

Estimated Maximum Timber Harvest on the Tongass by Alternative, Year 1 to 100

5-Year 

Period Years

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

YG OG Total YG OG Total YG OG Total YG OG Total YG OG Total

1 1-5 7.6 38.4 46.0 22.2 23.8 46.0 20.0 26.0 46.0 8.6 37.4 46.0 10.0 36.0 46.0 

2 6-10 7.6 38.4 46.0 22.2 23.8 46.0 20.4 25.6 46.0 13.0 33.0 46.0 13.0 33.0 46.0 

3 11-15 15.2 30.8 46.0 61.4 5.0 66.4 50.0 5.0 55.0 26.4 19.6 46.0 27.8 18.2 46.0 

4 16-20 15.2 30.8 46.0 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

5 21-25 15.2 30.8 46.0 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

6 26-30 19.8 26.2 46.0 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

7 31-35 74.0 5.0 79.0 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

8 36-40 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

9 41-45 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

10 46-50 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

11 51-55 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

12 56-60 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

13 61-65 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

14 66-70 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

15 71-75 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

16 76-80 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

17 81-85 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

18 86-90 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

19 91-95 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

20 96-100 133.2 5.0 138.2 119.8 5.0 124.8 115.8 5.0 120.8 86.6 5.0 91.6 92.6 5.0 97.6 

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. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-509 Economic and Social Environment

Figure 3.22-11

Estimated Maximum Young-Growth Timber Supply on the Tongass by Alternative, Year 1 

to 100

Note:

1/ The annual harvest level shown is 41 MMBF, the point at which the transition to young-growth harvest is expected to be 

completed.

Demand Indicators

Pacific Northwest Research Station Projections

The Affected Environment part of this section provides an overview of current 

conditions for the Southeast Alaska wood products industry and discusses 

projected demand, as identified by Daniels (2015). Projections were developed 

for 2015 to 2030 for a Baseline Model that was then used to evaluate three 

potential scenarios representing different potential futures for timber harvest in 

Southeast Alaska (see Table 3.22-9 and Figure 3.22-8). These scenarios 

provide a basis for discussion of where the industry currently is, and provide 

insight into what that industry could look like in the future given various 

assumptions about industry investment and end markets. 

Baseline Model

The Baseline Model developed by Daniels (2015) projected demand for Tongass 

timber assuming that historical trends in imports, consumption, and market share 

will remain constant. Total derived demand for timber harvested on the Tongass 

was projected to gradually increase from 40.0 MMBF in 2015 to 52.1 MMBF in 

2030. All five alternatives were designed to correspond with these projections 

and supply 46 MMBF per year until the young-growth transition occurs (Table 

3.22-15). 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5. The young-growth transition is expected to occur in 

Years 31 through 35 for Alternative 1 and Years 16 through 20 for Alternatives 4 

and 5 (Table 3.22-15). Although the relative share of total harvest made up by 

young growth would increase under these alternatives from 2015 through 2030 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

MMBF

Year

ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ALT 5 Annual Harvest
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-510 Final EIS

(Years 1 through 15), the PNW Research Station modeling suggests that 

projected harvest volumes under these alternatives would have sufficient oldgrowth volume to meet market demand as projected in the PNW Research 

Station’s Baseline Model.

Alternatives 2 and 3. Under these alternatives, the young-growth transition is 

expected to occur in Years 10 through 15 (Table 3.22-15). This generally 

approximates the young-growth transition period of 10 years employed in the 

PNW Research Station analyses for Scenarios 1 through 3. These three 

scenarios are all based on the assumption that the young-growth transition would 

occur in 2025 (Year 10) and are more representative of Alternatives 2 and 3 than 

the Baseline Model.

Scenario 1

This scenario assumes that the young-growth transition would occur by 2025, 

with the transition expected to result in a reduction in Pacific Rim demand for 

lumber that would in turn cause a decline in harvest from the Tongass relative to 

the baseline rate (Table 3.22-10; Figure 3.22-8). 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5. The young-growth transition is expected to occur later 

than 2025 under these alternatives. As a result, the projected reduction in Pacific 

Rim demand anticipated following a transition in 2025 would not be expected 

occur under these alternatives. The Baseline Model projections developed by 

the PNW Research Station are more representative of the modeled period (2015 

to 2030; Years 1 to 15) for Alternatives 1, 4, and 5.

Alternatives 2 and 3. Under these alternatives, the young-growth transition 

would occur in Years 10 through 15, which generally approximates to the 

timeframe (2015) assumed for this scenario. As a result, Scenario 1 represents 

one alternative future for timber harvest under these alternatives.

Scenario 2

Scenario 2 builds upon Scenario 1 by adding markets for wood energy products 

based on the assumption that 30 percent of existing heating fuel use in 

Southeast Alaska would be replaced by wood based fuel over time (Table 3.22-

10; Figure 3.22-8). Daniels (2015) assumed an annual conversion rate of 5 

percent starting in 2016 for the purposes of analysis.

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5. Timber supply would remain at 46 MMBF for the 

duration of the period modeled by PNW Research Station (2015 to 2030; Years 1 

through 15) and, as modeled, these alternatives would be unable to meet 

increased wood energy-related demand.

Alternatives 2 and 3. Derived demand for Tongass timber under Scenario 2 

would start to exceed 46 MMBF prior to the anticipated young-growth transition 

under these alternatives and demand in excess of 46 MMBF would not be met. 

Following the transition, total annual harvest for Alternative 2 would be 52.5 

MMBF, which would meet a larger share of the anticipated demand under this 

scenario than the other alternatives, including Alternative 3, but would be 

equivalent to 69 percent of projected demand in 2030. While Scenario 2 

represents an alternative future for timber harvest under Alternatives 2 and 3, as 

currently configured (with old-growth harvest constrained to 5 MMBF), neither of 

these alternatives would be able to fully meet the total demand projected under 

Scenario 2.

It may, however, be noted that the total amount available for harvest after 2030 

(Years 16-20) under Alternatives 2 and 3 would increase dramatically as 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-511 Economic and Social Environment

additional young-growth timber becomes available for harvest and would be 

about equivalent to 1.5 times the projected demand for 2030 under this scenario.

Scenario 3

Scenario 3 differs from Scenario 1 by using a different rate of projected growth 

for domestic lumber consumption based on the growth rate prior to the 2007-

2009 recession, rather than the more conservative (post-recession) growth rate 

employed in the Baseline Model and Scenarios 1 and 2 (Table 3.22-10; Figure 

3.22-8). 

Alternatives 1, 4, and 5. The young-growth transition would not occur during 

the period modeled by the PNW Research Station under these alternatives and 

the amount of timber available to be harvested would be limited to 46 MMBF per 

year. Without the transition, there would be no drop in demand from the Pacific 

Rim markets, and any additional demand associated with increased domestic 

lumber consumption would go unmet.

Alternatives 2 and 3. Like Scenarios 1 and 2, Scenario 3 represents an 

alternative future for timber harvest under Alternatives 2 and 3. Projected 

harvest under Alternatives 2 and 3 following the transition would be sufficient to 

meet projected demand for this scenario.

Summary

As presently configured, Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 most closely correspond with 

the Baseline Model developed by the PNW Research Station. Because total 

supply is capped at 46 MMBF until the young-growth transition, these 

alternatives would not be able to meet potential increases in demand like those 

assumed for Scenarios 2 and 3 (increased wood energy and domestic demand, 

respectively) were they to occur independent of the young-growth transition.

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the young-growth transition would occur in Years 10 

through 15, which generally approximates the young-growth transition period of 

10 years assumed in Scenarios 1 through 3 modeled by the PNW Research 

Station. Scenarios 1 and 3 represent alternative futures for the 2015 to 2030 

timeframe that could be potentially realized under these alternatives. Projected 

demand under Scenario 2 would exceed available supply under both of these 

alternatives as currently configured.

Other Demand Indicators

The relative speed of the transition (i.e., the number of years it would take the 

young growth supply to reach 41 MMBF) would affect the amount of time 

available for existing mills to retool or modify existing operations to adapt to the 

changing supply of timber. It would also affect the amount of time available for 

existing mills and other potential operators to evaluate markets for young-growth 

timber and wood products harvested and produced in Southeast Alaska. For 

existing mills, this timeframe would also be affected by the existing volume under 

contract. Existing volume under contract does not vary by alternative, but would

influence the adjustment period in all cases. As discussed in the Affected 

Environment section, above, various purchasers had an estimated total of 90.8 

MMBF of uncut timber under contract with the Forest Service in April 2016, with 

Viking Lumber accounting for more than half (61 percent; 55.5 MMBF) of this 

total (USDA Forest Service 2016b). 

Following the transition, the timber industry in Southeast Alaska would be 

primarily oriented toward young growth. The form this industry might take would 

be potentially influenced by a range of factors, including industry investment and 

end markets. The potential supply of timber from the Tongass National Forest 

will also play an important role in shaping the future industry. An economically 
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-512 Final EIS

viable and stable young-growth timber supply is expected to be available in the 

long-term under all five alternatives, but annual estimated volumes would vary by 

alternative. An annual old-growth volume of 5 MMBF would be available to 

support a limited small operator industry under all alternatives for the 100-year 

study period.

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, an estimated annual average of 7.6 MMBF of young 

growth would be available in Years 1 through 10, increasing to 15.2 MMBF in 

Years 11 through 25, and 19.8 MMBF in Years 26 through 30, with available 

young growth expected to exceed 41 MMBF in Years 31 through 35 (Table 3.22-

15). The transition to young growth would be the slowest under this alternative 

occurring 15 years later than it would under Alternatives 4 and 5, and 20 years 

later than under Alternatives 2 and 3 (Figure 3.22-12). The continued availability 

of old-growth timber under this alternative would allow a period of several 

decades for the existing industry to retool or new facilities to develop and come 

online.

The relatively limited volumes of young growth available during the 25 years 

following implementation would be sufficient to supply all or part of the estimated 

annual demand of Viking Lumber’s small log line (8 MMBF). Smaller volumes of 

material may also be available for bioenergy uses, but potential investment in 

new facilities designed to process young-growth material would be unlikely to 

occur until larger volumes became available after year 30. 

Figure 3.22-12

Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 1

Once the transition is finally reached, the volume of young-growth 

harvest available for harvest rapidly increases, jumping from an annual 

average of 19.8 MMBF for Years 26 through 30 to 74.0 MMBF for Years 

31 through 35 and then 133.2 MMBF in the next 5-year period and for 

the remainder of the study period, through Year 100 (Figure 3.22-12). 

The final annual available young-growth volume (133.2 MMBF) would be 

the highest under this alternative, but would be available for fewer years 

than the highest volumes under the other alternatives (Figure 3.22-11).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-513 Economic and Social Environment

Alternative 2

Under this alternative, an estimated annual average of 22.2 MMBF of 

young growth would be available in Years 1 through 10, the highest 

amount under any of the alternatives, with available young growth 

expected to exceed 41 MMBF as soon as Years 11-15, and available 

annual young-growth volume increasing to the maximum amount under 

this alternative (119.8 MMBF) in Years 16-20 (Table 3.22-14; Figure 

3.22-13). The transition to young growth would be quickest under this 

alternative and Alternative 3, and the final annual available young-growth 

volume (119.8 MMBF) would be second highest under this alternative

(Figure 3.22-11).

The young-growth volumes initially available in Years 1 through 10 (22.2 

MMBF) would be sufficient to supply all or part of the estimated annual 

demand of Viking Lumber’s small log line (8 MMBF), as well as 

increased demand if the existing facility was modified. There would also 

be sufficient supply to support bioenergy uses. Following the transition

in Years 11-15, sufficient volume would be available to supply additional 

demand from sawmills, as well as bioenergy uses. 

Figure 3.22-13

Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Under this alternative, an estimated annual average of 20.0 to 20.4 MMBF of 

young growth would be available in Years 1 through 10, the second highest 

amount under any of the alternatives, with available young growth expected to 

exceed 41 MMBF as soon as Years 11-15, and available annual young-growth 

volume increasing to the maximum amount under this alternative (115.8 MMBF) 

in Years 16-20 (Table 3.22-14; Figure 3.22-14). The timing and available 

volumes under this alternative are very similar to those estimated for Alternative 

2. The transition to young growth would be quickest under Alternatives 2 and 3, 

and the final annual available young-growth volume (115.8 MMBF) would be third 

highest under this alternative, just slightly lower than the volume available under 

Alternative 2 (Figure 3.22-11).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-514 Final EIS

Figure 3.22-14

Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Under this alternative, an estimated annual average of 8.6 MMBF of young 

growth would be available in Years 1-5, increasing to 13.0 MMBF for Years 6-10, 

and then 26.4 MMBF in Years 11-15. Available young growth is expected to 

exceed 41 MMBF in Years 16-20, with the available annual young-growth volume 

increasing to the maximum amount under this alternative (86.6 MMBF) during 

this period (Table 3.22-14; Figure 3.22-15). The transition to young growth would 

be slower than Alternatives 2 and 3 under this alternative, but still 15 years 

ahead of Alternative 1. The final available young-growth volume (86.6 MMBF) 

would be the lowest under this alternative (Figure 3.22-11).

The young-growth volumes initially available in Years 1 through 10 (8.6 to 13.0 

MMBF) would be sufficient to supply all or part of the estimated annual demand 

of Viking Lumber’s small log line (8 MMBF). Increased supply in Years 11-15 

would be sufficient to support increased demand from Viking Lumber were the 

facility to be modified, as well as additional bioenergy uses. Following the 

transition in Years 16-20, sufficient volume would be available to supply 

additional demand from sawmills, as well as bioenergy uses. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-515 Economic and Social Environment

Figure 3.22-15

Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 4

Alternative 5

The timing and available volumes under this alternative are very similar and 

slightly higher than those estimated for Alternative 4. Under this alternative, an 

estimated annual average of 10.0 MMBF of young growth would be available in 

Years 1-5, increasing slightly to 13.0 MMBF for Years 6-10, and then 27.8 MMBF 

in Years 11-15. Available young growth is expected to exceed 41 MMBF in 

Years 16-20, with the available annual young-growth volume increasing to the 

maximum amount under this alternative (92.6 MMBF) during this period (Table 

3.22-14; Figure 3.22-16). The transition to young growth would be slower than 

Alternatives 2 and 3 under this alternative, but still 15 years ahead of Alternative 

1. The final available young-growth volume (92.6 MMBF) would be the second 

lowest under this alternative (Figure 3.22-11).

Figure 3.22-16

Estimated Maximum Harvest under Alternative 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MMBF

5-Year Period

YG OG Annual Harvest
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-516 Final EIS

Financial Analysis

Total discounted net revenues are presented for each alternative for three time 

periods – 15 years, 25 years, and 100 years – in Table 3.22-16. These 

estimates developed as part of the Woodstock model analysis are the sum of 

annual values expressed in current dollars using a 4 percent discount rate. 

Annual values are estimated pond log values that were developed using Forest 

Service Region 10 appraisal rates for different species and log grades. Value 

estimates are based on tree size, species composition, amount of defect, and 

assumptions about domestic manufacture and export. Pond log values used in 

the Woodstock model are the estimates of price a timber buyer would pay for a 

log at the mill site, less the markup charged by the logger (profit and risk). 

The net revenues or stumpage values shown in Table 3.22-16 represent the 

estimated pond log value less the estimated costs that are incurred to get the log 

to the mill. These costs, which are subtracted from the pond log value, include 

yarding and logging costs, as well as felling and bucking costs. The resulting 

stumpage value is assumed to be the price the timber buyer pays for the log (bid 

price). 

Table 3.22-16

Discounted Net Revenues by Alternative for 15, 25, and 100 Years

Alternative Years 1-15 Years 1-25 Years 1-100

1 $63.84 $101.16 $204.83 

2 $11.50 ($20.11) $23.91 

3 $20.54 ($2.85) $37.40 

4 $47.70 $40.66 $83.88 

5 $46.15 $42.22 $81.19 

Note:

1 Discounted net revenues are presented in $ million

The Woodstock model analysis that generated the values shown in Table 3.22-

16 involved first maximizing young-growth harvest under a non-declining even 

flow and then adding old-growth volume to reach the annual average harvest of

46 MMBF and maximizing the net present value. Modeling assumed that all 

western redcedar is processed domestically and that all Alaska yellow-cedar is 

sent to markets outside of Alaska. Western hemlock and Sitka spruce volumes 

and other species were assumed for the purpose of this analysis to be divided 

equally between domestic production and export in accordance with the current 

limited export shipment policy. The limited export shipment policy is discussed in 

the Affected Environment portion of this section (see Appendix H and the R10 

Limited Export Shipment Policy subsection, above). The Woodstock model 

analysis developed for this Forest Plan amendment is discussed in detail in 

Appendix B to this EIS.

Viewed over 15-year and 100-year planning horizons, all five alternatives would 

result in positive net revenues (stumpage values) since a higher volume of oldgrowth will be harvested. Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 also would result in modeled 

positive net revenues over the 25-year planning period; Alternatives 2 and 3 

would result in negative net revenues for the 25-year period.

Discounted net revenues for the 25-year period range from -$20.1 million 

(Alternative 2) to $101.1 million (Alternative 1) (Table 3.22-16). Net revenues 

were estimated for 5-year increments and all of the alternatives, with the 

exception of Alternative 1, had 5-year periods where net revenues would be 

negative (Table 3.22-17). Positive values for the 5-year increments that 

comprise years 1 to 25 are in most cases due to the old-growth component of 

projected harvest. The old-growth component generates net positive revenue for 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-517 Economic and Social Environment

all alternatives and 5-year increments over the 25-year planning horizon (Figure 

3.22-17). In contrast, in nearly all cases net revenues generated by the younggrowth component are negative (Figure 3.22-18). 

This programmatic analysis suggests that individual timber sales offered under 

any of the alternatives in the first 25 years of the planning period will likely need 

to include a mix of old growth and young growth to appraise positive as required 

by Public Law 112-74, House Report 2055-257, Section 414.

Table 3.22-17

Discounted Net Revenues by Alternative for 5-Year Increments

(Years 1 to 25)

Alternative

Years

1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25

1 $32.4 $23.4 $8.1 $29.5 $7.9 

2 $20.1 $8.3 ($16.9) ($20.9) ($10.7)

3 $20.6 $11.9 ($12.0) ($17.2) ($6.2)

4 $29.9 $16.5 $1.3 ($5.7) ($1.3)

5 $28.2 $17.1 $0.8 ($2.3) ($1.7)

Note:

1 Discounted net revenues are presented in $ million

Figure 3.22-17

Net Revenues for Old Growth by Alternative for 5-Year Increments 

(Years 1 to 25)

Note: Values shown are 5-year totals and are not discounted.

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

YEARS 1-5 YEARS 6-10 YEARS 11-15 YEARS 16-20 YEARS 21-25

S million

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-518 Final EIS

Figure 3.22-18

Net Revenues for Young Growth by Alternative for 5-Year 

Increments (Years 1 to 25)

Note: Values shown are 5-year totals and are not discounted.

Over time, the young-growth component also generates positive revenues

(stumpage values) under all alternatives, which is reflected in the discounted net 

revenues presented for the 100 year planning horizon in Table 3.22-16. 

Discounted net revenues for the 100-year period range from $23.91 million 

(Alternative 2) to $204.83 million (Alternative 1) (Table 3.22-16). 

As discussed above, the net revenues presented in Table 3.22-16 are stumpage 

values and represent the estimated pond log value less the estimated costs that 

are incurred to get the log to the mill. These values are assumed to be the price 

the timber buyer pays for the log (bid price). These values represent revenue 

that would be generated for the federal government, but do not take into account 

the administrative costs incurred by the Forest Service to offer this timber for 

sale.

Total Forest Service administrative costs are $104 per MBF, broken down as 

follows: $48 per MBF for environmental analysis and documentation (NEPA 

planning), $21 per MBF for sale preparation, $12 per MBF for sale administration 

and $23 per MBF for engineering support (USDA Forest Service 2014f). 

Environmental analysis and documentation costs including field inventory, data 

analysis, public involvement, and preparation of documents that satisfy the 

requirements of NEPA. Sale preparation costs include unit layout, cruising, 

appraisal, and contract development. Sale administration consists of 

administering the timber sale contract from the time the sale is awarded until the 

sale is completed. Engineering support consists of planning and timber sale 

contract administration activities associated with new facility and road 

construction, use of existing facilities and road maintenance.

Total estimated administrative costs are presented by alternative in Table 3.22-

18. Presented for each alternative for three time periods – 15 years, 25 years, 

and 100 years – these estimates are the sum of annual costs expressed in 

current dollars using a 4 percent discount rate. Annual costs were estimated 

($12)

($10)

($8)

($6)

($4)

($2)

$0

$2

$4

YEARS 1-5 YEARS 6-10 YEARS 11-15 YEARS 16-20 YEARS 21-25

$ million

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-519 Economic and Social Environment

using the total Forest Service administrative cost of $104 per MBF and the 

projected volumes by alternative identified in Table 3.22-15.

Table 3.22-18

Discounted Administrative Costs by Alternative for 15, 25 and 100 

Years

Alternative Years 1-15 Years 1-25 Years 1-100

1 $52.99 $74.45 $177.26

2 $59.34 $117.57 $232.42

3 $55.79 $112.15 $223.32

4 $52.99 $95.72 $180.02

5 $52.99 $98.52 $188.34

Note:

1 Discounted net costs are presented in $ million

Forest Service administrative costs were not part of the net revenue calculation 

developed as part of the Woodstock modeling (see Table 3.22-16), but these 

costs were part of the Woodstock modeling analysis, along with agency precommercial thinning (PCT) and planting costs that would be incurred. Agency 

PCT and planting costs are not included in the administrative cost comparison 

presented in Table 3.22-18.

Employment and Income

Projected levels of annual employment and income are presented by alternative 

in Table 3.22-19. These estimates are based on the maximum annual average 

harvest that could occur over the first decade following implementation (Years 1 

Table 3.22-19

Estimated Timber Industry Employment and Income by Alternative (First Decade, 

Annual Average)

Volume/Jobs/Income

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Total Sawlog Volume (MMBF)1 40.2 42.4 42.1 40.7 40.8

Utility Volume (MMBF)2 5.8 3.6 3.9 5.3 5.2

Jobs Related to Logging3 91 96 95 92 92

Jobs Related to Sawmilling3,4 48-97 53-107 52-106 49-100 49-100

Jobs Related to Transportation 

and other Services3,4,5 28-45 29-47 29-47 29-46 29-46

Total Direct Jobs 184-217 196-231 194-229 187-220 187-221

Direct Income ($ million)6 9.6-10.3 10.2-10.9 10.1-10.8 9.8-10.4 9.8-10.4

Notes:

1 Total sawlog volume is the estimated sawlog component of the annual average harvest (46 MMBF) based on the 

projected young growth and old growth volumes identified in Table 3.22-15. Total volumes vary based on the relative 

share of old-growth timber. 2 Assumes that 15 percent of old-growth harvest consists of utility volume. Young-growth volumes are expressed in 

sawlogs and do not include logging residues and other biomass. 3 Employment and income by alternative are estimated based on employment coefficients from 2007 to 2010 (Alexander 

2012).

4 Local sawmilling and transportation-related employment estimates are based on a range, from maximum possible 

shipment out of state (export of all Alaska yellow cedar plus hemlock and Sitka spruce export equal to 50% of total sale 

net sawlog volume), to no shipment of hemlock and Sitka spruce and export of 100% Alaska yellow cedar. 

5 Transportation and other services include water transportation, independent trucking, stevedoring, scaling, and export 

marking and sort yard employment for export volume, and water transportation, scaling, and independent trucking for 

locally sawn volume. Export employs more workers in transportation and other services per MMBF harvested than 

domestic production. This is reflected in the range of values presented above. 

6 Sawmill and transportation-related income estimates are based on the same assumptions as employment and are 

presented as a range. 
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-520 Final EIS

to 10). All five alternatives are based on an annual average harvest of 46 MMBF, 

with the proportion of the total that is made up of young growth increasing over 

time, and the share made up of old growth decreasing. The ratio of young 

growth to old growth varies by alternative and over time in the years prior to the 

transition to young growth (defined as the time that the young-growth supply 

reaches 41 MMBF). The young-growth volumes presented in Table 3.22-15 

consist of sawlogs only. Based on the average composition of past harvest on 

the Tongass, the old-growth volume is assumed to consist of 15 percent utility 

volume (USDA Forest Service 2008a). The average composition by species 

would also vary by harvest type (old growth versus young growth), with Alaska 

yellow-cedar and Western redcedar making up a larger share of old-growth 

volume. The differences between old-growth and young-growth volumes and 

their relative shares by alternative are reflected in the employment and income 

estimates presented in Table 3.22-19.

Direct employment and income estimates are presented as a range in Table 

3.22-19. These estimates are for employment that would take place in Southeast 

Alaska. Although estimates of value for timber in the various alternatives are 

based on maximizing shipments of timber sold out of state (Table 3.22-17), 

purchasers have the choice to sell as much as they can to other markets as 

allowed under the limited export policy, or process part or all of the material in 

local sawmills. Actual employment and income in Southeast Alaska would 

depend on choices made by purchasers; those choices may change as markets 

and prices shift. Under current market conditions, purchasers are likely to export

as much as they can while processing enough material locally to keep 

manufacturing facilities open, and take advantage of opportunities to produce 

high value sawn material in Southeast Alaska. In addition, the Regional Forester 

has allowed increased export on a case-by-case basis, as explained in Appendix 

H. If purchasers were allowed on a case-by-case basis to export a larger share 

of a particular sale in unprocessed form, there would be a commensurate 

reduction in sawmilling jobs and an increase in transportation-related jobs. 

Jobs are presented in Table 3.22-19 as “annualized” job-years. Annualized jobs 

are employment estimates adjusted to be based on a full year even though the 

employment may be seasonal. The resulting employment estimates would not 

necessarily all occur in one year and estimated job-years do not directly translate 

into numbers of affected workers. While the employment would not necessarily 

occur in one year, these are annual estimates, meaning that these levels of 

employment would be supported each year the estimated timber volumes shown 

in Table 3.22-17 are harvested.

The job and income estimates presented in Table 3.22-19 are approximate 

numbers based on average jobs per MMBF ratios that were estimated using 

harvest and employment data from 2007 to 2010. These numbers allow a 

comparison of the different alternatives based on total volume harvested. Actual 

numbers would vary under each alternative as timber offerings are packaged and 

individual sales targeted for different sized operators are developed. They would 

also likely vary based on the relative age composition of the offered sale (old

growth versus young growth, or more likely, some combination of the two).

Indirect employment effects are not estimated in Table 3.22-19 because, while 

indirect employment coefficients can be estimated at large scales, they are less 

useful at small local scales and can be misleading. Indirect effects include jobs 

and income associated with industries that supply inputs to the harvest and 

processing sectors, as well as those supported by spending elsewhere in the 

local economy. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-521 Economic and Social Environment

Renewable Energy

All renewable energy development projects built and operated in Southeast 

Alaska have to meet local, state and, in most cases, federal laws, regulations, 

and requirements. Projects are also subject to Tongass National Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines. The Forest Plan identifies three types of area related 

to energy development on the Tongass based on the existing Land Use 

Designations (LUDs): windows, which represent areas potentially available for 

energy development; avoidance areas; and exclusion areas. There are no 

exclusion areas on the Tongass. Avoidance areas are those LUDs where 

development of energy projects is not considered desirable. A search for 

“windows” should be exhausted before facilities are considered in avoidance 

areas. 

These classifications and the standards and guidelines in the current Forest Plan 

would continue to apply under Alternative 1. Energy projects would be managed 

under the new Renewable Energy Plan Components identified in Chapter 5 of 

the amended Forest Plan. These new components would replace the current 

management approach, and renewable energy projects would be considered on 

all Forest lands regardless of the LUD. Implementation of the new Renewable 

Energy Plan Components under Alternatives 2 through 5 could potentially 

simplify the development process for projects proposed for LUDs that are 

presently classified as “avoidance areas” and could help facilitate the provision of 

lower cost electricity to communities that are currently dependent on relatively 

high cost diesel generation (see the Renewable Energy section of this EIS). 

Potential effects by community are addressed below in the Communities section.

Recreation and Tourism

Potential impacts to recreation and tourism are assessed in the Recreation and 

Tourism section of this EIS. Potential impacts are evaluated with respect to 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings, recreation places, and 

developed recreation facilities. The mix of primitive and roaded recreation 

opportunities would remain largely unchanged under all alternatives, with most 

projected harvest expected to occur in ROS settings where some modification of 

the natural environment is expected. Less than 1 percent of the acres currently 

allocated to Primitive, Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive 

Motorized ROS settings would be harvested after 100 years, assuming the 

maximum allowable levels of harvest were to occur. 

Recreation places are identified in the Recreation and Tourism section as areas 

that are relatively easy to access, primarily areas near communities, protected 

boat anchorages, boat landings, aircraft landing sites, and road systems, and 

include approximately 3.6 million acres or 22 percent of the Forest, with some 

areas being identified as important for more than one type of recreation activity. 

Recreation places include a range of LUD classifications and timber harvest 

would occur in areas identified as recreation places under all of the alternatives, 

with the maximum amount of harvest varying by type of recreation place and 

alternative. None of the alternatives are expected to result in long-term impacts 

to recreationists and visitors wishing to use these areas, but may temporarily 

displace some use.

The Recreation and Tourism section also identifies the number of developed 

recreation facilities within 0.5 mile of suitable old-growth and young-growth acres 

by alternative, which ranges from 171 for Alternative 4 to 206 for Alternative 1. 

Areas in relative proximity to timber harvest could be negatively impacted during 

harvest, but impacts would localized and often limited to the harvest duration. 
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-522 Final EIS

Project-level impacts to facilities and other recreation uses would be assessed as 

part of separate NEPA processes.

These potential impacts are discussed in more detail in the Recreation and 

Tourism section. Viewed in terms of recreation and tourism employment over the 

next decade, there would be very little difference between the alternatives.

Salmon Harvesting and Processing

There is not expected to be any significant change to the commercial fishing or 

fish processing industries over the planning period as a result of National Forest 

activities. The future of the fishing industry in Southeast Alaska is more likely to 

depend upon occurrences outside of the Tongass National Forest such as 

hatchery production, off-shore harvest levels, and changes in ocean conditions. 

In addition, a large segment of the commercial fishing industry operates under a 

limited entry harvest system. New permit holders are not quickly added to the 

market during high fish harvest years, nor are they removed during periods of low 

harvest. The result in either case is the same number of commercial fishers 

catching either more or less fish.

The 1997 FEIS noted that the amount of acreage of timber harvest was at most 

less than 20,000 acres per year, representing approximately 0.5 percent of the 

total remaining productive old growth (or 5 percent over the next decade) and 

less than 0.02 percent of the entire Forest. That EIS concluded that this was not 

expected to result in a significant change to commercial fishing employment. All 

of the alternatives that are presently being evaluated in this EIS would allow 

considerably less timber harvest and new road construction than the alternatives 

evaluated in the 1997 FEIS. Total annual harvest allowed over the 100 year 

planning period would range from 2,666 acres (Alternative 4) to 3,605 acres 

(Alternative 2). These potential levels of harvest, which are substantially lower 

than the maximum proposed in the 1997 FEIS, when viewed in conjunction with 

the Riparian Management standards and guidelines established in the current 

Forest Plan are not expected to have a significant effect on commercial fisheries 

employment. The current Riparian Management standards and guidelines would 

remain unchanged under all alternatives,

Natural Amenities and Quality of Life

As discussed in the Affected Environment portion of this section, natural 

amenities and local quality of life are generally recognized as important factors 

that serve to attract and retain residents. It is, however, very difficult to 

determine the effect of the different alternatives on local amenities and, further, 

on the economic activity that these amenities are believed to indirectly generate. 

In most cases and localities, the difference between the alternatives with respect 

to natural amenities is not expected to be significant enough to result in 

measurable changes in economic activity.

Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are the products of functioning ecosystems that often are 

available without direct costs to people who benefit from them (Kline 2006). 

These services have been described in a number of different ways including the 

typology developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which is 

featured on the Forest Service’s Ecosystem Services web site 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/) and identifies four general categories 

of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting. 

Provisioning services include wild food, fresh water, and fiber. Regulating 

services are the benefits obtained from ecosystem impacts on natural processes, 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-523 Economic and Social Environment

such as air quality, climate stabilization, water quality, and erosion. Cultural 

services include recreation, aesthetic, educational, and spiritual and religious 

benefits. Supporting services are the underlying processes that maintain the 

conditions for life on Earth, such as nutrient cycling and soil formation (Smith et 

al. 2011). 

The concept of ecosystem services has emerged as a way of framing and 

describing the comprehensive set of benefits that people receive from nature. 

The Forest Service has been exploring use of these concepts to describe the 

benefits provided by forests, but the ecosystem service approach has not been 

applied operationally in a management context. The Forest Service’s Pacific 

Northwest Research Station issued a technical report that attempts to define an 

economics research program to describe and evaluate ecosystem services (Kline 

2006). More recently, the Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Deschutes 

National Forest have partnered to develop a place-based application to explore 

how this type of approach might be implemented by a national forest to enhance 

forest stewardship. Ecosystem services are discussed at the forest planning 

level for the Tongass National Forest in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b, p. 3-544 to 3-556). The 2008 Forest Plan EIS also discusses 

non-use values, including existence, option, and bequest values (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b, p. 3-551 to 3-552).

Under the 2008 Forest Plan, timber management activities are governed by a 

large number of rules and regulations designed to protect or mitigate negative 

impacts to natural resources that provide ecosystem services. This is discussed 

further in the 2008 Forest Plan EIS (USDA Forest Service 2008b, p. 3-553 to 3-

556). These rules and regulations would remain in place under all of the 

alternatives evaluated in this EIS. Further, the maximum amounts of timber that 

could be harvested under these alternatives (see Table 3.22-13) is substantially 

lower than the range of Allowable Sale Quantity volumes evaluated in the 2008 

Forest Plan EIS. The effects of the alternatives on these types of services are 

assessed in the sections of this EIS that address watersheds, fisheries, soils, 

wildlife and subsistence use, heritage resources, and timber and vegetation, 

among others. Monetary values are not assigned to these services, but this does 

not lessen their importance in the decision making process. Decision-makers will 

consider the economic values presented in elsewhere in this section within the 

context of the information presented elsewhere in this document, much of which 

cannot readily be translated into economic terms.

This section considers the incremental effects of the alternatives when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The effects of past and 

present actions on the economic and social environment are included in the 

Affected Environment portion of this section, which discusses the regional 

economy, as well as providing a subregional overview, and assessing potential 

impacts at the community level. These sections summarize current employment 

levels and other key aspects of natural resource-based industries, and also 

assess recent trends.

Reasonably foreseeable actions on National Forest System lands include the 

projected levels of future timber harvest and renewable energy development that 

are used in the preceding analysis to assess the potential impacts of the 

alternatives on the regional and local economies. Other reasonably foreseeable 

actions include regional transportation development as defined by the State 

Transportation Plan and the Forest Service Alaska Region Long Range 

Transportation Plan, as well as road paving on Prince of Wales Island, the closing of 

roads, and construction of the Angoon Airport. In addition, the expansion of cities 

like Juneau and Ketchikan, recreational cabin development, and land auctions by 

Cumulative 

Effects
3 Environment and Effects

Economic and Social Environment 3-524 Final EIS

the State could include additional road construction. Appendix C provides a full list 

of all the projects considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

It is not possible at this time to predict exactly which roads would be developed or 

their likely impact on future recreation and other activities and associated 

employment. None of the alternatives are expected to affect this type of future road 

development, which would be expected to go forward regardless of the selected 

alternative. The overall cumulative effect of new regional road corridors viewed in 

conjunction with the proposed Forest Plan alternatives would be a trend toward 

more developed recreation opportunities that would be relatively high under 

Alternative 2 and relatively low under Alternative 1. Planned timber harvest 

activities on adjacent private and Native Corporation lands would also result in a 

cumulative trend toward more developed recreation opportunities that would be 

most pronounced under Alternative 2 and least pronounced under Alternative 1.

Mining activities are expected to expand at existing sites, including Greens Creek 

on Admiralty Island and Kensington Gold Mine north of Juneau, as well as 

possible future sites, including the Bokan Mountain and Niblack sites on the 

southern end of Prince of Wales Island. Continued mining at existing sites and 

ongoing exploration efforts would likely support existing levels of mining 

employment and income. This employment and income would increase if there 

were an increase in exploration and development.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-525 Subregional Overview and Communities

Subregional Overview and 

Communities

Introduction ...................................................................................................3-525

Subregional Overview ..................................................................................3-525

Population.................................................................................................3-526

Age.............................................................................................................3-527

Employment..............................................................................................3-528

Income and Poverty .................................................................................3-532

Introduction

The preceding section of this document addressed the potential impacts of the 

proposed alternatives upon the regional economy as a whole. Potential impacts 

would not, however, be experienced similarly by all boroughs or communities in 

Southeast Alaska or distributed equally among them. It is, therefore, important to 

consider the potential effects at a more detailed geographic scale. The following 

section is divided into two parts. The first part, entitled Subregional Overview, 

addresses the economic and social composition of the boroughs that comprise 

Southeast Alaska. This discussion provides an important perspective on the 

likely distribution of the potential effects identified in the regional economy 

analysis, as well as setting the stage for the second part of this section, which 

discusses the potential effects of the alternatives on each of Southeast Alaska’s 

32 communities. 

Subregional Overview

There are large differences in the economic structure and development of the 

boroughs that comprise Southeast Alaska. A common problem encountered in 

the analysis of the Southeast Alaska economy is that, owing to its relative size, 

Juneau dominates statistics at the regional level. As a result, regional trends in 

population, employment, or income tend to closely represent developments in 

Juneau and often do not reflect changes in other boroughs. By analyzing certain 

demographic and economic statistics at the borough level, differences in social 

and economic characteristics and trends that are obscured at the regional level, 

are more apparent. The following sections discuss population, employment, and 

income and poverty trends at the borough level.

As previously noted in the Regional and National Economy section, above, a 

significant portion of Southeast Alaska is not located within the boundaries of a 

borough. Communities that are located outside of a borough do not have a 

regional form of government, however, socioeconomic data is readily available 

by census area (CA) as established by the U.S. Census Bureau. The remaining 

areas that are not part of a borough are allocated to two CAs: the HoonahAngoon and Prince of Wales-Hyder CAs. CAs are only statistical units, but are 

widely recognized from a data reporting standpoint by federal agencies and most 

state agencies as county equivalents. Boroughs and CAs are collectively 

referred to as “boroughs” in this section. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-526 Final EIS

Population

Alaska’s statewide population has grown since 2000, increasing from about 

627,000 in 2000 to approximately 710,000 in 2010, an increase of 13 percent, 

and has continued to increase since 2010, with a total estimated population of 

736,000 in 2014 (Table 3.23-1). Southeast Alaska has not experienced similar 

growth and in fact lost population between 2000 and 2010, with a net decrease of 

1,418 people or 2 percent. Total population in Southeast Alaska has fluctuated 

since 2000, reaching its lowest point in 2007. Population has increased each 

year from 2008 through 2013, before dropping slightly in 2014 (Figure 3.23-1).

Table 3.23-1

Borough/Census Area Population, 2000, 2010, and 2014

Area Name 2000 2010 2014

2000 to 2010 2010 to 2014

Net 

Change

Percent 

Change

Net 

Change

Percent 

Change

Northern Boroughs

Haines Borough 2,392 2,508 2,537 116 5% 29 1%

Hoonah-Angoon CA 2,574 2,150 2,128 -424 -16% -22 -1%

City and Borough of Juneau 30,711 31,275 33,026 564 2% 1,751 6%

City and Borough of Sitka 8,835 8,881 9,061 46 1% 180 2%

Municipality of Skagway Borough 862 968 1,031 106 12% 63 7%

City and Borough of Yakutat 808 662 631 -146 -18% -31 -5%

Southern Boroughs

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 14,067 13,477 13,825 -590 -4% 348 3%

Petersburg Borough 4,260 3,815 3,209 -445 -10% -606 -16%

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA 6,125 5,559 6,426 -566 -9% 867 16%

City and Borough of Wrangell 2,448 2,369 2,406 -79 -3% 37 2%

Southeast Alaska 73,082 71,664 74,280 -1,418 -2% 2,616 4%

Alaska 626,932 710,231 735,601 83,299 13% 25,370 4%

CA = Census Area

Source: Alaska DOL 2010a, 2014d

Figure 3.23-1

Southeast Alaska Population, 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 through 2014

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Population 73,0871,8572,2172,2571,5471,7171,3970,2170,5071,1471,6673,6874,2874,3174,28

68,000

69,000

70,000

71,000

72,000

73,000

74,000

75,000

1970 Population: 42,565

1980 Population: 53,794

1990 Population: 68,989
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-527 Subregional Overview and Communities

Changes from 2000 to 2010 at the borough level ranged from large relative 

decreases of 16 percent and 18 percent for Hoonah-Angoon and Yakutat, 

respectively, to a net increase of 12 percent for Skagway. All of the southern 

boroughs lost population over this period, as did two of the six northern boroughs 

(Table 3.23-1). 

Population has continued to decline in three of the boroughs since 2010, with 

Petersburg experiencing the largest absolute and relative decrease, with a net 

loss of 606 people, a drop of 16 percent. The other seven boroughs experienced 

net increases in population from 2010 to 2014, with the largest absolute 

increases occurring in Juneau and Prince of Wales-Hyder. The net population 

gain in Juneau (1,751 people) was equivalent to two-thirds of Southeast Alaska’s 

population increase over this period; the net gain in Prince of Wales-Hyder (867 

people) was equal to one-third (Table 3.23-1).

Components of regional population change for 2010 through 2014 indicate that 

all of the boroughs in Southeast Alaska experienced natural increase (more 

births than deaths) over this period (Alaska DOL 2014d). Half of the boroughs 

also experienced net in-migration over this period, with the largest gain in Juneau

where 800 more people moved to the borough than left.

Population projections developed by the State of Alaska anticipate continued growth 

statewide, but generally expect population to decline in Southeast Alaska (Howell 

2014). Southeast Alaska is the only region in Alaska where population is expected to 

decline over the forecast period (2012 to 2042). Past State projections have 

anticipated that population will decline in Southeast Alaska because low birth rates and 

the highest median age in the state mean that a sharp rise in net in-migration would be 

required for growth to occur in the future (Mercer 2010). Current projections anticipate 

that the population of Alaska will increase by 26 percent between 2012 and 2042, while 

the population of Southeast Alaska is expected to decrease by 4 percent (Howell 

2014). Viewed at the borough level, population is expected to decrease in seven of the 

10 boroughs over the forecast period, with projected decreases ranging from 6 percent 

(Prince of Wales-Hyder) to 31 percent (Hoonah-Angoon). Projected increases range 

from 1 percent (Haines) to 5 percent (Skagway), with the population of Juneau

expected to increase by 2 percent from 2012 to 2042 (Howell 2014).

Age

Median age in the state of Alaska was 34.4 years in 2014, slightly lower than the 

national average of 37.6 years. The median age was higher than the state and 

national average in all of the boroughs that make up Southeast Alaska, ranging 

in the northern boroughs from 37.7 years in Juneau to 48.5 years in Haines; 

median age in the southern boroughs ranged from 39.3 years in Ketchikan to 

47.2 years in Wrangell (Table 3.23-2). The median age stayed relatively 

constant in Alaska as a whole over the last decade, increasing by just 0.7 year 

from 2005 to 2014. Skagway and Juneau saw similar modest increases over this 

period, while most other boroughs in Southeast Alaska aged more rapidly, with 

the largest increases occurring in Yakutat (+3.9 years), Petersburg (+4 years), 

and Hoonah-Angoon (+5.4 years) (Table 3.23-2). 

In 2014, 14.5 percent of the U.S population was 65 years and over compared to 

just 9.7 percent in Alaska and 12.4 percent in Southeast Alaska (Table 3.23-2). 

The share of the population 65 years and above in the northern boroughs ranged 

from 10.5 percent in Juneau to 17.9 percent in Haines; in the southern boroughs, 

the share of the population 65 years and above ranged from 12.3 percent (Prince 

of Wales-Hyder) to 18.2 percent (Wrangell) (Table 3.23-2). 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-528 Final EIS

The age dependency ratio is the ratio of the non-working (dependent) population 

– those younger than 15 years or older than 64 years – to the working-age 

population – those ages 16 to 64 years old. Expressed as the number of 

dependents per 100 working age people, the national age-dependent ratio in the 

U.S. in 2014 was 51 percent. The age dependency ratio in 2014 in Alaska and 

Southeast Alaska was 45.3 percent in both cases (Table 23-2). Viewed by 

borough, age-dependency ratios in Southeast Alaska ranged from 34.8 percent 

in Skagway to 56.3 percent in Wrangell.

Table 3.23-2

Age by Borough

Area Name

Median Age

(Years)

Population by Age 2014

(Percent)

2014 Dependency Ratio1 2014

Net 

Change 

2005-2014 0-14 15-64

65 and 

Over

Northern Boroughs

Haines Borough 48.5 3.0 14.9 67.2 17.9 48.9

Hoonah-Angoon CA 47.8 5.4 16.8 65.8 17.4 52.0

City and Borough of Juneau 37.7 0.7 18.7 70.8 10.5 41.2

City and Borough of Sitka 38.8 1.9 19.2 67.3 13.5 48.6

Municipality of Skagway

Borough 42.4 0.4 13.2 74.2 12.6 34.8

City and Borough of Yakutat 43.9 3.9 17.0 68.5 14.6 46.1

Southern Boroughs

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 39.3 1.1 18.8 68.3 12.9 46.5

Petersburg Borough 42.3 4.0 19.6 65.4 15.0 52.9

Prince of Wales-Hyder 40.2 1.6 21.3 66.4 12.3 50.5

City and Borough of Wrangell 47.2 2.3 17.9 64.0 18.2 56.3

Southeast Alaska na na 18.7 68.8 12.4 45.3

Alaska 34.4 0.7 21.5 68.8 9.7 45.3 1 The age dependency ratio is calculated by dividing the combined under 18 and 65-and-over population by the 18 to 

population and multiplying by 100.

Source: Alaska DOL 2010b, 2014d

Employment

Employment data by sector are presented for 2013 by borough and for Southeast 

Alaska and Alaska in Table 3.23-3. The self-employed (identified as proprietors in 

Table 3.23-3) make up a larger share of total employment in Southeast Alaska than 

in the state as a whole, 27.1 percent versus 20.8 percent (Table 3.23-3). Viewed by 

borough, self-employment as a share of total employment ranged from 4.9 percent 

(Yakutat) to 71.1 percent (Haines). Sectors with high shares of self-employment 

include commercial fishing, recreation and tourism, and logging. Government is a 

major employer in the two boroughs (Yakutat and Juneau) with the lowest relative 

shares of self-employment (Table 3.23-3).

Annual employment data are presented for 2005 through 2014 by borough and for 

Southeast Alaska and Alaska in Table 3.23-4. These data are also shown 

graphically in Figures 3.23-2 through 3.23-4. Annual unemployment rates were 6.8 

percent in Alaska and 7.1 percent Southeast Alaska in 2014, compared to a national 

average of 6.2 percent (Table 3.23-4, Figure 3.23-2). Viewed by northern borough, 

annual unemployment rates in 2014 ranged from 5.1 percent in Juneau and Sitka to 

15.5 percent in Hoonah-Angoon (Table 3.23-4, Figure 3.23-3). Annual 

unemployment rates in 2014 in the southern boroughs ranged from 7.6 percent in 

Ketchikan to 13.5 percent in Prince of Wales-Hyder (Table 3.23-4, Figure 3.23-4). 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-529 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-3

Employment by Sector by Borough 2013

Economic Sector

Northern Boroughs Southern Boroughs

Southeast 

Alaska Alaska

Haines

Borough

HoonahAngoon

CA

Juneau

City and 

Borough

Sitka

City and 

Borough

Municipality 

of Skagway

Borough

Yakutat

City and 

Borough

Ketchikan

Gateway 

Borough

Petersburg

Borough

Prince of 

WalesHyder CA

Wrangell

City and 

Borough

Total fulltime and parttime employment1 3,606 1,384 20,640 6,687 1,567 329 10,482 3,108 3,611 1,731 53,145 461,935

Type of Employment (Percent of Total)

Wage and salary 28.9 54.6 90.8 69.6 53.1 95.1 74.5 48.6 60.7 52.3 72.9 79.2

Proprietors 71.1 45.4 9.2 30.4 46.9 4.9 25.5 51.4 39.3 47.7 27.1 20.8

Wage and Salary Employment by Industry (Percent of Total)2

Farming 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

Forestry, fishing, 

related activities, and 

other (D) (D) (D) (D) (L) (D) 4.5 (D) 10.5 14.7 2.1 2.4

Mining (D) 0.0 (D) 2.2 5.7 (L) 1.6 (D) 5.2 3.5 1.2 4.9

Construction 6.1 3.5 4.4 7.0 4.1 (D) 5.8 2.9 4.8 4.3 5.0 5.3

Manufacturing 6.3 (D) 1.8 (D) 4.5 (D) 6.4 11.9 5.1 8.4 3.8 3.6

Wholesale trade 0.7 (D) (D) 0.6 (L) 0.0 (D) 0.6 (D) (D) 0.2 1.6

Retail trade 7.8 6.3 10.5 8.3 14.4 (D) 11.5 9.6 9.1 7.2 9.9 9.6

Transportation and 

warehousing (D) 4.6 5.5 5.5 (D) (D) 7.5 2.8 2.2 (D) 4.7 5.2

Finance and 

insurance 3.1 0.0 1.5 1.3 (D) (L) 2.9 (D) 10.6 2.3 2.3 2.5

Real estate 6.4 (D) 2.3 2.2 (D) (D) 4.1 (D) 4.1 2.5 2.7 3.4

Services 

(Consumer)3 23.0

(D)

13.1 13.5 20.9

(D)

14.0 11.3 10.3 4.2 13.2 14.1

Services (Producer)3 12.3 (D) 6.6 3.6 3.4 (D) 2.3 2.2 1.1 0.0 4.6 9.9

Services (Social)3 13.7 (D) 9.7 12.7 1.7 (L) 11.3 (D) 4.5 (D) 8.9 12.2

Federal government 0.8 8.6 6.0 5.7 3.4 7.6 4.8 5.0 3.6 3.9 5.1 9.3

State and local 

government 5.6 19.1 29.8 15.6 7.5 36.8 17.1 12.8 24.2 15.9 21.2 13.9

Notes:

1 Total employment includes self-employed individuals. Employment data are by place of work, not place of residence, and, therefore, include people who work in the area but do not live 

there. Employment is measured as the average annual number of jobs, both full- and part-time, with each job a person holds counted at full weight. 2 Percentages for the counties do not sum to 100 because employment counts are not provided for sectors with less than 10 jobs or for sectors where counts would disclose confidential 

information. These sectors are identified by (D) or (L) in the above table. These numbers are, however, included in the totals. 3 Nine 2-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) categories are combined into these three divisions for ease of presentation. Consumer service includes: other services; 

arts, entertainment, and recreation; and accommodation and food services. Producer services includes: information; professional and technical services; management of companies and 

enterprises; and administrative and waste services. Social services includes: educational services; and health care and social assistance.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014d
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-530 Final EIS

Table 3.23-4

Annual Unemployment Rates, 2005 to 2014 (Percent)

Region 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Northern Boroughs

Haines Borough 9 7.9 7.1 8.5 9 10.6 10.1 10 9.9 10.3

Hoonah-Angoon CA1 13.3 12.5 12 12.4 14.7 14.1 15.2 14.4 14.6 15.5

City and Borough of Juneau 5.3 4.8 4.3 4.6 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.1 5 5.1

City and Borough of Sitka 5.5 5.3 4.9 5.6 6.2 6.3 6.1 5.7 5.4 5.1

Municipality of Skagway

Borough1 13.3 12.5 12 12.4 14.7 14.5 16.2 13.8 12.1 11.6

City and Borough of Yakutat 10.6 9.6 6.5 7.2 11.5 10.8 10.7 9.7 9.4 9.8

Southern Boroughs

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 6.7 6 5.4 5.7 7.1 8.8 8.5 7.9 7.5 7.6

Petersburg Borough2 10.1 9.4 9.3 10.2 10.4 7.9 8.4 8.3 9.2 9.8

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA3 13.1 14.1 13.1 13.3 15.2 10.5 12.4 13.3 11.9 13.5

City and Borough of Wrangell2 10.1 9.4 9.3 10.2 10.4 8 7.5 8.3 8 8.9

Southeast Alaska 7 6.5 6 6.3 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.1 6.9 7.1

Alaska 6.9 6.6 6.3 6.7 7.7 7.9 7.6 7.1 6.9 6.8

Notes:

1 Data for 2005 through 2009 are for the Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon CA. 2 Data for 2005 through 2009 are for the Wrangell-Petersburg CA. 3 Data for 2005 through 2009 are for the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan CA.

Source: Alaska DOL 2015b
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-531 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-2

Annual Unemployment Rates in Southeast Alaska, Alaska, and the United States, 

2005 to 2014 (Percent)

Source: Alaska DOL 2015b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015

Figure 3.23-3

Annual Unemployment Rates in the Northern Boroughs of Southeast Alaska, 

2005 to 2014 (Percent)

Note:

1 Data shown for the Hoonah-Angoon CA and Municipality of Skagway for 2005 through 2009 are for the SkagwayHoonah-Angoon CA

Source: Alaska DOL 2015b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Unemployment Rate (Percent)

Alaska Southeast Alaska USA

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Unemployment Rate (Percent)

Haines Hoonah-Angoon Juneau Sitka Skagway Yakutat
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-532 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-4

Annual Unemployment Rates in the Southern Boroughs of Southeast Alaska, 

2005 to 2014 (Percent)

Notes:

1 Data shown for the Petersburg CA and City and Borough of Wrangell for 2005 through 2009 are for the WrangellPetersburg CA.

2 Data shown for the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA for 2005 through 2009 are for the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan CA.

Source: Alaska DOL 2015b; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015

Income and Poverty

Per capita income in Southeast Alaska in 2013 was $54,722, approximately 9 

percent higher than the state per capita ($50,150) (Table 3.23-5). Viewed by 

borough, per capita income in 2013 ranged from $36,354 in Prince of Wales-Hyder

to $85,326 in Haines, ranging from the equivalent of 72 percent to 170 percent of the 

state per capita. Per capita income was higher than the state per capita in 6 of the 

10 boroughs in Southeast Alaska (Table 3.23-5).

Labor earnings accounted for slightly more than two-thirds of per capita income in 

Southeast Alaska (67 percent) and Alaska as a whole (68 percent). Labor earnings 

as a share of per capita income by borough ranged from 55 percent (Wrangell) to 77 

percent (Haines), and was below the state share (68 percent) in seven of the 10 

Southeast Alaska boroughs (Table 3.23-5; Figure 3.23-5). 

Transfer payments accounted for 13 percent and 14 percent of regional and 

statewide per capita income in 2013. Viewed by borough, the share ranged from 

just 9 percent in Skagway to 23 percent in Hoonah-Angoon and Wrangell, and was 

above the state share in six of the 10 Southeast Alaska boroughs (Table 3.23-5; 

Figure 3.23-5). As discussed in the Regional and National Economy section, above, 

transfer payments consist mainly of government payments to individuals, including 

retirement, disability, and unemployment insurance benefit payments, income 

maintenance payments, and veterans benefit payments. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual Unemployment Rate (Percent)

Ketchikan Gateway Petersburg Prince of Wales-Hyder Wrangell
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-533 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-5

Components of Per Capita Income, 2013

Area Name

Labor Earnings1

Transfer 

Payments2

Dividends, Interest, 

and Rent

Per Capita Income 

Total

Dollars

Percent 

of Total3 Dollars

Percent 

of Total3 Dollars

Percent 

of Total3 Dollars

Percent of 

State Per 

Capita

Northern Boroughs

Haines Borough 65,773 77 8,948 10 10,605 12 85,326 170

Hoonah-Angoon CA 25,820 58 10,127 23 8,671 19 44,618 89

City and Borough of Juneau 38,440 67 6,121 11 12,473 22 57,034 114

City and Borough of Sitka 33,734 64 7,074 13 11,800 22 52,608 105

Municipality of Skagway Borough 51,461 73 6,011 9 12,593 18 70,065 140

City and Borough of Yakutat 31,898 65 9,206 19 8,165 17 49,269 98

Southern Boroughs

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 38,477 68 8,589 15 9,525 17 56,591 113

Petersburg Borouigh 31,282 61 9,069 18 11,189 22 51,540 103

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA 22,713 62 7,875 22 5,766 16 36,354 72

City and Borough of Wrangell 22,482 55 9,331 23 9,077 22 40,890 82

Southeast Alaska 36,464 67 7,331 13 10,927 20 54,722 109

Alaska 33,964 68 7,087 14 9,099 18 50,150 100

Notes:

1 Earnings includes wages and salaries, other labor income, and proprietors’ income. 2 Transfer payments consist mainly of government payments to individuals, including retirement, disability, and unemployment insurance 

benefit payments, income maintenance payments, and veterans benefit payments. Government payments to individuals in Alaska include 

Alaska Permanent Fund benefits, which are derived from oil revenues and paid to every resident.

3 Percent of total per capita income.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014e

The final broad component of per capita income – dividends, interest, and rent –

made up 20 percent and 18 percent of regional and statewide per capita income in 

2013. Dividends, interest, and rent as a share of per capita income by borough 

ranged from 12 percent (Haines) to 22 percent (Juneau, Sitka, Petersburg, and 

Wrangell) (Table 3.23-5; Figure 3.23-5). 

Figure 3.23-5

Components of Per Capita Income, 2013

Notes:

1/ See footnotes to Table 3.23-5

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014e

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

Per Capita Income

Labor Earnings Transfer Payments Dividends, Interest, & Rent

Northern Boroughs Southern Boroughs Region 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-534 Final EIS

Median household income in 2013 ranged from $42,276 in Hoonah-Angoon to 

$83,642 in Juneau, ranging from the equivalent of 60 percent to 119 percent of the 

state median, respectively (Table 3.23-6). Median household income was lower 

than the state median in all of the boroughs in Southeast Alaska with the exception 

of Juneau. The share of the population below the poverty level in the northern 

boroughs in 2013 ranged from 4.2 percent in Skagway to 19.2 percent in HoonahAngoon compared to the statewide average of 10.1 percent; in the southern 

boroughs, the share of the population below the poverty level ranged from 10.3 

percent in Ketchikan to 17.4 percent in Prince of Wales-Hyder (Table 3.23-6). The 

share of children aged 5 to 17 in families below the poverty line in households in the 

northern boroughs in 2013 ranged from 6.8 percent in Skagway to 26.8 percent in 

Hoonah-Angoon compared to a statewide average of 12.5 percent; in the southern 

boroughs, the corresponding shares ranged from 12.9 percent in Ketchikan to 22.0 

percent in Prince of Wales-Hyder (Table 3.23-6). 

School enrollment and the number of students eligible for free and reduced-price 

lunch (FRPL) is summarized by borough for 2015 in Table 3.23-7. The number of 

students eligible for FRPL may be used as a way of evaluating poverty in school 

districts. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is administered by the USDA, 

Food and Nutrition Service, which provides free meals to eligible children in 

households with income at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, 

and reduced-price meals to eligible children in households with income between 130 

and 185 percent of these guidelines (Cruse and Powers 2006). Viewed as a share 

of total school enrollment, students eligible for FRPL in the northern boroughs in 

2015 ranged from 29 percent in Juneau to 86 percent in Yakutat compared to a 

statewide share of 50 percent. In the southern boroughs, the share of students 

eligible for FRPL ranged from 41 percent in Ketchikan to 79 percent in Prince of 

Wales-Hyder (Table 3.23-7).

Table 3.23-6

Median Household Income and Poverty, 2013

Geographic Area

Median 

Household 

Income

Percent of 

State Median

Percent Below the 

Poverty Line

Total 

Population

Age 5 to 17 

in Families

Northern Boroughs

Haines Borough 55,295 78.9 11.4 16.3

Hoonah-Angoon CA 42,276 60.3 19.2 26.8

City and Borough of Juneau 83,642 119.4 7.5 8.1

City and Borough of Sitka 66,038 94.3 9.8 10.9

Municipality of Skagway Borough 63,930 91.3 4.2 6.8

City and Borough of Yakutat 56,365 80.5 16.7 25.8

Southern Boroughs

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 62,619 89.4 10.3 12.9

Petersburg Borough 58,176 83 10.7 11.4

Prince of Wales-Hyder 48,175 68.8 17.4 22.0

City and Borough of Wrangell 49,039 70 13.9 17.6

Alaska 70,058 100 10.1 12.5

United States 52,250 74.6 15.8 20.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014c
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-535 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-7

School Enrollment and Number of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price 

Lunch by Borough, 2015

Geographic Area

Total 

Enrolled 

Students

Students Qualifying for:

FRPL 

Total

FRPL as a 

Percent of 

Total

Enrolled 

Students

Free 

Lunch

ReducedPrice Lunch 

Northern Boroughs

Haines Borough 275 108 15 123 45

Hoonah-Angoon CA 194 131 19 150 77

City and Borough of Juneau 5,056 1,249 214 1,463 29

City and Borough of Sitka 1,491 394 110 504 34

Municipality of Skagway Borough1 62 1 2 3 5

City and Borough of Yakutat 96 74 9 83 86

Southern Boroughs

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 2,347 785 178 963 41

Petersburg Borough 431 190 35 225 52

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA 1,200 890 59 949 79

City and Borough of Wrangell 272 112 35 147 54

Alaska 115,431 51,640 6,275 57,915 50

Notes:

FRPL –Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 1 Data for the Skagway School District are for 2013, the last year that these data were compiled for this district.

Source: Alaska Department of Education & Early Development 2015
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-536 Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-537 Subregional Overview and Communities

Communities

Community Assessments .................................................................. 3-538

Analyzing Impacts to Communities ................................................... 3-541

Population and School Enrollment .................................................... 3-541

Energy Generation and Use ............................................................... 3-543

Potential Effects by Resource Area ................................................... 3-545

Wood Products .............................................................................. 3-545

Renewable Energy......................................................................... 3-545

Recreation and Tourism.................................................................. 3-545

Subsistence................................................................................... 3-545

Individual Community Assessments.................................................. 3-546

Angoon.......................................................................................... 3-546

Coffman Cove................................................................................ 3-551

Craig............................................................................................. 3-556

Edna Bay....................................................................................... 3-561

Elfin Cove...................................................................................... 3-566

Gustavus ....................................................................................... 3-570

Haines........................................................................................... 3-575

Hollis............................................................................................. 3-581

Hoonah ......................................................................................... 3-585

Hydaburg....................................................................................... 3-590

Hyder ............................................................................................ 3-595

Juneau and Vicinity ........................................................................ 3-598

Kake ............................................................................................. 3-602

Kasaan.......................................................................................... 3-607

Ketchikan ...................................................................................... 3-612

Klawock......................................................................................... 3-616

Metlakatla...................................................................................... 3-621

Meyers Chuck................................................................................ 3-626

Naukati Bay ................................................................................... 3-628

Pelican .......................................................................................... 3-633

Petersburg and Kupreanof.............................................................. 3-637

Point Baker.................................................................................... 3-643

Port Alexander............................................................................... 3-648

Port Protection ............................................................................... 3-651

Saxman......................................................................................... 3-655

Sitka.............................................................................................. 3-659

Skagway ....................................................................................... 3-664

Tenakee Springs............................................................................ 3-668

Thorne Bay.................................................................................... 3-673

Whale Pass ................................................................................... 3-678

Wrangell........................................................................................ 3-683

Yakutat.......................................................................................... 3-688

Environmental Justice ....................................................................... 3-693

Community is a concept with multiple dimensions and definitions. Basic 

definitions of community include: 1) a geographic/political entity, such as a town 

or village; 2) a network of people with shared values, world views, or identities 

(sometimes called a community of meaning), such as an ethnic or racial group 

(e.g., Native Alaskans) or an occupational group (e.g., loggers); 3) a working 

social system; 4) a rural social landscape, which would include the first three 

definitions in a rural setting; and 5) a community of interest, or people with a 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-538 Final EIS

common stake, profession, interest, activity, or set of values, who may live far 

apart (e.g., anglers, environmentalists, off-road-vehicle operators).

This section uses the geographic/political community—towns and villages—as its 

basis for several reasons. There are relatively few communities in Southeast 

Alaska, they are typically isolated geographically, most are recognized as being 

unique, and data are more commonly available at this level. Geographic/ political 

communities represent an aggregate of individuals and it is important to 

remember that residents within the same community may be affected differently 

by the same action. Potential effects that do not appear that significant when 

viewed at a community level may be very significant for the individuals that are 

directly affected.

Community Assessments

The 1997 Forest Plan EIS included discussions of 32 Southeast Alaska 

communities with a state land selection base. In addition, the city of Kupreanof is 

included as part of the discussion of Petersburg and Klukwan is part of the 

discussion of Haines. These discussions provided brief descriptions of each 

community, including aspects of their histories, population trends, economic 

bases, and the subsistence resources used by each community. Each 

community discussion also included a summary of the public comments and 

testimony received by the Forest Service on the 1990 Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DEIS), 1991 Supplemental DEIS, and the 1996 Revised 

Supplement. Much of the baseline community information provided in those 

discussions was taken from the Alaska Department of Community and Regional 

Affairs (Alaska DCRA) Community Profiles (1996) and 1990 U.S. Census data. 

Subsistence information was mainly based on the findings of the 1989 Tongass 

Resource Use Cooperative Survey (TRUCS). Updated summary data are 

presented by community in Table 3.23-8. These data suggest that these 

communities are diverse in terms of population, income, and subsistence use. 

There is also a good deal of variation within many of the communities, as 

reflected by the range of public comments received during preparation of the 

1997 Forest Plan EIS, the 2003 SEIS, and the 2008 Forest Plan Amendment EIS

(USDA Forest Service 1997a; 2003b). 

This document provides brief updates of the affected environment sections of the 

community discussions, where applicable. The reader is referred to the 1997 

Tongass Forest Plan EIS for more detailed information on community history, 

economic base, and subsistence resources. The 1987 TRUCS data used in the 

1997 Forest Plan EIS discussions is still the most current consistent source of 

subsistence information available. Updated information from the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) Subsistence Community Profile 

Database is provided in the following discussions, where available.

Data from the 2010 Census as well as more recent data available from the U.S. 

Census Bureau’s 2009-2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) and the 

Alaska Department of Labor (DOL) have been incorporated in the community 

discussions. These include data maintained by the state for the number of 

people who work in different industries. These data are direct counts for each 

community; however, self-employed residents (often in commercial fishing) and 

federal employees (e.g., Forest Service) are not included. Fishing, other selfemployment, and federal government work are noted separately where 

appropriate. 

The community of Meyers Chuck was incorporated into the City and Borough of 

Wrangell in June 2008; therefore, many of the statistics reported in this section 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-539 Subregional Overview and Communities

are no longer collected or estimated for this area individually. Data for Meyers 

Chuck are from the 2000 Census and other sources as available. 

The effects of the alternatives considered in the 1997 Forest Plan EIS were 

evaluated in terms of community use area effects. Community use areas depict 

the approximate extent of each community’s day-to-day use area. Potential 

community effects were also estimated with the help of a Socioeconomic Panel 

and Subsistence Workshop, which were convened to assess the potential effects 

of the planning alternatives for the 1997 Forest Plan EIS. The Socioeconomic 

Panel assessed these potential effects in terms of timber employment, 

tourism/recreation employment, mining employment, economic 

structure/diversity, community stability, quality of life, recreation opportunities, 

and access to traditional lifestyles. The Subsistence Workshop involved a group 

of subsistence specialists who met to offer professional judgement regarding the 

potential effects of planning alternatives on 30 selected subsistence communities

(Juneau and Ketchikan do not meet the federal definition of subsistence 

community). In addition, the Sitka black-tailed deer habitat capability model 

output was analyzed for the Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAAs) where each 

community obtained approximately 75 percent of their average annual deer 

harvest. This analysis is discussed further in the 1997 Forest Plan EIS. An 

updated deer habitat capability model-based analysis is used here and is 

presented in the Wildlife section.

The analysis presented here draws upon these information sources to assess the 

effects of the five alternatives under consideration by community. Each 

community discussion includes a map of that community’s use area, as defined 

by the 1997 Forest Plan revision EIS. These maps are accompanied by tables 

that summarize the estimated maximum harvest by acres that could occur in the 

community’s use area over the 100-year planning horizon. Whether any timber 

harvesting would actually take place on the suitable lands within the community use 

area over the next decade would depend on the timber sales that are actually 

carried out during plan implementation. All proposed timber sales would be 

evaluated on a project-specific basis in accordance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). The community use area maps and tables are intended to 

help community residents (and other readers) gain a better understanding of 

what management direction is proposed for their immediate surroundings under 

each alternative. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-540 Final EIS

Table 3.23-8

Southeast Alaska Community Statistics

Population

Median 

Household 

Income in 

20131

Percent of 

People

Below 

Poverty 

Line in 2013

Percent of 

Labor Force 

Unemployed 

in 20131

Subsistence

Use (Ibs per 

2014 capita)2

Percent 

Change 

2000 to 

2014

Percent 

Native 

in 2010

Angoon 416 -27 76 32,250 23 19 182

Coffman Cove 174 -13 4 31,250 10 12 276

Craig 1,198 -14 20 59,643 18 10 232

Edna Bay 46 -6 0 NA 0 NA 383

Elfin Cove 16 -50 5 43,125 19 32 263

Gustavus 516 20 3 52,188 11 7 241

Haines 1,805 0 11 54,267 8 5 137

Hollis 94 -32 4 33,500 19 33 169

Hoonah 787 -8 53 50,714 17 16 343

Hydaburg 405 6 77 37,361 6 17 531

Hyder 91 -6 1 21,944 5 0 345

Juneau 33,026 8 12 81,490 6 5 NA

Kake 626 -12 69 38,750 28 21 179

Kasaan 75 92 35 43,750 4 19 452

Ketchikan 8,314 0 17 52,266 14 11 NA

Klawock 802 -6 48 37,083 20 16 350

Metlakatla 1,480 8 83 49,663 13 15 70

Meyers Chuck3 11 -48 0 64,375 0 0 414

Naukati Bay 121 -10 6 45,750 10 0 242

Pelican 75 -54 34 89,167 5 31 355

Petersburg 2,964 -8 7 66,125 13 4 161

Point Baker 13 -63 0 18,906 78 0 289

Port Alexander 45 -44 4 56,250 0 0 312

Port Protection 56 -11 19 27,875 0 0 451

Saxman 419 -3 51 46,250 31 22 217

Sitka 9,061 3 17 69,405 10 5 205

Skagway 967 19 4 71,435 6 8 48

Tenakee Springs 128 23 1 62,813 14 5 330

Thorne Bay 530 -5 2 49,323 20 8 118

Whale Pass 39 -33 0 NA 58 100 247

Wrangell 2,406 -2 16 45,841 10 8 168

Yakutat 631 -7 36 72,500 6 7 386

Notes:

NA = not available

1 Data estimated as part of the 2009-2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS); the 10-year census no longer collects this 

information. The ACS defines “families” as households consisting of a householder and one or more other people living in the 

same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. “People” includes all individuals in the 

population. 2 The year these data were collected varies by community, as follows:

1987: Elfin Cove, Gustavus, Hyder, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Pelican, Port Alexander, Skagway, and Tenakee Springs;

1996: Kake, Point Baker, Port Protection, and Sitka.

1997: Craig and Klawock.

1998: Coffman Cove, Edna Bay, Hollis, Kasaan, Naukati Bay, and Thorne Bay.

1999: Saxman

2000: Petersburg, Wrangell, and Yakutat.

2012: Angoon, Haines, Hoonah, Hydaburg, and Whale Pass. 3 Meyers Chuck was incorporated into the Wrangell City and Borough Census Area, effective June 1, 2008. The most recent data

available for this community as a separate area are presented in the table as follows: 2006 Population, Population Percent 

Change 2000 to 2006, Percent Native in 2000, 2000 Median Household Income, Percent of Households Below the Poverty Line 

in 2000, Percent of Labor Force Unemployed in 2000, and Subsistence Use in 1987. 

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; U.S. Census Bureau 2014b; U.S. Census Bureau 2011; ADF&G 2014
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-541 Subregional Overview and Communities

Analyzing Impacts to Communities

Small, rural communities are seldom self-contained economic units. Although it is 

possible to describe a community’s economic structure, complex social and 

economic forces, many of which are outside the control of community residents, 

have great influence on community economics. This makes it difficult to precisely 

predict the effects of forest-wide management alternatives on individual 

communities. Forest Service activities provide economic opportunities to the private 

sector. How that sector and the various industries that comprise it respond depends 

on many variables in addition to Forest Service management. 

Forest plans are programmatic, meaning that they establish direction and allowable 

activities for broad land areas, rather than schedule specific activities on specific 

patches of land. This also makes it difficult to predict effects on individual 

communities. This is a common source of frustration to local residents, who want to 

know exactly how they and the places they care about could be affected. While 

many outputs of forest management, such as scheduled timber harvest, generally 

translate into social and economic activity, such as employment in the timber 

industry, it is difficult to predict which communities would benefit the most from that 

activity. Communities may even compete with each other in many instances. 

Communities that rely on a given resource-related industry would, however, be 

expected to be the first to benefit or lose from significant changes in planned output 

levels affecting that industry.

Another factor affecting the accuracy of predicting specific impacts at the community 

scale is that people and businesses have proven themselves highly adaptable. 

Researchers have used the term community resiliency (Harris 1996) or community 

capacity (FEMAT1993) to describe a community’s ability to weather significant 

changes. Some of the factors judged important for small, rural communities include 

community infrastructure, the presence of amenities, social cohesion and effective 

community leadership, and economic diversity. Some communities will be more 

effective than others in coping with changes that do result. While information such 

as population size can be used as a rough proxy for resiliency (generally, larger 

communities tend to be more resilient than smaller ones), this is not always the 

case. However, analyses have not been conducted regarding the resiliency of 

Southeast Alaska communities, and we do not know how well information gained 

elsewhere applies to understanding Southeast communities. It is also worth noting 

that while a community as a whole may be resilient to change, individuals within that 

community could still be negatively affected.

Given these considerations, it is more accurate to identify areas of concern for 

which the risks of effects from a given alternative are higher or lower, rather than 

say, “Here is what we know will happen to each and every community.” One of the 

hazards associated with such attempts to assess impacts is that analyses tend to 

view social and economic conditions as static, failing to consider that economies are 

dynamic, and adjust to different impacts in different ways. 

Population and School Enrollment

Twenty-two out of the 32 Southeast communities identified in Table 3.23-8 (69 

percent) lost population between 2000 and 2014, with decreases ranging from -2 

percent (Wrangell) to -63 percent (Point Baker). Population in the remaining 10 

communities either remained more or less constant (Haines and Ketchikan) over 

this period or increased, with gains ranging from 3 percent (Sitka) to 92 percent 

(Kasaan) (Table 3.23-8). Viewed as a region, total population in Southeast 

Alaska increased by about 2 percent between 2000 and 2014, with relatively 

large gains in population in Juneau overshadowing losses elsewhere (Table 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-542 Final EIS

3.23-1). The following community discussions present annual population 

estimates for 2000 to 2014 for each community, along with census counts for 

1970, 1980, and 1990.

Loss of population is often accompanied by declining school enrollments and 

decreasing municipal tax bases. Nearly all Southeast communities1 have had a 

public community school at one point in time (Table 3.23-9). School enrollment 

has typically declined as population has decreased. Total school enrollment in 

Southeast Alaska decreased by 15 percent between 1990 and 2014, with the 

majority of that decline taking place between 2000 and 2010, with total 

enrollment in the region as a whole actually increasing slightly from 2010 to 2014 

(Table 3.23-9). 

Six communities—Edna Bay, Elfin Cove, Hyder, Kasaan, Meyers Creek, and 

Whale Pass—have seen their school close since 1990, with all but one of these 

closures occurring since 2000. Three of these schools— Hyder, Kasaan, and 

Whale Pass—have since re-opened, and were open for the 2014 school year. 

All but three of the remaining communities—Craig, Kasaan, and Port 

Protection—had fewer enrolled students in 2010 than two decades earlier in 

1990. From 2010 to 2014, enrollment declined in 10 communities, ranging from 

an absolute loss of 1 student (Klukwan) to 217 students (Juneau). Increases in 

enrollment ranged from 1 student (Angoon and Port Protection) to 244 students 

(Ketchikan) (Table 3.23-9).

Several schools that are currently open are hovering on the verge of closure due 

to enrollments that barely meet the State of Alaska’s ten-student minimum 

requirement including Hollis, Kasaan, Klukwan, Pelican, Port Alexander, Port 

Protection, Tenakee Springs, and Whale Pass. In these communities, one family 

can make the difference between an open or closed school. 

Table 3.23-9

School Enrollment by Community, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014

Community

School Enrollment Percent Change

1990 2000 2010 2014

1990 -

2000 

2000 -

2010 

2010 -

2014 

Angoon 189 154 77 78 -19% -50% 1%

Coffman Cove 47 31 11 24 -34% -65% 118%

Craig 308 551 630 573 79% 14% -9%

Edna Bay 15 Closed 9 10 - - -

Elfin Cove 9 Closed Closed Closed - - -

Gustavus 76 48 57 65 -37% 19% 14%

Haines 470 402 304 276 -14% -24% -9%

Hollis 16 14 10 14 -13% -29% 40%

Hoonah 237 226 123 114 -5% -46% -7%

Hydaburg 109 91 61 70 -18 -30 9

Hyder Closed 12 Closed 10 - - -

Juneau 5,081 5,483 4,968 4,751 8% -9% -4%

Kake 177 165 85 110 -7% -48% 29%

Kasaan 10 11 14 12 10% 27% -14%

Ketchikan 2,799 2,469 2,116 2,360 -12% -14% 12%

Klawock 203 190 136 121 -6% -28% -11%

Klukwan1 36 15 14 13 -58% -7% -7%

Kupreanof1 2 - - - - - - -

Metlakatla 378 325 272 359 -14% -16% 32%

 1 The 34 communities referenced here are the 32 communities identified in Table 3.23-8

plus Kupreanof and Klukwan. Kupreanof is discussed with Petersburg in the following 

descriptions; Klukwan is referenced in the discussion of Haines.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-543 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-9 (continued)

School Enrollment by Community, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2014

Community

School Enrollment Percent Change

1990 2000 2010 2014

1990 -

2000 

2000 -

2010 

2010 -

2014 

Meyers Chuck3 4 Closed Closed Closed - - -

Naukati 25 36 19 19 44% -47% 0%

Pelican 51 23 12 13 -55% -48% 8%

Petersburg 678 678 487 436 0% -28% -10%

Point Baker2 - - - - - - -

Port Alexander 25 18 10 10 -28% -44% 0%

Port Protection 9 27 10 11 200% -63% 10%

Saxman2 - - - - - - -

Sitka 2,008 1,945 1,749 1,796 -3% -10% 3%

Skagway 148 132 82 86 -11% -38% 5%

Tenakee Springs 10 11 8 12 10% -27% 50%

Thorne Bay 168 136 73 76 -19% -46% 4%

Whale Pass 11 Closed Closed 11 - - -

Wrangell 498 491 344 275 -1% -30% -20%

Yakutat 145 167 117 109 15% -30% -7%

Total 13,940 13,851 11,798 11,804 -1% -15% 0%

Notes:

1 Klukwan and Kupreanof are included in the below community discussions for Haines and Petersburg, 

respectively.

2 Children attend school in a neighboring community (i.e., Kupreanof to Petersburg, Saxman to Ketchikan, 

and Point Baker to Port Protection). 3 Meyers Chuck consolidated with the City of Wrangell when the City and Borough of Wrangell incorporated 

in 2008. 

Energy Generation and Use

Southeast Alaska has a wet, relatively temperate climate, and the combination of 

high precipitation rates and mountainous terrain provides considerable 

opportunity for hydroelectric generation. In 2011, hydroelectric power accounted 

for 96 percent of the region’s net power generation, with diesel supplying the 

other four percent (Fay et al. 2013). 

Although it accounts for most of the region’s net power generation, hydroelectric 

power is not evenly distributed among the region’s communities. As 

communities moved toward electrification, hydropower projects were developed 

in locations near the region’s main load centers (i.e., the larger communities). 

Diesel generation was developed to supplement and backup hydroelectric 

generation, where it existed, and for communities that could not economically 

access hydroelectric power. Although relatively easy and inexpensive to install, 

high fuel costs and the operations and maintenance expenses associated with 

diesel generators make them expensive to operate. 

The existing transmission system in Southeast Alaska is limited, but electric 

systems in several communities are currently interconnected, as indicated in the 

Renewable Energy section of this EIS. Summarized by region, these 

interconnected areas are as follows:

• Southeast Alaska Power Agency (SEAPA) Region—The SEAPA system 

connects Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Wrangell. 

• Juneau Area—The Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) system connects 

Juneau, Douglas Island, Auke Bay, and Greens Creek. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-544 Final EIS

• Prince of Wales Island—The Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) system 

connects the communities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, 

Kasaan, Klawock, and Thorne Bay. 

• Upper Lynn Canal Region—A separate AP&T system connects Haines and 

Skagway in the Upper Lynn Canal Region and is connected via an intertie to 

the existing Inside Passage Electrical Cooperative (IPEC) system that serves 

Klukwan and Chilkat Valley.

The energy requirements of the larger communities in Southeast Alaska, 

including Juneau, Ketchikan, Sitka, Petersburg, Wrangell, Skagway, and Haines, 

are met by relatively low cost hydroelectric generation, with diesel generation 

used as a back-up. This is also the case with a number of smaller communities,

including Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, and Thorne Bay on Prince 

of Wales Island, Metlakatla, Saxman, Gustavus, and Pelican.

Fourteen of the remaining 32 communities within or adjacent to the Tongass 

National Forest are completely dependent upon diesel-generated electricity. 

Nine of these communities (Angoon, Coffman Cove, Elfin Cove, Hoonah, Kake, 

Naukati Bay, Tenakee Springs, Whale Pass, and Yakutat), ranging in population 

in 2014 from 16 to 787, have central electric utility systems that rely on diesel 

generation. The other five communities that are dependent on diesel generation 

(Edna Bay, Meyers Chuck, Point Baker, Port Alexander, and Port Protection with 

2014 populations ranging from 13 to 56) have no central utility system and 

residents rely upon individual generators (USDA Forest Service 2010; Alaska 

DOL 2015d). 

Residents in communities in Southeast Alaska that rely primarily on hydroelectric 

power to generate electricity have the lowest residential rates in the State, with 

rates as low as 9 cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2011. Rates are much higher in 

smaller, more remote communities that rely on diesel, with rates ranging up to 75 

cents/kWh (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). The 

State helps to lower the price of electricity for residential customers and 

community facilities in most of these communities through the Power Cost 

Equalization (PCE) program. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the 

application of PCE payments are shown in Table 3 of the Energy Resource 

Report (Tetra Tech 2015) and discussed in more detail in the Renewable Energy

section of this EIS.

Commercial and other customers, including community and governmental 

facilities and industrial customers, are not eligible to participate in the PCE 

program and there is no comparable program for these customers. These 

customers pay the full retail cost for power in all communities, including those 

where residential rates are lowered by the PCE program. Commercial rates in 

Southeast Alaska communities in 2011 ranged from 9 cents/kWh (Sitka) to 75 

cents/kWh (Elfin Cove) (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 

2015]).

According to the 2012 Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan, the reliance

on diesel generation in communities where hydroelectric power is not available

has “created a gap or chasm between communities, where stable and “well‐to‐

do” communities exist near struggling communities and a notable absence of 

private sector economic activity are the norm” (Black & Veatch 2012, p. 1-4). 

Alexander et al. (2010, p. 8) found that “the high cost of energy in the 

communities that rely on diesel generation impedes economic development, as 

decisions to locate new commercial and industrial developments are influenced 

by the availability of reliable low-cost power.”
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-545 Subregional Overview and Communities

Potential Effects by Resource Area

The alternatives have implications for specific places on the Forest and particular 

parts of the community use areas of various communities. They also have potential 

implications in terms of employment in resource dependent industries and the 

availability of subsistence resources. The following paragraphs discuss the 

potential implications for wood products, recreation and tourism, and subsistence in 

general terms to provide some background to the reasoning employed in the 

community effects discussions presented in the following sections.

Based on the analysis presented in the preceding section, projected direct wood 

products employment in the first decade of implementation would be very similar 

under all five alternatives (Table 3.22-17). Estimated employment is presented as a 

range from a maximum allowable export of timber scenario based on the existing 

R10 limited export policy to a maximum domestic processing scenario that assumes 

only Alaska yellow cedar would be exported unprocessed.

The 2008 Forest Plan identifies three types of area related to energy 

development on the Tongass based on the existing Land Use Designations 

(LUDs): windows, which represent areas potentially available for energy 

development, avoidance areas, and exclusion areas. Avoidance areas are those 

LUDs where development of energy projects is not considered desirable.

Exclusion areas preclude Transportation and Utility Systems. LUDs classified as 

windows and avoidance areas make up 38 percent and 62 percent of the Forest, 

respectively. There are no exclusion areas on the Forest due to special authorities 

provided in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Title XI. 

These classifications and the standards and guidelines in the 2008 Forest Plan 

would continue to apply under Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, 

renewable energy sites would be managed under the Renewable Energy Plan 

Components identified in Chapter 5 of the proposed Forest Plan amendment. The 

revised components may affect the timing and rate that new projects are proposed 

and developed on National Forest System (NFS) lands. This is discussed in detail 

in the Renewable Energy section of this EIS. The individual community 

assessments below include information about currently proposed renwable energy 

projects, as appropriate.

The mix of primitive and roaded recreation opportunities would remain largely 

unchanged under all alternatives, with most projected harvest expected to occur 

in Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings where some modification of 

the natural environment is expected (see Table 3.15-19 in the Recreation and 

Tourism section). Viewed in terms of recreation and tourism employment over 

the next decade, there would be very little difference between the alternatives.

Among the subsistence resources of greatest importance (salmon, other finfish, 

marine invertebrates, and deer), deer is the only one that is potentially significantly 

affected by the alternatives. Therefore, the subsistence analysis presented here 

uses deer as a key indicator for potential subsistence resource consequences 

concerning the abundance and distribution of the resources. Timber harvest tends 

to affect deer-related subsistence activities in two ways. In the short run, 

approximately 20 to 30 years following harvest, deer populations tend to increase in 

harvested areas. In the long run, populations tend to decline as the canopy in evenaged forest stands closes, resulting in lower habitat quality. Reductions in habitat 

quality can be reduced through management (e.g., thinning) of young-growth 

stands. Deer populations in unharvested areas are likely to remain at fairly constant 

levels that are typically lower than a comparable harvested area in the short run, but 

higher in the long run. Road construction also affects subsistence by providing 

subsistence hunters with ready access to areas that may have been previously 

Wood Products

Renewable 

Energy

Recreation and 

Tourism

Subsistence
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-546 Final EIS

inaccessible. This effect may be perceived as either positive or negative depending 

on the parties involved, as increased access may lead to increased competition for 

resources. Potential effects are likely to vary by community and may be perceived 

differently by members of the same or neighboring communities.

While there would be some new road access under all alternatives in the long 

run, nearly all new roads constructed under the alternatives would be closed 

following harvest. These roads would, therefore, not be available for use by 

highway vehicles or high-clearance vehicles. They would, however, be available 

for access by other methods and would, as a result, have the potential to affect 

existing subsistence patterns.

Individual Community Assessments

The following sections present socioeconomic descriptions and assessments of 

impact for 32 Southeast Alaska communities with a state land selection base. 

These are presented in alphabetical order. Additional information on the history, 

economy, and subsistence use is presented by community in the 1997 Forest Plan 

EIS (USDA Forest Service 1997a). 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Angoon, located on the west coast of Admiralty Island at the mouth of 

Kootznoowoo Inlet, has been there so long that no precise date can be 

established for its original occupation. In 1882, the U.S. Navy—then the only 

governmental authority in Alaska—shelled and burned the village of Angoon after

a dispute and alleged hostage situation. The village of Angoon was left 

homeless. The event became known as the “1882 Bombardment of Angoon.” 

As the only permanent community on Admiralty Island, Angoon had a population 

of about 459 in 2010. It remains a traditional Tlingit Alaska Native village with 76 

percent of its population identified as Alaska Native in the 2010 Census (Table 

3.23-8). Angoon has a local Fish and Game Advisory Committee; however, it is 

currently inactive (ADF&G 2015a).

Angoon’s population increased 37 percent between the 1970 and 1990 census. 

The population was, however, approximately 13 percent below the 1990 level in 

2000 and continued to decline, decreasing by 27 percent between 2000 and

2014. Total estimated population was 416 in Angoon in 2014 (Figure 3.23-6).

Angoon
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-547 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-6

Angoon Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

The general overall decline in population since 1990 has been matched by a 

decline in school enrollment, with the number of enrolled students decreasing 

from 189 in 1990 to 78 in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Economic Conditions

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Local government, 

including the Chatham School District, and other educational and health services

provide the majority of employment for Angoon, followed by leisure and 

hospitality. In addition, commercial fishing is a major source of income for selfemployed residents, and state and federal grants recently funded a new shellfish 

farm in the area (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In 2013, 15 residents held 15 

commercial fishing permits (ACFEC 2015). Three of these permits were used for

commercial landings for crab, halibut, and salmon. 

Tourism is a growing source of seasonal work opportunities, including a 

destination sportfishing lodge on Killisnoo Island that employs approximately 75 

seasonal employees. Logging on Prince of Wales Island also provides limited

seasonal employment (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

An estimated 19 percent of the labor force in Angoon was unemployed and 

seeking work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole

(U.S. Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Other estimates place the 

unemployment rate at more than 60 percent (Alexander et al. 2010). Median 

household income in 2013 was $32,250, less than half of the state median of 

$70,760; the corresponding median for the Hoonah-Angoon Census Area (CA)

was $49,545 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Angoon city 572 532 520 480 464 478 467 468 431 450 459 474 455 438 416

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

1970 Population: 400

1980 Population: 465

1990 Population: 638
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-548 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 14 7

Construction 7 4

Manufacturing 1 1

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 19 10

Information 1 1

Financial Activities 11 6

Professional and Business Services 1 1

Educational and Health Services 29 15

Leisure and Hospitality 20 10

State Government 1 1

Local Government 95 48

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 199 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Angoon has some of the highest electric rates in Alaska due to the use of dieselgenerated power. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of 

PCE payments were 63 cents/kWh and 23 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 

in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates 

were 63 cents/kWh. Kootznoowoo, Inc., the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act Corporation for the City of Angoon, has proposed to develop a 1 megawatt 

(MW), run-of-river hydroelectric facility on Thayer Creek to replace the use of 

diesel generators (Table 3.12b-3).

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Angoon in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown in Figure 3.23-7. This area contains 1,083,231 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-10 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest 

levels represent a small portion of the community use area for Angoon, ranging 

from about 2.6 percent (Alternative 1) to 3.4 percent (Alternative 2). Harvest 

activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location 

favored by Angoon residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to 

future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be 

higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber 

production within the community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives

2 and 5; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least 

amount of potential suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old growth 

harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-10).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-549 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-7

Angoon’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-10

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Angoon’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 19,233 32,724 28,379 23,739 29,493

Old Growth 8,603 4,181 4,511 5,634 4,894

Total 27,836 36,906 32,890 29,373 34,386

Harvest as a Percent 

of Total NFS Lands in 

the Community Use 

Area

2.6% 3.4% 3.0% 2.7% 3.2%
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-550 Final EIS

Economy

Angoon is a traditional native community. Commercial fishing and subsistence 

use are the primary factors influencing Angoon. For subsistence use, Admiralty 

and Catherine Islands are especially important to Angoon. No timber harvest 

would occur on the NFS land within the Angoon community use area on 

Admiralty Island under any of the alternatives. Employment in the commercial 

fishing sector is not expected to be affected under any of the alternatives.

ANILCA section 506(a)(3)(B) granted Kootznoowoo, Inc. the right to develop 

hydroelectric resources on Admiralty Island subject to such conditions as the 

Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe for the protection of water, fishery, 

wildlife, recreational, and scenic values. As directed by ANILCA, the Forest 

Service will issue special use permits, with specified conditions, to allow 

construction and operation of the project under the terms of the May 2009 

Record of Decision for the project.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

52 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Angoon households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates), primarily salmon, accounted for the majority (62 percent) 

of per capita subsistence harvest in Angoon in 2012 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 30 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Angoon households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 28 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Angoon residents in 2012 (ADF&G 2014). 

The WAAs used by Angoon residents for hunting deer lie within Game 

Management Unit (GMU) 4. GMU 4 is considered to provide a substantial 

portion of the deer hunting opportunity in Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). 

Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately severe winters the following two 

winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer populations throughout Southeast 

Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population has rebounded in recent years, 

leading to an increase in successful hunters in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among 

Angoon residents, however, total annual deer harvest has fluctuated and was 

lower in 2013 than 2004 by about 47 percent (79 fewer deer) (ADF&G 2015b). 

Angoon residents take the majority (59 percent) of their deer from three WAAs on 

Admiralty Island (4042, 4054, and 4055). As shown in Table 3.23-11, these 

three WAAs will not be affected by any of the alternatives. The next two WAAs in 

importance contribute 12 percent of Angoon’s deer harvest and would also not

be affected under any of the alternatives. WAA 3308 would be minimally 

affected by Alternatives 1, 4, and 5, each decreasing deer habitat capability by 

one percent after 100 years. Therefore, all alternatives should be able to provide 

habitat capability for deer hunted by Angoon residents, as well as for all deer 

hunted within the WAAs, over the course of Forest Plan implementation. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-551 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-11

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Angoon Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest 

from 2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Angoon

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

4042 31 32 41 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4055 28 33 48 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

4054 18 19 21 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3939 9 71 105 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4041 6 16 19 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%

3308 4 61 107 66% 65% 66% 66% 65% 65% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Coffman Cove is located on northeast Prince of Wales Island. Settlement of 

Coffman Cove began in 1956 with development of a logging camp. A road 

connecting Coffman Cove to the larger community of Craig was built in the 

1980s. In 2015, the Rainforest Islands Ferry started providing ferry service four 

times a week between Coffman Cove, Wrangell, and Petersburg. The city was 

incorporated in 1989. 

Population has fluctuated over recent decades, but has not declined dramatically 

(Figure 3.23-3). According to the 2010 Census, Coffman Cove had a population 

of 176, with Alaska Natives comprising 4 percent of the total (Table 3.23-8). 

Total estimated population was 174 in Coffman Cove in 2014 (Figure 3.23-8).

School enrollment in Coffman Cove dropped from 47 students in 1990 to just 11 

students in 2010, and has since increased to 24 students (Table 3.23-9). The 

community has at times struggled to maintain the minimum 10 students required 

by Alaska state law (Alexander et al. 2010).

Coffman Cove
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-552 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-8

Coffman Cove Population 1980 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Construction and 

local government provide the majority of employment for Coffman Cove. 

Logging support services historically provided the majority of employment in 

Coffman Cove. One of the major log transfer sites on Prince of Wales Island is 

located at Coffman Cove. Logging support services still provide some 

employment, but most employment is now recreation and tourism-based. A 

review of business licenses in January 2015 indicated two small sawmills remain 

active in the community. Tourism facilities include fishing lodges, bed and 

breakfast inns, apartment/bunkhouse facilities, and rental cabins, as well as 

fishing day charter operations (Dugan et al. 2009). Commercial fishermen also 

operate out of the cove and the local school system, library, general store, and 

gas station also provide employment, as well as services to community residents 

and the north part of the island. In 2013, six residents held seven commercial 

fishing permits, two of which were used for shellfish and salmon catches (ACFEC 

2015). 

An estimated 12 percent of the labor force in Coffman Cove was unemployed 

and seeking work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a 

whole (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household 

income was $43,750, compared to the state median of $70,760; the 

corresponding median for the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 

3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Coffman Cove 199 180 170 179 203 185 200 185 183 207 176 175 180 162 174

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980 Population: 193

1990 Population: 186
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-553 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 7 10

Construction 18 26

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 7 10

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 1 1

Educational and Health Services 4 6

Leisure and Hospitality 0 0

State Government 4 6

Local Government 29 41

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 70 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Coffman Cove is part of the AP&T system that connects the community with the 

communities of Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, and Thorne Bay. 

Electricity is diesel generated. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the 

application of PCE payments were 47 cents/kWh and 18 cents/kWh, respectively 

(see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial 

and other rates were 47 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Coffman Cove in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence 

activities is shown on Figure 3.23-9. This area contains 1,228,787 acres of NFS

land (among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-12 shows the estimated 

maximum acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total 

areas available for harvest range from about 8.8 percent of the Coffman Cove 

community use area under Alternative 1 to 11.6 percent under Alternative 2.

Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide with areas favored 

by Coffman Cove residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future 

analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher 

under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber 

production within the community use area; as would be the case with Alternatives

2 and 3; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least 

amount of total potential suitable acres) would have the largest potential oldgrowth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-12).
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-554 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-9

Coffman Cove’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-12

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Coffman Cove’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 89,985 131,000 124,956 103,466 113,809

Old Growth 15,757 7,886 7,483 11,731 12,033

Total 105,742 138,887 132,439 115,197 125,842

Harvest as a Percent of 

Total NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

8.8% 11.6% 11.1% 9.6% 10.5%
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-555 Subregional Overview and Communities

Economy

Logging support services historically provided the majority of employment in 

Coffman Cove and still provide some employment, but most employment is now 

recreation and tourism-based. Timber harvest in the community use area could 

potentially support employment in logging support services. Recreation and 

tourism and commercial fishing activities are not expected to be affected by any 

of the alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

65 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Coffman Cove households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for the majority (71 percent) of per capita 

subsistence harvest in the community in 1998 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1998 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 32 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Coffman Cove households 

(Kruse and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 20 percent of per capita 

subsistence harvest by Coffman Cove residents in 1998 (ADF&G 2014). 

Coffman Cove residents harvest deer almost entirely on Prince of Wales Island, 

which is included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline from 2006 to 

2009 due to severe winters, the population is now considered stable to 

increasing, with above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among 

Coffman Cove residents, total annual deer harvest in 2013 was about double the 

2004 harvest level (72 more deer) (ADF&G 2015b). 

Residents of Coffman Cove harvest the majority (70 percent) of their deer from 

two WAAs in the eastern half of north-central Prince of Wales Island (1420 and 

1421). As shown in Table 3.23-13, the Coffman Cove portion represents about 

one-quarter of the total harvest and about one-third of the rural hunter harvest in 

these WAAs. About 38 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is by 

non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could be 

restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

All of the WAAs used by Coffman Cove residents occur in an area with 

substantial past timber harvest and, therefore, deer habitat capabilities are 

currently estimated to be considerably below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-13). Under 

each of the alternatives, additional harvest would occur that would reduce habitat 

capabilities after 100 years by a further 4 to 5 percent of 1954 levels in WAA 

1420, 4 to 6 percent in WAA 1421, and 5 to 6 percent in WAA 1315 (Table 3.23-

13).

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives except for Alternative 7 and 

9 should be able to provide sufficient habitat capability over the long term for 

deer hunted by Coffman Cove residents. All of the 1997 alternatives included 

substantially higher levels of timber harvest in Coffman Cove’s community use 

area than the alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 61 to 230 

percent higher). Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide 

sufficient habitat capability over the long term for deer hunted by Coffman Cove 

residents. However, the 1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the 

capability of the habitat to produce deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on 

hunter success for all rural hunters in the long term and for all hunters in both the 

short and long term. This may still be the case under all current alternatives. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-556 Final EIS

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Coffman Cove residents (fish

and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that 

some restriction on hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for 

non-rural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect 

effects associated with increased competition for deer within Coffman Cove’s 

subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from other 

communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Table 3.23-13

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Coffman Cove Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Coffman 

Cove

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1420 59 158 276 49% 45% 45% 45% 45% 44%

1421 31 76 102 68% 62% 63% 63% 63% 64%

1315 7 201 317 56% 50% 51% 50% 51% 50% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Craig is partially situated on an island connected to the west coast of Prince of 

Wales Island by a causeway and is the largest community on Prince of Wales 

Island. Tlingit fish camps and seasonal villages originally occupied the present 

location of Craig. The city is named for its contemporary founder, Craig Miller, 

who in 1907, with the help of local Haidas, established a saltery at Fish Egg 

Island. 

The Forest Service established a permanent ranger station here around 1919. 

The City of Craig was incorporated in 1922 as a second-class city under the laws 

of the territory of Alaska and became a first-class city in 1973. Shaan-Seet Inc. 

(the village corporation established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act of 1971 [ANCSA]) received an interim conveyance of 20,852 acres in 1979 

(ADF&G 1994). The community has an active local Fish and Game Advisory 

Committee (ADF&G 2015a).

The population of Craig increased more than fivefold between 1970 and 2000

(Figure 3.23-10). According to the 2010 Census, Craig had a population of 

1,201, with Alaska Natives comprising 20 percent of the total (Table 3.23-8). The 

total population decreased by an estimated 199 residents or 14 percent from 

2000 to 2014. Total estimated population was 1,198 in Craig in 2014 (Figure 

3.23-10). A total of 573 students were enrolled in the Craig City School District in 

2014, down from 630 students in 2010 (Table 3.23-9). 

Craig
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-557 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-10

Craig Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Craig economy is primarily based on the fishing and timber industry with 

commercial fishing, fish processing, logging, sawmill operations, government and 

retail/wholesale businesses providing the majority of employment. Columbia 

Ward Fisheries, a fish buying station, and a major cold storage plant are located 

in Craig and 145 residents hold commercial fishing permits (ACFEC 2015). 

Estimated gross fishing earnings of local residents reached nearly $11 million in 

2013. The Viking Lumber sawmill, St. Nick Forest Products, and one smaller 

sawmill are located near Craig. According to the 2013 mill survey conducted for 

the USDA Forest Service, the Viking Lumber mill, which has an installed 

production capacity of 80 million board feet (MMBF), processed approximately 15

MMBF in 2013 and employed 34 people (Parrent and Grewe 2014). Shaan-Seet 

Village Corporation timber operations is also a major employer of local residents. 

As Craig has grown as a regional center for Prince of Wales Island communities, 

employment opportunities in tourism and service-related industries have also 

increased (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). Most visitors come to Craig for sport 

fishing and other recreational boating. There are also a number of fishing lodges 

in and near town, as well independent operators offering package trips that 

include guided fishing, meals, and lodging (Cerveny 2005; Dugan et al. 2009). A 

field study of nature-based tourism in Southeast Alaska found that during the 

summer of 2007, Craig had 2,592 visitors bringing in approximately $6.4 million 

in revenue (Dugan et al. 2009). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 10 

percent of the labor force in Craig was unemployed and seeking work in 2013, 

compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Craig 1,397 1,250 1,215 1,192 1,174 1,146 1,152 1,120 1,193 1,194 1,201 1,250 1,241 1,194 1,198

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

1970 Population: 272

1980 Population: 527

1990 Population: 1,260
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-558 Final EIS

2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $45,298, compared 

to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the Prince of 

Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Craig is part of the AP&T system that connects the community with the 

communities of Coffman Cove, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, and Thorne 

Bay. Craig is served by hydroelectric generation, with diesel generation used as 

a back-up. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE 

payments were 24 cents/kWh and 16 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the 

Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 

24 cents/kWh. 

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 39 7

Construction 45 8

Manufacturing 29 5

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 139 26

Information 1 < 1

Financial Activities 12 2

Professional and Business Services 23 4

Educational and Health Services 46 9

Leisure and Hospitality 47 9

State Government 18 3

Local Government 128 24

Other 9 1

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 536 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Potential Effects

Community Use Area 

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Craig

in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is shown on 

Figure 3.23-11. This area contains 766,933 acres of NFS land (among other 

land ownerships). Table 3.23-14 shows the estimated maximum acres of younggrowth and old-growth potentially available for harvest by alternative. Total areas 

available for harvest range from about 7.7 percent of the Craig community use 

area under Alternative 1 to 10.6 percent under Alternative 2. Harvest activities 

could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular area favored by 

Craig residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis 

under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it 

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential 

suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old growth harvest in this area 

(see Table 3.23-14).

Economy

Craig is primarily a commercial fishing, retail trade, and timber community. It is 

most likely to be affected by changes in timber employment, commercial fishing, 

and retail services. Viking Lumber, the largest and most modern sawmill in the 

region, is located between Craig and Klawock. The alternatives would all supply 

old-growth volume to support operations at Viking Lumber in the short-term, but 

the amount of old-growth timber available for sale would decrease over time, as 

the Forest Service completes the transition to young-growth. The speed of the 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-559 Subregional Overview and Communities

transition and the relative and absolute volumes of young-growth would vary by 

alternative as discussed in the Regional and National Economy section, above.

Several small timber operators produce value-added products in Craig. These 

value added products include music wood, cabinets, and other products. These 

operators process relatively low volumes of timber, but require specific species 

and grades to meet their needs. All alternatives would supply old-growth volume 

(5 MMBF) to support the small operators in Southeast Alaska, including those 

located in and and around Craig. 

Employment in the commercial fishing sector is not expected to be affected 

under any of the alternatives.

Figure 3.23-11

Craig’s Community Use Area
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-560 Final EIS

Table 3.23-14

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Craig’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 47,273 73,058 68,617 56,495 60,686

Old Growth 9,442 4,955 5,525 7,505 7,738

Total 56,715 78,013 74,142 64,000 68,424

Harvest as a Percent of 

Total NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

7.7% 10.6% 10.1% 8.7% 9.3%

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

70 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Craig households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and marine 

invertebrates) accounted for 67 percent of per capita subsistence harvest in 

Craig in 1997 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 22 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Craig households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 19 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Craig residents in 1997 (ADF&G 2014). 

Craig residents harvest deer almost entirely on Prince of Wales and adjacent 

islands, which are included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline 2006-

2009 due to severe winters, the population is now considered stable to 

increasing, with above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among 

Craig residents, total annual deer harvest in 2013 was about double the 2004 

harvest level (380 more deer) (ADF&G 2015b). 

Deer harvest by Craig residents is spread over many WAAs, but the majority (55

percent) of their deer are harvested from six WAAs in central and northern Prince 

of Wales Island (the top six WAAs in Table 3.23-15). The Craig portion of the 

harvest in these six WAAs represents about one-third of the total harvest and 

about one-half of the rural hunter harvest (Table 3.23-15). About 32 percent of 

the combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, indicating that there 

is a harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are 

placed on rural harvests. 

The majority of the WAAs used heavily by Craig residents are in areas with 

substantial past timber harvest and deer habitat capabilities are currently 

estimated to be below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-15). Under each of the 

alternatives, additional harvest would reduce habitat capabilities by 1 to 8 percent 

after 100 years, except for two WAAs where there would be no effect (0902 and 

1107). Reductions would be broadly similar across all alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-561 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-15

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Craig Residents Obtain Approximately 

75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Craig

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1422 106 247 383 57% 50% 52% 51% 50% 50%

1318 70 159 198 90% 83% 85% 84% 84% 84%

1214 60 120 235 77% 71% 72% 71% 72% 71%

1332 56 67 76 88% 87% 88% 87% 87% 87%

0902 55 65 82 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1317 51 93 133 58% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56%

0901 43 56 66 95% 91% 95% 93% 92% 93%

1319 40 169 226 74% 67% 67% 69% 69% 69%

1107 30 99 130 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

1315 29 201 317 56% 50% 51% 50% 51% 50% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 Alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability in both the short and long terms for deer hunted by 

Craig residents. All of the 1997 Alternatives included substantially higher levels 

of timber harvest in Craig’s community use area than the alternatives considered 

in this EIS (approximately 107 to 325 percent higher). Therefore, it is likely all of 

the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted 

by Craig residents. However, the 1997 analysis concluded that demand would 

exceed the capability of the habitat to produce deer populations sufficient to 

avoid effects on hunter success for all rural hunters in the long term and for all 

hunters in both the short and long terms. This may still be the case under all 

current alternatives.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Craig residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for nonrural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect 

effects associated with increased competition for deer within Craig’s subsistence 

use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from other 

communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Edna Bay is located on southeast Kosciusko Island, west of Prince of Wales 

Island, and north of Sea Otter Sound. Originally, Tlingit Indians from west Prince 

of Wales Island used Edna Bay on a seasonal basis. In 1943, a logging camp 

was established when the demand for aircraft-quality spruce was high. The 

camp closed in the late 1960s and the buildings were burned and the site 

cleaned. In 1977, the State selected part of the Tongass National Forest at Edna 

Edna Bay
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-562 Final EIS

Bay, with the USDA Forest Service reserving two administrative sites. In 1982, 

the State sold several lots around Edna Bay to private landowners. A small 

community developed as families, mainly those involved in commercial fishing, 

moved to Edna Bay. A school was constructed and a road connecting dispersed 

segments of the community was completed (ADF&G 1994).

Edna Bay remains an unincorporated city. The community has an active local 

Fish and Game Advisory Committee and has shown a strong commitment to 

protecting local commercial fishing and subsistence resources (ADF&G 1994,

2015). Edna Bay is accessible by water or by float plane from Ketchikan. Most 

households own skiffs for transportation around the bay and to other near shore 

areas not accessible by road (ADF&G 1994).

Edna Bay’s population fluctuated a great deal between 1970 and 1990, primarily 

due to the transition away from timber harvesting as a main economic activity 

(Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). By 2000, the population had decreased again, by 

about 40 percent, and has since remained relatively consistant (Figure 3.23-12). 

According to the 2010 Census, Edna Bay had a population of 42, with no Alaska 

Native population (Table 3.23-8). Total estimated population was 46 in Edna Bay 

in 2014 (Figure 3.23-12). The Edna Bay School has struggled to maintain the 

required minimum of 10 students and was not open in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-12

Edna Bay Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Edna Bay is characterized by its fishing and subsistence culture (Himes-Cornell 

et al. 2013). The majority of employment in Edna Bay is provided by commercial 

fishing, construction, the local school district, and one local sawmill. Many 

residents are self-employed (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In 2013, 11 residents 

held commercial fishing licences, primarily used for halibut and salmon. 

Estimated gross income for these two fisheries that year was over $115,000 

(ACFEC 2015). 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Edna Bay 49 39 39 43 42 40 39 40 37 46 42 50 39 49 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1970 Population: 112

1980 Population: 6

1990 Population: 86
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-563 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Due to method 

limitations of the ACS, no data were available for the 2013 unemployment rate or 

median household income. State data indicate that there were seven 

unemployment insurance claimants in 2013, and annual wages among workers 

ranged from under $5,000 (4 residents) to over $50,000 (5 residents) (Alaska 

DOL 2015f). 

Edna Bay has no central utility system and residents rely upon individual 

generators.

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 2 13

Construction 4 27

Manufacturing 2 13

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 0 0

Information 1 7

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 1 7

Leisure and Hospitality 0 0

State Government 0 0

Local Government 5 33

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 15 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Edna 

Bay in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-13. This area contains 665,386 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-16 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total areas available for 

harvest range from about 7.8 percent of the Edna Bay community use area under 

Alternative 1 to 10.7 percent under Alternative 2. Harvest activities could have 

localized effects if they coincide with an area favored by Edna Bay residents, and 

project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis under NEPA. In 

general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those alternatives with 

more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the community use 

area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted 

that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential suitable 

harvest) would have the largest potential old growth harvest in this area (see 

Table 3.23-16).

Economy

Edna Bay is primarily a commercial fishing and subsistence community. 

Employment in the commercial fishing sector is not expected to be affected 

under any of the alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources accounted for 

59 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Edna Bay households based on the 1998 TRUCS study (Kruse and Frazier 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-564 Final EIS

1988). Marine resources (fish and marine invertebrates) accounted for 67 

percent of per capita subsistence harvest in Edna Bay in 1998 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 21 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Edna Bay households 

(Kruse and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 23 percent of per capita 

subsistence harvest by Edna Bay residents in 1998 (ADF&G 2014). 

Four WAAs have been identified as most important to Edna Bay residents for 

deer harvest (Table 3.23-17). About 68 percent of Edna Bay’s harvest is derived 

from the first two WAAs, which are included in GMU 2. Following a deer 

population decline from 2006 to 2009 due to severe winters, the population is 

now considered stable to increasing, with above-average deer harvest in this 

GMU (Harper 2013). Among Edna Bay residents, total annual deer harvest was 

36 percent higher (9 more deer) in 2013 than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

Residents of Edna Bay are responsible for the majority (79 percent) of the deer 

harvested on Kosciusko Island (WAA 1525), but only a small portion of the deer 

harvested on Heceta Island (WAA 1003) and in other WAAs. As shown in Table 

3.23-17, the Edna Bay portion represents about 8 percent of the total harvest and 

about 11 percent of the rural hunter harvest in these WAAs. About 23 percent of 

the combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that 

there is a harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions 

are placed on rural harvests. 

Figure 3.23-13

Edna Bay’s Community Use Area
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-565 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-16

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Edna Bay’s Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 41,562 63,836 61,246 50,101 53,223

Old Growth 7,955 3,873 4,261 6,125 5,880

Total 49,517 67,709 65,507 56,226 59,103

Harvest as a Percent of Total 

NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

7.8% 10.7% 10.4% 8.9% 9.3%

Table 3.23-17

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Edna Bay Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 20132

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Edna Bay

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters3

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1525 18 18 18 59% 58% 58% 58% 57% 58%

1003 3 28 44 59% 55% 58% 58% 54% 55%

1318 1 159 198 90% 83% 85% 84% 84% 84%

1526 1 9 18 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known.

2 2004 and 2006 data not available for Edna Bay residents. 3 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding Juneau and Ketchikan.

The two WAAs used most heavily by Edna Bay residents are in areas with 

substantial past timber harvest and deer habitat capabilities are currently 

estimated to be considerably below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-17). The next two 

important WAAs have been less affected by past harvest, though are still under 

1954 levels. Under each of the alternatives, additional harvest would further 

reduce habitat capabilities in three of the four WAAs, by 1 to 7 percent (Table 

3.23-17). Reductions would be broadly similar across alternatives.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all of the alternatives should be able to provide 

habitat capability for deer hunted by Edna Bay residents, all rural hunters, and all 

hunters, within the WAAs where Edna Bay hunters derive most of their deer 

harvest. As all of the 1997 alternatives proposed substantially higher levels of 

harvest in Edna Bay’s community use area (approximately 95 to 318 percent 

higher) than currently under consideration, all alternatives in this EIS should be 

able to provide habitat capability for deer hunted by Edna Bay residents, as well 

as for all deer hunted within the WAAs. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Edna Bay residents (fish and 

marine resources) is not expected to be affected under any of the alternatives. In 

addition, subsistence use of deer by Edna Bay households is unlikely to be 

directly affected by any of the alternatives. Future young-growth management 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-566 Final EIS

(e.g., thinning) would further reduce the potential for effects on local hunters. It is 

possible, however, that additional timber harvest throughout Prince of Wales and 

adjacent islands would create increased competition for deer within Edna Bay’s 

subsistence use areas if hunters from other communities were displaced due to 

timber harvest activity. These impacts are estimated to be relatively minor based 

on the limited accessibility of these island areas to non-local hunters. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Elfin Cove is an unincorporated small fishing town located on northwest 

Chichagof Island, accessible by floatplane from Juneau. Prior to its development 

as a community, Native Tlingit groups, now based largely in Hoonah, used the 

Elfin Cove area for hunting, fishing, and gathering, as well as a safe harbor. 

A fish buyer established a business here in 1927. The opening of a cold storage 

plant at Pelican, less than 20 miles from Elfin Cove in Lisianski Inlet, meant that 

fish no longer had to be hauled all the way to Juneau. Today, the cove still 

serves as a key stopover and supply center for fishermen and the year-round 

community is made up largely of fishing households. The community has a local 

Fish and Game Advisory Committee, however it is currently inactive (ADF&G 

2015a). 

The population fluctuated between 1970 and 1990, and has since been in decline 

(Figure 3.23-14). According to the 2010 Census, Elfin Cove had a population of

20, one of whom was an Alaska Native (Table 3.23-8). As of 2014, an estimated 

16 residents live in Elfin Cove (Figure 3.23-14). The school closed in 1999 and 

any school age children resident in the community are homeschooled (Alexander 

et al. 2010).

Figure 3.23-14

Elfin Cove Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Elfin Cove

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Elfin Cove 32 26 30 29 24 26 23 19 20 23 20 17 20 16 16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1970 Population: 49

1980 Population: 28

1990 Population: 57
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-567 Subregional Overview and Communities

Economic Conditions

The economy of Elfin Cove is highly seasonal and primarily based on the fishing 

industry. It is a fish buying and supply center for fishermen and residents 

participate in commercial fishing, sport fishing, and charter services (HimesCornell et al. 2013). In 2013, there were 24 commercial fishing permit holders 

who self-identified as Elifin Cove residents2, earning an estimated gross $1.6 

million primarily from salmon and halibut fisheries (ACFEC 2015). No timber 

resources are harvested commercially in the area (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

A study of nature-based tourism in Southeast Alaska found that although Elfin 

Cove had been dependent on the commercial fishing industry for decades, the 

focus of the town’s economy has shifted toward tourism and sportfishing (Dugan 

et al. 2009). In 2005, 1,528 people visited Elfin Cove bringing in nearly $5 million 

in revenue. This study also found that the community’s population ranged from 

12 in the winter to 200 in the summer, with much of the summer increase 

associated with employment in nine sport fishing lodges. The study estimated 

that 54 people, almost all non-residents, were employed by these lodges during 

the summer. Small cruise ships, mostly carrying 60 to 70 passengers, dock at 

Elfin Cove, with 30 dockings in 2005 (Dugan et al. 2009). Permanent residents 

have noted that the community does not benefit to the extent it could if more 

tourism businesses were owned and operated by locals (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 32 

percent of the labor force in Elfin Cove was identified as unemployed and 

seeking work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income 

was $43,125, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding 

median for the Hoonah-Angoon CA was $49,545 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 0 0

Construction 0 0

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 10 71

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 0 0

Leisure and Hospitality 0 0

State Government 3 21

Local Government 1 7

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 14 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Elfin Cove has a central electric utility system that relies on diesel generation with 

the highest electric rates in the region. Residential rates for 2011 before and 

after the application of PCE payments were 75 cents/kWh and 36 cents/kWh, 

respectively (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). 

Commercial and other rates were 75 cents/kWh and 73 cents/kWh, respectively. 

The Community of Elfin Cove filed a Notice of Intent to File a License Application 

 2 The permit holders’ city of residence is as reported on ACFEC licensing forms. It is likely 

that people living in remote areas in the vicinity of Elfin Cove also list it as their city of 

residence (or have a Post Office box in town).
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-568 Final EIS

for the Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commision in February 2015. The proposed project located 

about one mile from the community would have an installed capacity of 10 MW or 

less. The project site is located in a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD and 

Inventoried Roadless Area 311.

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Elfin 

Cove in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-15. This area contains 357,385 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). No young-growth or old-growth harvest is projected to 

take place in the community use area for Elfin Cove over the next 100 years 

under any alternative; therefore no timber-harvest-related effects to this area are 

expected. 

Economy

Commercial fishing, recreation and tourism, and subsistence use are important to 

Elfin Cove. The acreage in the Elfin Cove community use area is either 

Wilderness or natural setting LUD allocations. Local timber harvest is not a 

significant part of the local economy. Employment in the commercial fishing 

sector is not expected to be affected under any of the alternatives. Tourism, 

especially sportfishing, is becoming increasingly important to Elfin Cove. A 

number of lodges operate out of the community. Recreation and tourism based 

on sportfishing is expected to increase by the same amount under all of the 

alternatives.

The proposed Crooked Creek and Jim’s Lake Hydroelectric Project is located in 

a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD and Inventoried Roadless Area 311. SemiRemote Recreation is considered a Transportation and Utility System (TUS)

“window” under the 2008 Forest Plan, an area potentially available for the 

location of transportation or utility corridors and sites. This classification and the 

standards and guidelines in the current Forest Plan would continue to apply 

under Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, energy projects would be 

managed under theRenewable Energy Plan Components identified in Chapter 5 

of the proposed Forest Plan amendment. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-569 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-15

Elfin Cove’s Community Use Area

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources accounted for 

63 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Elfin 

Cove households based on the 1988 TRUCS study (Kruse and Frazier 1988). The 

1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 27 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Elfin Cove households (Kruse and 

Frazier 1988). 

The WAAs used by Elfin Cove residents for hunting deer lie within GMU 4. GMU 

4 is considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity in 

Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately 

severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer 

populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population 

has rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in 

this GMU (Harper 2013). However, deer harvest by Elfin Cove residents has 

generally declined over the past decade, with about 51 percent lower total annual 

harvest (or 20 fewer deer) in 2013 than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-570 Final EIS

Elfin Cove residents take the majority (82 percent) of their deer from two WAAs 

(3421 and 3420). As shown in Table 3.23-18, these WAAs would not be affected 

by any of the alternatives as no timber harvest is proposed in these areas. It is 

also unlikely that Elfin Cove residents would be affected by increased 

competition because of the limited access and the lack of activities under the 

alternatives in this area.

Table 3.23-18

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Elfin Cove Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Elfin Cove

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3421 13 42 66 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3420 2 19 52 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known.

2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Gustavus is located in northern Southeast Alaska on the north shore of Icy 

Straits, east of the entrance to Glacier Bay. Prior to the founding of the present 

community, Huna Tlingit used the land and resources in the immediate vicinity of 

the community site. Use of a salmon camp near the mouth of the Salmon River 

was noted by early Gustavus settlers; however, after a short period of settlement 

by the new community, the Huna Tlingit generally discontinued use of the camp 

(ADF&G 1994). 

Gustavus was settled and named “Strawberry Point” in 1914 by a small group of 

immigrants from the lower 48 planning to develop the land as agricultural 

homesteads. World War II brought development to Gustavus in the form of an 

airstrip and Federal Aviation Administration communications facilities. Nearby 

Glacier Bay National Monument was established in 1925, and became a National 

Park in 1980 (ADF&G 1994; Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). The City of Gustavus 

was incorporated as a second-class city in 2004. 

The population of Gustavus quadrupled between 1970 and 1990 (primarily after 

the establishment of the National Park), and increased by 66 percent between 

1990 and 2000 (Figure 3.23-16). The community has continued to grow since 

2000, with an estimated total population of 516 in 2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). 

According to the 2010 Census, Alaska Natives comprised 3 percent of the total 

population (Table 3.23-8). A total of 65 students were enrolled in the Gustavus 

School in 2014, up from 48 students in 2000 (Table 3.23-9).

Gustavus
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-571 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-16

Gustavus Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Gustavus is known as a “Gateway to Glacier Bay National Park,” which 

contributes to its highly seasonal local economy (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). The 

park and its lodge attract tourists and recreation enthusiasts during the summer 

months with the population doubling during the visitor season. Gustavus has 

many seasonal homes for residents of Juneau (Alexander et al. 2010).

In 2013, 35 residents held commercial fishing permits and earned an estimated 

gross $1.3 million from salmon and halibut fisheries (ACFEC 2015). In addition, 

many local residents practice subsistence harvest (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Several lodges and bed and breakfasts, an airport, school, small businesses, and 

the Park Service are primary employers of local residents (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 7 

percent of the labor force in Gustavus was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2010, similar to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $52,188, 

compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the 

Hoonah-Angoon CA was $49,545 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 4 3

Construction 18 12

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 51 34

Information 1 1

Financial Activities 3 2

Professional and Business Services 3 2

Educational and Health Services 6 4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Gustavus 429 399 404 416 435 445 431 437 452 464 442 456 488 501 516

300

350

400

450

500

550

1970 Population: 64

1980 Population: 98

1990 Population: 258
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-572 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Leisure and Hospitality 13 9

State Government 11 7

Local Government 32 22

Other 2 1

Unknown 5 3

Total Employment 149 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

The Gustavus Electric Company provides electricity to Gustavus, operating a 

diesel powerhouse, with electricity also generated by the Falls Creek 

Hydroelectric Facility, which was completed in 2009. Residential rates for 2011 

before and after the application of PCE payments were 45 cents/kWh and 28

cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 

2015]). Commercial and other rates were 45 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area 

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Gustavus in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-17. This area contains 480,541 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-19 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest 

areas represent a small portion of the community use area for Gustavus, ranging 

from 1.4 percent (Alternative 4) to 2.5 percent (Alternatives 2 and 5). Harvest 

activities could have localized effects if they coincide with an area favored by 

Gustavus residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis 

under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 5; however, it

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have less potential total suitable 

harvest compared to Alternatives 2 and 5) would have the largest potential old 

growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-19).

Economy

Gustavus is a small community located near Glacier Bay National Park. 

Recreation and tourism are important to Gustavus, especially in relation to use of 

the National Park. Commercial fishing and subsistence use are also important to 

the community. These uses are not expected to be affected under any of the 

alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-573 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-17

Gustavus’ Community Use Area

Table 3.23-19

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Gustavus’ Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 4,964 10,257 9,514 4,789 9,385

Old Growth 3,325 1,612 1,888 2,210 2,589

Total 8,289 11,869 11,403 6,999 11,975

Harvest as a Percent of Total 

NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

1.7% 2.5% 2.4% 1.4% 2.5%

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 69 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Gustavus in 1987 (Kruse and Frazier 1988).
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-574 Final EIS

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 70 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Gustavus households 

(Kruse and Frazier 1988). 

The primary WAAs used by Gustavus residents for hunting deer lie within GMU 

4. GMU 4 is considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting 

opportunity in Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 

and moderately severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline 

in the deer populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer 

population has rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful 

hunters in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Gustavus residents, total annual 

deer harvest appears to have followed a corresponding pattern, with a dip 

following 2006 and increasing in recent years. In 2013, total annual deer harvest 

by Gustavus residents was 23 percent higher (19 more deer) than in 2004 

(ADF&G 2015b). 

Gustavus residents take the majority (73 percent) of their deer from two WAAs 

on northern Chichagof Island and Pleasant, Lemesurier, and Inian Islands (4256 

and 4222). As shown in Table 3.23-20, WAA 4256, which provides over half of

Gustavus’ harvest, would not be affected by any of the alternatives because it is 

in wilderness. WAA 4222 would be affected by timber harvest, further reducing 

habitat capability by one percent under all alternatives (Table 3.23-20).

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all of the alternatives should be able to provide 

habitat capability for deer hunted by Gustavus residents, all rural hunters, and all 

hunters within the WAAs where Gustavus hunters derive most of their deer 

harvest in the short term. In the long term, sufficient habitat would be provided 

for Gustavus residents and all rural hunters, but not for all hunters. The 

predicted deficit for all hunters in the long term would be a natural condition, but 

would occur earlier with timber harvest in the area. All 1997 alternatives included 

substantially higher levels of timber harvest in Gustavus’ community use area 

than the alternatives considered in this EIS (over twice to 16 times as high). 

Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat 

capability for Gustavus residents and all rural hunters, though all hunters may still 

face a deficit depending on how conditions change independent from proposed 

timber harvest. This may lead to some restriction in hunting by non-rural hunters 

over the long term. 

Table 3.23-20

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Gustavus Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Gustavus

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2/

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

4256 47 52 68 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4222 10 32 44 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96% 1/Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2/The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-575 Subregional Overview and Communities

In summary, use of most subsistence resources (fish and marine invertebrates) 

by Gustavus residents is not expected to be affected under any of the 

alternatives. In addition, while subsistence use of deer by Gustavus households

is not likely to be affected, overall subsistence use of deer in the primary WAAs 

used by Gustavus residents may be slightly affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting by non-rural hunters might be necessary over the long term, 

under all alternatives. It is also unlikely that Gustavus residents would be 

affected by increased competition because of the limited access and the lack of 

activities under the alternatives in this area.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Haines is located in the northern portion of Southeast Alaska, near the north end of 

Lynn Canal on the Chilkat Peninsula. Haines is one of three Southeast communities

connected by road to Canada. According to the 2010 Census, Haines had a 

population of 1,713 with Alaska Natives comprising 11 percent of the total (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011). 

The Haines area was originally settled by the Chilkat Tlingits. The Chilkat 

Tlingits are now considered as two groups: the Chilkats of the Chilkat River, with 

Klukwan being the major population center, and the Chilkoots living in and near 

Haines. Haines itself was a trade center and mission site (ADF&G 1994). 

Klukwan, a Chilkat Indian Village near the Chilkat River and 22 miles north of 

Haines, had an estimated population of 84 in 2014. The village is known for its 

woven artwork of cedar bark and mountain goat hair. The area is host to the 

largest concentration of bald eagles in the world during the fall and winter at the 

nearby Chilkat Bald Eagle Reserve. Klukwan is located in the Hoonah-Angoon

CA.

Settlement did not concentrate in Haines until the late 1800s. The commercial fishing 

industry located several canneries in the Chilkat Inlet area near Haines beginning in 

1882; the Klondike gold rush brought thousands of prospectors to the town in the late 

1890s; and the Dalton Trail was established as an open access route into the interior 

in the 1890s. Haines incorporated as a city in 1910 and as a third class borough in 

1968 (ADF&G 1994). The community participates as the majority member of the 

Upper Lynn Canal Fish and Game Advisory Committee (ADF&G 2015a). 

Haines is a major trans-shipment point because of its ice-free, deep-water port 

and dock, and year-round road access to Canada and Interior Alaska on the 

Alaska Highway. It is a northern terminus of the Alaska Marine Highway System 

and a hub for transportation to and from Southeast Alaska (Alaska DCED 2006).

The population of Haines increased steadily between 1970 and 2000, increasing 

almost threefold, with a net gain of 1,348 residents (Figure 3.23-18). Population 

has fluctuated since 2000, dropping to a low of 1,666 residents in 2006. Total 

estimated population was 1,805 in Haines in 2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). School 

district enrollment has declined, dropping from 470 students in 1990 to 276 

students in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Haines
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-576 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-18

Haines Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The economy of Haines is highly seasonal, based primarily on the commercial 

fishing and tourism industries (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). Government, 

construction, and transportation are also important sectors for the community. 

Estimated gross fishing earnings of local residents neared $7 million in 2013 and 

110 residents hold commercial fishing permits (ACFEC 2015). In 2001, Royal 

Caribbean Cruise Lines ceased serving Haines as a port of call. Still, around 

45,000 cruise ship passengers visit each year, as well as many independent 

travelers through the Alaska Marine Highway System and by land along Haines 

Highway (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Employment by industry data, as compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor 

and Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 

5 percent of the labor force in Haines was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2010, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was 

$54,267, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Haines Borough was $52,866 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 35 5

Construction 44 6

Manufacturing 14 2

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 169 22

Information 10 1

Financial Activities 15 2

Professional and Business Services 28 4

Educational and Health Services 94 12

Leisure and Hospitality 115 15

State Government 65 9

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Haines 1,811 1,774 1,803 1,745 1,682 1,676 1,666 1,672 1,683 1,673 1,713 1,804 1,827 1,807 1,805

1,550

1,600

1,650

1,700

1,750

1,800

1,850

1970 Population: 463

1980 Population: 993

1990 Population: 1,238
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-577 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Local Government 152 20

Other 17 2

Unknown 2 < 1

Total Employment 760 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Haines is part of an AP&T system that connects Haines and Skagway in the 

Upper Lynn Canal Region, and is connected via an intertie to the existing Inside 

Passage Electric Cooperative system that serves Klukwan and Chilkat Valley.

The existing AP&T Goat Lake hydropower project is the main source of power for 

Haines (Table 3.12b-2). Residential rates for 2011 before and after the 

application of PCE payments were 22 cents/kWh and 15 cents/kWh, respectively 

(see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial 

and other rates were 22 cents/kWh.

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of the 

Haines Borough in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence 

activities is shown on Figure 3.23-19. This area contains 232,496 acres of NFS

land (among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-20 shows the estimated 

maximum acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Harvest 

areas represent a very small portion of the community use area for Haines, 

ranging from less than 0.1 percent (Alternative 4) to 0.5 percent (Alternative 2). 

Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide with an area 

favored by Haines residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future 

analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher 

under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber harvest.
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-578 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-19

Haines’ Community Use Area

Table 3.23-21

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Haines’ Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 219 1,223 921 23 1,126

Old Growth 121 59 0 0 0

Total 340 1,282 921 23 1,126

Harvest as a Percent of 

Total NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

0.14% 0.54% 0.39% 0.01% 0.48%

Economy

Commercial fishing, recreation and tourism, and subsistence use are important to 

Haines. Haines has an Alaska Marine Highway System ferry terminal and 

provides road access into Interior Alaska. Although timber harvest on State land 

and wood processing were historically a major sector of the Haines economy, 

wood products employment accounted for less than 10 jobs in Haines in 2012

(see Figure 3.23-5). Employment in the commercial fishing sector is not 

expected to be affected under any of the alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-579 Subregional Overview and Communities

68 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Haines’ households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 72 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Haines in 2012 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 15 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Haines households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 5 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Haines residents in 2012, with moose more important at 11 percent 

per capita (ADF&G 2014). Moose availability would not be significantly affected 

under any of the alternatives.

Haines residents mainly harvest deer in GMU 4. GMU 4 is considered to provide 

a substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity in Southeast Alaska (Harper 

2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately severe winters the 

following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer populations throughout 

Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population has rebounded in recent 

years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in this GMU (Harper 2013). 

Among Haines residents, total annual deer harvest has fluctuated over the past 

decade and in 2013 was about 26 percent lower (57 fewer deer) than in 2004 

(ADF&G 2015b). 

Twenty-three WAAs account for about 75 percent of deer harvest by Haines

residents. The three most heavily used WAAs—3421, 2202, and 3836—

accounted for about 28 percent of total deer harvest by Haines residents. As 

these numbers suggest, deer harvest by Haines residents is spread over a fairly 

wide area in GMU 4 (Table 3.23-22). As a result, Haines residents tend to 

comprise a relatively small share of total harvest by WAA, with one main 

exception—WAA 2202 on Sullivan Island, which has a low level of deer harvest

but nearly all by Haines residents. 

In 17 of the 23 WAAs, there would be no effect to deer habitat capability under 

any of the alternatives. Reductions in habitat capability in the eight affected 

WAAs would range from 1 to 8 percent, and would be similar under each 

alternative (Table 3.23-22). About 41 percent of the combined harvest in the 23 

WAAs used by Haines residents is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is 

a harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are 

placed on rural harvests.
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-580 Final EIS

Table 3.23-22

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Haines Residents Obtain Approximately 

75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Haines

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3421 20 42 66 68% 62% 64% 63% 63% 63%

2202 18 18 18 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%

3836 10 16 210 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4252 9 51 72 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

3420 9 19 52 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3938 7 41 75 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1106 7 17 33 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3416 6 78 88 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4222 5 32 44 97% 96% 96% 96% 96% 96%

3524 5 51 82 99% 93% 98% 89% 97% 98%

3418 4 18 26 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4253 3 48 66 84% 84% 84% 84% 83% 84%

3417 3 60 115 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3525 3 56 118 75% 68% 70% 71% 70% 70%

4256 3 52 68 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3002 3 272 299 69% 69% 72% 69% 69% 69%

3001 2 338 361 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82%

4041 2 16 19 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%

2722 2 6 302 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3309 2 72 81 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3551 2 48 67 83% 75% 78% 75% 76% 77%

4146 2 4 28 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3419 2 23 40 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 Alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted in the Haines community use area by 

Haines residents, all rural hunters, and all hunters in the short term, and for Haines 

residents in the long term. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher 

levels of timber harvest in Haines’ community use area than the alternatives 

considered in this EIS (5 to over 1,000 times as high). Therefore, it is likely all of the 

current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat capability over the short and long 

term for deer hunted by Haines residents. However, the 1997 analysis concluded 

that demand would exceed the capability of the habitat to produce deer populations 

sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success for all rural hunters and all hunters in the 

long term. This may still be the case under all current alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Haines residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer in some of the WAAs hunted by Haines residents 

may be affected to the point that some restriction in hunting might be necessary over 

the long term, especially for non-rural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of 

hunting restrictions would be reduced somewhat, through more intensive 

management (e.g., thinning) of the existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth 

forests in this area. Indirect effects associated with increased competition for deer 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-581 Subregional Overview and Communities

within Haine’s subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if

hunters from other communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Hollis is located on east Prince of Wales Island, 19 miles east of Craig. According to 

the 2010 Census, Hollis had a population of 112, with Alaska Natives comprising 4 

percent of the total (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Hollis, initially settled as a mining camp at the turn of the century, developed into a 

logging camp in the mid-1950s. In 1960, when Thorne Bay became center of the 

logging industry on central Prince of Wales Island, most Hollis residents moved to 

Thorne Bay. Hollis grew as a community during the 1990s, due in part to an Alaska 

Marine Highway terminal there. The Inter-Island Ferry Authority provides daily ferry 

service between Ketchikan and Hollis. Roads now connect Hollis with most other 

communities on Prince of Wales Island. A State land sale at Hollis in 1980 led to its 

present status as a permanent community (ADF&G 1994). 

The population of Hollis increased by 28 people or 25 percent between 1990 and 

2000. Peaking at 143 residents in 2001, the population of Hollis has since fluctuated, 

while generally trending downward (Figure 3.23-20). Total estimated population in 

Hollis was 94 in 2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). School enrollment has remained relatively 

constant, with 14 students enrolled in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-20

Hollis Population 1990 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Support services for the timber industry, the ferry authority, the Forest Service, 

and local government provide the majority of employment to the residents of 

Hollis. While the timber industry is prevalent on the Prince of Wales Island, it 

Hollis

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Hollis 139 143 131 139 116 103 109 127 115 118 112 110 109 119 94

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1990 Population: 111
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-582 Final EIS

does not occur directly in the Hollis community (Alaska DCED 2002). Viking 

Lumber, the largest sawmill presently operating in the region, is located nearby 

between Craig and Klawock. According to the 2013 mill survey conducted for the 

Forest Service, this mill, which has an installed production capacity of 80 MMBF, 

processed approximately 15 MMBF in 2013 and employed 34 people (Parrent 

and Grewe 2014). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 33

percent of the labor force in Hollis was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was 

$33,500, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 6 11

Construction 4 7

Manufacturing 3 5

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 13 23

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 1 2

Professional and Business Services 1 2

Educational and Health Services 3 5

Leisure and Hospitality 6 11

State Government 5 9

Local Government 14 25

Other 1 2

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 57 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Hollis is part of the AP&T system that connects the community with the 

communities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, and Thorne 

Bay. Hollis is served by hydroelectric generation, with diesel generation used as 

a back-up. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE 

payments were 24 cents/kWh and 16 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the 

Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 

24 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Hollis

in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is shown on 

Figure 3.23-21. This area contains 289,873 acres of NFS land (among other 

land ownerships). Table 3.23-23 shows the estimated maximum acres of younggrowth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest areas

represent a relatively small portion of the community use area for Hollis, ranging 

from 3.6 percent (Alternative 1) to 6.6 percent (Alternative 2). Harvest activities 

could have localized effects if they coincide with an area favored by Hollis 

residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis under 

NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it 

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential 

suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old growth harvest in this area 

(see Table 3.23-23).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-583 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-21

Hollis’ Community Use Area

Table 3.23-23

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hollis’ Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 8,120 16,747 15,636 9,738 11,008

Old Growth 1,873 1,205 1,318 1,416 1,653

Total 9,993 17,953 16,955 11,154 12,660

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

3.6% 6.6% 6.2% 4.1% 4.6%

Economy

Hollis is the site of the Inter-Island Ferry Authority terminal that provides daily 

access between Ketchikan and Hollis, and greater Prince of Wales Island. As 

such, transportation is a major component of the community’s economy. 

Subsistence and timber also play important roles. The ferry terminal would 

continue to provide important access to Prince of Wales Island under all 

alternatives. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-584 Final EIS

Subsistence 

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

65 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Hollis households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and marine 

invertebrates) accounted for 73 percent of per capita subsistence harvest in 

Hollis in 1998 (ADF&G 2014). 

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for 23 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Hollis households (Kruse and 

Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 18 percent of the per capita subsistence 

harvest by Hollis residents in 1998 (ADF&G 2014). 

Hollis residents harvest deer primarily from within GMU 2. Following a deer 

population decline 2006 to 2009 due to severe winters, the population is now 

considered stable to increasing, with above-average deer harvest in this GMU 

(Harper 2013). Among Hollis residents, total annual deer harvest has generally 

declined, and in 2013 was about 75 percent lower (33 fewer deer) than in 2004 

(ADF&G 2015b). 

Each of the three WAAs most used by Hollis residents occur in an area with 

substantial past timber harvest and, therefore, deer habitat capabilities are 

currently estimated to be well below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-24). Under each of 

the alternatives, additional harvest would occur that would reduce habitat 

capabilities after 100 years by a further 5 to 6 percent in WAA 1214, 1 to 2 

percent in WAA 1317, and 5 to 7 percent in WAA 1422 (Table 3.23-24). 

Table 3.23-24

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and After 

100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent of 1954 

Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Hollis Residents Obtain Approximately 75% of their 

Average Annual Deer Harvest1/

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004 to 

20132/

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Edna Bay

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters3/

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1214 11 121 235 77% 71% 72% 71% 72% 71%

1317 10 95 133 58% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56%

1422 3 247 383 57% 50% 52% 51% 50% 50% 1/ Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2/ 2004 data not available for Hollis residents. 3/ The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 Alternatives should be able to provide 

habitat capability for deer hunted in the Hollis community use area by Hollis 

residents and all rural hunters in both the short term and long term. All of the 

1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of timber harvest in Hollis’ 

community use area than the alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 

198 to 839 percent higher). Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives 

would provide sufficient habitat capability over the short and long term for deer 

hunted by Hollis residents and all rural hunters. However, the 1997 analysis 

concluded that demand would exceed the capability of the habitat to produce 

deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success for all hunters in 

both the short and long term. This may still be the case under all alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-585 Subregional Overview and Communities

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Hollis residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for nonrural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect 

effects associated with increased competition could also occur under all 

alternatives if hunters from other communities were displaced due to timber 

harvest activity.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Hoonah is located on Port Frederick, along Icy Strait on the northeast shore of 

Chichagof Island, 40 air miles west of Juneau. Hoonah is predominantly a Native 

community and has been the principal village for the Hoonah Tlingit Clans since 

the late 1800s. According to the 2010 Census, Hoonah had a population of 760, 

with Alaska Natives comprising 53 percent of the total (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011). Whitestone Logging Camp, with a population of 17 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2011), is adjacent to Hoonah. The community of Game Creek is located 2.6 

miles southwest of Hoonah.

The village of Hoonah has been occupied since prehistoric times by the Tlingit 

people. Groups of Huna Tlingit lived all or part of the year at seasonal camps 

and small winter settlements throughout the Huna territory. Dozens of camps 

and settlements have been documented through archaeological surveys. The 

Hoonah Tlingit have very close ties to the Glacier Bay area across Icy Strait.

In 1880, the Northwest Trading Company built a store in Hoonah. The following 

year, missionaries settled in the town and established the Presbyterian Home 

Mission church and school. By 1887, about 500 people were wintering in the 

village. When the post office was established in 1901, the village was officially 

named Hoonah, which means “village by the cliff” in Tlingit. In 1944, fire burned 

many homes in Hoonah and destroyed the many traditional ceremonial costumes 

and keepsakes of the villagers. The town was rebuilt and became a center for 

logging operations on northern Chichagof Island (ADF&G 1994). The 

community has a local Fish and Game Advisory Committee, shared with 

Gustavus as the “Icy Straits” advisory committee (ADF&G 1994; ADF&G 2015a).

Icy Strait Point, an old cannery located approximately 1.5 miles north of Hoonah

opened in 2004 as Alaska’s first cruise destination built specifically for tourists. 

As noted below, this has contributed to a general shift in the economy towards 

tourism related businesses. 

The population of Hoonah increased by 180 people or 26 percent between 1980 

and 2000. Population estimates have fluctuated from year-to-year since, with the 

population generally exhibiting a downward trend (Figure 3.23-22). Total 

estimated population in Hoonah was 787 in 2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). The 

general overall decline in population has been accompanied by a much larger 

decline in school enrollment, with the number of enrolled students dropping by 

almost 50 percent from 2000 to 2014, decreasing from 226 in 2000 to 114 in 

2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Hoonah
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-586 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-22

Hoonah Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Hoonah’s economy is primarily based on commercial fishing, timber, tourism, and 

sport hunting and fishing (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In 2013, a total of 82 

residents held commercial fishing permits and estimated gross earnings 

exceeded $3.6 million (ACFEC 2015). Fish processing occurs at plants in 

Hoonah and nearby Excursion Inlet. The City of Hoonah and the school district 

are the major local government employers (Alaska DCED 2002). In addition, 

most Hoonah residents maintain a subsistence lifestyle based on salmon, 

halibut, shellfish, deer, waterfowl and berries (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

The Icy Straits Lumber Company and D&L Woodworks are both located in 

Hoonah. According to the 2013 mill survey conducted for the Forest Service, the 

Icy Straits mill, which has an installed production capacity of 3 MMBF, processed 

approximately 0.4 MMBF in 2013 and employed 8 people (Parrent and Grewe 

2014). D&L Woodworks has an installed production capacity of 1.8 MMBF and 

processed 0.1 MMBF in 2013, supporting 2 employees (Parrent and Grewe 

2014). This processing total represented 13 percent and 3 percent of the 

existing capacity at the Icy Straits and D&L Woodworks facilities, respectively.

The economy of Hoonah has undergone a major transformation in recent years 

with the completion of Icy Strait Point, the historic cannery (Dugan et al. 2009). 

Icy Strait Point is the largest single employer in Hoonah, with 124 employees, 

mostly Hoonah residents, working there three to four days a week. Icy Strait 

Point includes a museum and serves as a base for tours, including forest tours, 

whale watching, and fishing charters. These tours served an estimated 30,000 

people in 2005 (Dugan et al. 2009). Icy Strait Point is also a cruise ship port of 

call, with over 50 cruise ships carrying tens of thousands of passengers visiting 

each year (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013; Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska 2006). 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Hoonah 860 832 835 801 802 818 792 813 808 762 760 761 775 797 787

700

720

740

760

780

800

820

840

860

880

1970 Population: 748

1980 Population: 680

1990 Population: 795
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-587 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 16 

percent of the labor force in Hoonah was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). However, due to tourist activities, 

unemployment drops substantially during summer months. Median household 

income was $50,714, compared to the state median of $70,760; the 

corresponding median for the Hoonah-Angoon CA was $49,545 (Tables 3.23-4 

and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 17 4

Construction 20 5

Manufacturing 24 6

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 58 14

Information 11 3

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 7 2

Educational and Health Services 35 9

Leisure and Hospitality 115 28

State Government 12 3

Local Government 111 27

Other 3 1

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 413 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Hoonah has some of the highest electric rates in Alaska due to the use of diesel 

generated power. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of 

PCE payments were 62 cents/kWh and 22 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 

in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates 

were 62 cents/kWh. In early August 2015, the Gartina Falls hydropower project 

began generating electricity. The city of Hoonah is hoping this new hydropower 

usage can cut diesel usage by about 30 percent. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Hoonah in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-23. This area contains 583,825 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-25 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest 

areas represent a small portion of the community use area for Hoonah, ranging 

from 2.2 percent (Alternative 4) to 3.6 percent (Alternatives 2 and 5). Harvest 

activities could have localized effects if they coincide with an area favored by 

Hoonah residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis 

under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 5; however, it 

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have less potential total suitable 

harvest compared to Alternatives 2 and 5) would have the largest potential old 

growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-25).

Economy

Commercial fishing, logging, and subsistence use are important to Hoonah. The 

Icy Straits sawmill, which is located in Hoonah, employed 15 people in 2006. 

Hoonah residents are also employed by the recently opened Icy Strait Point 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-588 Final EIS

development. Employment in the commercial fishing sector is not expected to be 

affected under any of the alternatives.

The Gartina Falls and Water Supply Creek projects are both located on non-NFS

lands and would not be directly affected by the Renewable Energy Plan 

Components identified in Chapter 5 of the proposed Forest Plan amendment. 

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

59 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Hoonah households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 68 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Hoonah in 2012 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 23 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Hoonah households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 15 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Hoonah residents (ADF&G 2014). 

Figure 3.23-23

Hoonah’s Community Use Area
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-589 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-25

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hoonah’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 9,363 18,518 16,008 9,283 16,903

Old Growth 5,734 2,785 3,050 3,845 4,505

Total 15,096 21,302 19,058 13,128 21,408

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

2.6% 3.6% 3.2% 2.2% 3.6%

Hoonah residents mainly harvest deer on Chichagof Island, which is included in 

GMU 4. GMU 4 is considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting 

opportunity in Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 

and moderately severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline 

in the deer populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer 

population has rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful 

hunters in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Hoonah residents, total annual deer 

harvest dropped substantially in 2006 and continues to be much lower than it 

was in 2004 and 2005. While harvest appears to be recovering, in 2013 Hoonah 

residents total harvest was about 48 percent lower (354 fewer deer) than in 2004 

(ADF&G 2015b). 

Six WAAs account for the majority (73 percent) of deer harvest by Hoonah

residents (Table 3.23-26). The Hoonah portion represents about 89 percent of 

the combined average rural hunter harvest and 57 percent of the total harvest in 

these WAAs. About 36 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is by 

non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could be 

restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

Table 3.23-26

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Hoonah Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Hoonah

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3523 60 62 88 79% 73% 76% 75% 74% 75%

3524 45 51 82 99% 93% 98% 89% 97% 98%

3551 45 48 67 83% 75% 78% 75% 76% 77%

3525 44 56 118 75% 68% 70% 71% 70% 70%

4253 43 48 66 84% 84% 84% 84% 83% 84%

4252 42 51 72 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

All of the WAAs identified in Table 3.23-26 are in areas with at least some past 

timber harvest and deer habitat capabilities are currently estimated to be below 

1954 levels. Under each of the alternatives, additional harvest would further 

reduce habitat capabilities after 100 years by 1 to 10 percent. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-590 Final EIS

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Hoonah residents in the short term. 

However, projected deer harvest in the Hoonah community use area would 

exceed the capability of the habitat to produce sufficient deer populations to 

avoid effects for all rural hunters and all hunters in the short term, as well as 

Hoonah residents in the long term. The FEIS analysis concluded that at some 

point a restriction in hunting might be necessary. All of the 1997 alternatives 

included substantially higher levels of timber harvest in Hoonah’s community use 

area than the alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 3 to 14 times as 

high). Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient 

habitat capability over the short term and potentially over the long term for deer 

hunted by Hoonah residents. At some point, a resctriction in hunting, particularly 

for non-rural hunters, may still be necessary under all current alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Hoonah residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for nonrural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat, through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect 

effects associated with increased competition for deer within Hoonah’s 

subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from 

other communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Hydaburg is located on the southwest side of Prince of Wales Island, 45 air miles 

northwest of Ketchikan. According to the 2010 Census, Hydaburg had a 

population of 376, with Alaska Natives comprising 77 percent of the total (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011). Hydaburg is the largest Haida village in Alaska (HimesCornell et al. 2013). 

The Haida Indians migrated to Prince of Wales Island, a predominantly Tlingit 

area, from Graham Island, Canada. After combining three villages, the present 

site was chosen initially as the Hydaburg Indian Reservation in 1912. It became 

a fishing village with the first fish processing plant opening in 1927, and three 

other canneries operating through the 1930s. Seafood processing was active 

until 1984 when a fire destroyed the cannery (ADF&G 1994). Hydaburg is 

connected by road to Craig, Klawock, Hollis, and northern parts of the Island.

In 1936, Hydaburg became the first Alaskan Native village to form an Indian 

Reorganization Act Council. In 1972, Hydaburg incorporated as a first class city. 

The community has a local Fish and Game Advisory Committee that became 

active in 2013 after having been inactive since 1987 (ADF&G 2015a). The 

committee members are focused on sport and personal use fishing, hunting, and 

subsistence issues (ADF&G 2015a). 

Hydaburg’s population increased by 79 percent between 1970 and 1990, then 

remained fairly constant between 1990 and 2000. Population has fluctuated 

somewhat from year-to-year since 2000, but generally remained fairly constant 

(Figure 3.23-24). The City of Hydaburg had an estimated population of 405 in 

2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). School enrollment has dropped since 2000, 

decreasing from 91 students in 2000 to 70 students in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Hydaburg
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-591 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-24

Hydaburg Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Hydaburg’s economy is based primarily on subsistence, commercial fishing, 

timber, and government (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). A total of 20 residents held 

commercial fishing permits in 2013, with estimated gross earnings of $2.6 million 

from salmon and herring fisheries (ACFEC 2015). The Haida Corporation has a 

substantial timber holding, a log storage facility, and a sort yard. It suspended 

logging in 1985 due to a decline in the timber market and leases the storage 

facility and sort yard to Sealaska Corporation. The tribal council, city, school, 

and the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium are leading employers, 

and the log transfer facility and sort yard still provide part-time and seasonal 

employment (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 17 

percent of the labor force in Hydaburg was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was 

$37,361, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 4 3

Construction 19 14

Manufacturing 1 1

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 8 6

Information 1 1

Financial Activities 8 6

Professional and Business Services 3 2

Educational and Health Services 22 16

Leisure and Hospitality 1 1

State Government 4 3

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Hydaburg 382 355 370 380 369 396 382 389 379 386 376 408 366 405 405

200

250

300

350

400

450

1970 Population: 214

1980 Population: 298

1990 Population: 384
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-592 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Local Government 69 49

Other 1 1

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 141 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Hydaburg is part of the AP&T system that connects the community with the 

communities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Hollis, Kasaan, Klawock, and Thorne Bay. 

Hydaburg is served by hydroelectric generation, with diesel generation used as a 

back-up. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE 

payments were 24 cents/kWh and 16 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the 

Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 

24 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Hydaburg in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities 

is shown on Figure 3.23-25. This area contains 764,430 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-27 shows the estimated maximum 

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential 

harvest areas represent a small portion of the community use area for Hydaburg, 

ranging from 1.9 percent (Alternative 1) to 3.1 percent (Alternative 2). Harvest 

activities could have localized effects if they coincide with an area favored by 

Hydaburg residents, and roject-level impacts would be subject to future analysis 

under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it 

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential 

suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in this area 

(see Table 3.23-27).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-593 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-25

Hydaburg’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-27

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hydaburg’s Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 10,292 20,614 18,823 12,337 14,166

Old Growth 3,557 2,068 2,619 2,838 2,409

Total 13,848 22,681 21,442 15,175 16,575

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

1.9% 3.1% 2.9% 2.1% 2.3%

Economy

Subsistence use and commercial fishing are the primary elements of Hydaburg’s 

economy. Employment in the commercial fishing sector is not expected to be 

affected under any of the alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

80 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Hydaburg households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for the majority (81 percent) of per capita 

subsistence harvest in Hydaburg in 2012 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 13 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Hydaburg households 

(Kruse and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 13 percent of per capita 

subsistence harvest by Hydaburg residents in 2012 (ADF&G 2014). 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-594 Final EIS

Hydaburg residents primarily harvest deer on south Prince of Wales Island, 

which is included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline 2006 to 2009 

due to severe winters, the population is now considered stable to increasing, with 

above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Hydaburg 

residents, total annual deer harvest has fluctuated over the years and in 2013 

was about 18 percent lower (7 fewer deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

Residents of Hydaburg harvest the majority (73 percent) of their deer from three 

WAAs (Table 3.23-28). The Hydaburg portion represents about 19 percent of the 

combined average rural hunter harvest and 11 percent of all harvest in these 

WAAs. About 41 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural 

hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could be restricted, if 

necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests. 

Only one of the three WAAs would be affected under all of the alternatives (Table 

3.23-28). In WAA 1214, where past timber harvest has already reduced deer 

habitat capability well below 1954 levels, additional harvest would occur that 

would reduce habitat capabilities by a further 5 to 6 percent (Table 3.23-28). 

Table 3.23-28

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Hydaburg Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Hydaburg

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2 

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1107 34 99 130 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

1214 6 120 235 77% 71% 72% 71% 72% 71%

1106 4 17 33 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known

2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Hydaburg residents, as well as for 

all deer hunted within the WAAs of the Hydaburg community use area in both the 

short and long term. Given the small effect to WAAs under the current 

alternatives, which include substantially less proposed timber harvest than 

considered in 1997, it is likely all of the current alternatives would also provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Hydaburg residents as well as all 

hunters using the area. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Hydaburg residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

Subsistence use of deer is also not likely to be directly affected at a level that 

would require hunting restrictions. Indirect effects associated with increased 

competition for deer within Hydaburg’s subsistence use areas could occur under 

all alternatives if hunters from other communities were displaced due to timber 

harvest activity. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-595 Subregional Overview and Communities

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Hyder is a community located at the head of Portland Canal, a 70-mile-long fjord 

that forms part of the United States/Canadian border. Hyder is just 2 miles from 

Stewart, British Columbia, and 75 air miles from Ketchikan. Hyder is one of three 

Southeast Alaska communities connected by road to Canada. According to the 

2010 Census, Hyder had a population of 87, with one person identifying as an 

Alaska Native (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Nass River Tsimshians inhabited the area, which they called Skam-a-Kounst, “a 

safe place,” prior to the coming of white prospectors in the late 1890s. The first 

official exploration and building at the town site occurred in 1896 by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Stewart also became settled at this time, as gold, 

silver, and other mineral mining operations developed. The two towns grew 

together with an initial economic base in mining (ADF&G 1994).

The population of Hyder, which slightly more than doubled between 1970 and 

1990, has since remained relatively stable (Figure 3.23-26). Total estimated 

population was 91 in Hyder in 2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). Hyder School had 10 

students enrolled in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-26

Hyder Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Hyder’s economy is primarily based on tourism, mining, logging, fishing, and 

sport hunting/fishing, and, as such, is largely seasonal (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). Four of the five largest employers are tourist related. Many tourists enter 

Hyder from Canada. Stewart, British Columbia, located only 2 miles from Hyder, 

is Canada’s northernmost year-round ice-free port and the two towns share 

visitor services. The construction industry also provides employment in Hyder, 

and two residents held commercial fishing permits in 2013 (ACFEC 2015). 

Hyder

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Hyder 97 103 90 79 88 97 98 79 103 97 87 95 97 94 91

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970 Population: 49

1980 Population: 77

1990 Population: 99
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-596 Final EIS

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. While the ACS 

estimated that no adults in Hyder were unemployed and seeking work in 2013, 

an estimated 70 percent of the population was not in the labor force, which 

includes seasonal workers interviewed during the off season who were not 

looking for work (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b). Median household income was 

$21,944, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 1 3

Construction 12 40

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 5 17

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 1 3

Educational and Health Services 1 3

Leisure and Hospitality 2 7

State Government 8 27

Local Government 0 0

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 30 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Hyder receives electricity services from BC Hydro via nearby Stewart, B.C., 

Canada (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In 2012, energy sales to Hyder totaled 1 

gigawatt per hour and were forecasted to remain at that level through 2033 (BC 

Hydro 2012). Rate information was not available for Hyder. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Hyder

in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is shown on 

Figure 3.23-27. This area contains 108,809 acres of NFS land (among other 

land ownerships). Table 3.23-29 shows the estimated maximum acres of younggrowth and old-growth harvest by alternative. The potential harvest levels 

represent a small portion of the community use area for Hyder. The harvest 

levels are about 0.1 percent of the total NFS lands in the Hyder community use 

area under Alternatives 1 and 2, and no harvesting would occur in the Hyder

community use area under Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Harvest activities could have 

localized effects if they coincide with a particular location favored by Hyder 

residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis under 

NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 1 and 2.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-597 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-27

Hyder’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-29

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Hyder’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 0 0 0 0 0

Old Growth 120 58 0 0 0

Total 120 58 0 0 0

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Economy

Hyder is a small former mining town that now relies upon tourism and 

commercial fishing for the majority of its income. These activities are not 

expected to be affected under any of the alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 80 

percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Hyder

households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and marine invertebrates) 

accounted for the majority (85 percent) of per capita subsistence in Hyder in 1987

(ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for only a fraction of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Hyder households (Kruse and Frazier 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-598 Final EIS

1988). Bear, moose, and goat made up the land mammal subsistence harvest 

(ADF&G 2014). 

Bear, moose, and goat availability would not be significantly affected under any 

of the alternatives. 

Data were not provided for Hyder in the ADF&G deer harvest reports for 2004 to 2013. 

The majority of deer harvest by Hyder residents likely takes place in GMU 1A. As of 

2013, deer numbers were at very low levels throughout most of GMU 1A and were no 

longer meeting local hunter demands or established deer harvest objectives (Harper 

2013). Though not closed, starting in 2011 the deer hunting season was shortened to 

August 1 through November 30 instead of continuing through December. Hunters are 

known to be shifting efforts to other more productive areas, such as nearby GMU 2, 

leading to less hunter effort and fewer deer harvested in GMU 1A (Harper 2013). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 Forest 

Plan EIS determined all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide sufficient habitat 

capability for deer hunted in Hyder’s community use area by Hyder residents, all rural 

hunters, and all hunters in the short term. In the long term projected harvest for all rural 

hunters and all hunters in the Hyder community use area would exceed the capability 

of habitat to support deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success. As 

noted above, deer populations in the area are currently not sufficient to meet local 

demand. Under the alternatives in this EIS, proposed suitable acres have been 

reduced to either zero or a very small fraction of Hyder’s community use area. 

Therefore, additional impacts to deer subsistence use by Hyder residents or other 

hunters using the area are unlikely. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Hyder residents (fish and marine 

invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. Subsistence

use of deer is unlikely to be affected by any of the alternatives; however, further hunting 

restrictions are possible due to existing conditions. It is unlikely that Hyder residents 

would be affected by increased competition in WAA 826, which surrounds their 

community, because of the limited access to this area and current low deer numbers, 

noted above. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

The City and Borough of Juneau surrounds the Gastineau Channel in Southeast 

Alaska. Juneau, Alaska’s state capital, lies approximately 900 air miles northwest of 

Seattle and 600 air miles southeast of Anchorage. The City and Borough is comprised 

of three communities: Juneau, Auke Bay, and Douglas. According to the 2010 

Census, the City and Borough of Juneau had a population of 31,275, accounting for 43 

percent of the population in Southeast Alaska. Alaska Natives comprised almost 12 

percent of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Originally, Tlingit Indians made seasonal and permanent villages along the north and 

south coast near the present site of Juneau. Gold discovered in the Juneau area 

started the mining town in 1880 and the settlement grew rapidly. Two of the world’s 

largest lode gold mines produced over $180 million in gold before finally closing in 

1944. The state capital was moved from Sitka to Juneau in 1906 while Alaska was still 

a territory. Alaska became the 49th State in 1959. Juneau has developed as a 

government and regional services center, with added economic contributions from 

fishing and tourism. Juneau and Douglas participate in an active local Fish and Game 

Advisory Committee (ADF&G 2015a). 

The population of Juneau has grown steadily since 1970, almost doubling between 

1970 and 1990 and increasing a further 15 percent between 1990 and 2000. The 

Juneau and 

Vicinity
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-599 Subregional Overview and Communities

population in Juneau has fluctuated since 2000 but generally continued to grow, 

increasing by approximately 8 percent between 2000 and 2014 (Figure 3.23-28). Total 

estimated population was 33,026 in Juneau in 2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). A total of 

4,751 students were enrolled in the Juneau School District in 2014. Despite the 

continued growth in population, school enrollment in Juneau has decreased since 

2000, dropping from 5,483 enrolled students (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-28

Juneau Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Juneau economy is primarily based on government, tourism, support 

services for logging, commercial fishing and fish processing, and mining (HimesCornell et al. 2013). The State, City and Borough of Juneau, the Juneau School 

District, tribal government, and federal agencies provide over half of the 

employment in the community (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013; Alaska DOL 2015d). 

As the State capital, Juneau is the home of the State legislators and their staff 

during the legislative season (January to April). 

With over one million visitors between May and September, Juneau is the mostvisited community in the region (Dugan et al. 2009). Tourism is thus a significant 

part of the economy during the summer months providing an estimated $130 

million in income. Juneau is an important cruise ship docking location due to the 

local attractions: Mendenhall Glacier, Juneau Icefield, Tracy Arm Fjord Glacier, 

and the Mount Roberts Tram. While tourism in Juneau is dominated by cruise 

ships, a recent study noted that a substantial number of independent unguided 

travelers also make their way through Juneau in pursuit of hiking, kayaking, 

boating, hunting, and other outdoor activities (Dugan et al. 2009). The six major 

cruise lines who dock at Juneau each offer 34 to 37 shore excursions for 

purchase on the ship or before the cruise begins. 

Estimated gross fishing earnings of local residents exceeded $20 million in 2013

(ACFEC 2015). Fish processing facilities in Juneau handled over 7 million 

pounds of seafood in 2008, and the Macaulay Salmon Hatchery produces over 

52 million salmon annually (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). The Hecla Mining 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Juneau 30,71 30,48 31,04 31,36 31,21 31,34 30,94 30,35 30,55 30,94 31,27 32,37 32,80 33,03 33,02

29,000

29,500

30,000

30,500

31,000

31,500

32,000

32,500

33,000

33,500

1970 Population: 13,556

1980 Population: 19,528

1990 Population: 26,751
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-600 Final EIS

Company’s Greens Creek Mine, the largest silver mine in North America, 

produces gold, silver, lead and zinc. In addition, Coeur Mining’s Kensington Gold 

Mine north of Juneau, located on private and NFS lands within the City and 

Borough of Juneau, produces gold—approximately 5,130 pounds in 2012 

(Alaska DNR 2015). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 5 

percent of the labor force in Juneau was unemployed and seeking work in 2013, 

compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 

2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $81,490, compared 

to the state median of $70,760 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 401 3

Construction 803 5

Manufacturing 260 2

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 2961 19

Information 255 2

Financial Activities 559 4

Professional and Business Services 850 5

Educational and Health Services 1570 10

Leisure and Hospitality 1282 8

State Government 4009 25

Local Government 2270 14

Other 538 3

Unknown 7 0

Total Employment 15,765 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Juneau is connected to the Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (AEL&P)

system that also includes Douglas Island, Auke Bay, and Greens Creek. Five 

hydropower projects feed into the AEL&P grid serving Juneau, including Salmon 

Creek, Gold Creek, Annex Creek, Lake Dorothy, and Snettisham (Table 3.12b2). Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE payments 

were the same at 12 cents/kWh (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report 

[Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 10 cents/kWh and 9 

cents/kWh, respectively. Juneau Hydropower, Inc. has proposed a hydroelectric 

project on Sweetheart Lake (Table 3.12b-3). 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Juneau in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-29. This area contains 2,013,397 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-30 shows the estimated maximum 

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, 

potential harvest levels represent a small portion of the community use area for 

Juneau, with Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 potentially harvesting less than 0.1 

percent of the total NFS lands in the Juneau community use area, and no 

harvesting in this area occurring under Alternative 4. Harvest activities could 

have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location favored by Juneau

residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis under 

NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case for all of the alternatives except for 

Alternative 4.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-601 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-29

Juneau’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-30

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Juneau’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 16 620 418 0 518

Old Growth 635 307 0 0 0

Total 650 927 418 0 518

Harvest as a Percent of Total 

NFS Lands in the Community 

Use Area

0.03% 0.05% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03%

Economy

As the State capital, government is important to Juneau. Besides changes in 

government employment, Juneau is most likely to be affected by changes in 

mining, recreation and tourism, and commercial fishing. None of the alternatives 

are expected to affect these aspects of the local economy.

The proposed hydroelectric projects (Annex Creek and Sweetheart Lake) that 

would serve Juneau are located in a Semi-Remote Recreation LUD and 

Inventoried Roadless Area 302. Semi-Remote Recreation is considered a TUS 

“window” under the 2008 Forest Plan, an area potentially available for the 

location of transportation and utility corridors and sites. This classification and the 

standards and guidelines in the 2008 Forest Plan would continue to apply under 

Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, energy projects would be 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-602 Final EIS

managed under the Renewable Energy Plan Components identified in Chapter 5 

of the proposed amended Forest Plan. 

Subsistence

Juneau is not classified as a subsistence community; however, many residents 

use the surrounding Tongass for sport hunting and fishing. The City and Borough 

of Juneau had a total estimated population of 33,026, accounting for

approximately 44 percent of the population in Southeast Alaska (Alaska DOL 

2014d). Given the non-subsistence status of the community and its large size, no 

attempt is made here to summarize the WAAs that community residents use to 

hunt deer. The following paragraphs do, however, summarize the findings of the 

1997 EIS and provide a general overview of the likely impacts of the current 

alternatives.

The majority of deer harvest by Juneau residents likely takes place within the 

community’s identified use area (Figure 3.23-29), which is mainly located within 

GMU 1C. Deer populations in GMU 1C have historically fluctuated with periodic 

severe winter weather, most recently during the winter of 2006-2007. The snow 

pack led to a substantial deer die off, and opportunities to harvest deer will likely 

improve in the coming years if winter weather isn’t too severe (Harper 2013).

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by all rural hunters in the short and 

long terms. However, adding Juneau residents and other non-rural hunters, 

demand would exceed the capability of the habitat to produce deer populations 

sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success in both the short and long terms. 

The Final EIS analysis concluded that at some point a restriction in hunting might 

be necessary, and would target urban residents before any restrictions were 

considered for rural hunters.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Juneau residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term under all 

alternatives. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Kake is located on west Kupreanof Island, along Keku Strait, 38 air miles northwest of 

Petersburg. Historically, Tlingit people of the Kake (Keex) Kwaan claimed 2,003,000 

acres of territory, including the upper halves of Kuiu, Kupreanof, and Mitkof Island, the 

eastern shore of Baranof Island and the southern shore of Admiralty Island. The arrival 

of early European explorers and traders resulted in occasional confrontations between 

Native Tlingits and foreigners. Escalating tensions led to the U.S. Navy shelling 

several Kake villages and destroying their homes, boats, and stored foods. The 

inhabitants of multiple villages subsequently consolidated at the current site of Kake, 

with further consolidation of Kake villages taking place in the 1880s. 

A government school and store and Society of Friends mission were established in 

Kake in 1891. A post office followed in 1904 and the first cannery was built near Kake 

in 1912. Today, Kake remains a primarily Tlingit village with a fishing, logging, and 

subsistence lifestyle. Traditional customs are important to the Kake people. The 

world’s largest totem pole stands on a bluff overlooking town (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). Kake is a first-class city and is not located in an organized borough.

Kake
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-603 Subregional Overview and Communities

The population of Kake, which increased by 56 percent between 1970 and 1990, 

remained fairly constant between 1990 and 2000, and decreased by an estimated 153 

people or 22 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 3.23-30). Population estimates 

developed by the Alaska DOL (2015a) suggest that the population in Kake has 

increased since 2010, with a total estimated population of 626 in 2014. A total of 110 

students were enrolled in the Kake City School District in 2014, up from 85 students in 

2010 (Table 3.23-9). 

Figure 3.23-30

Kake Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Kake’s economy has been traditionally based on forest and fisheries resources 

and subsistence activities. According to a survey conducted by the Alaska 

Fisheries Science Center in 2011, community leaders indicated that this 

continues to be the case with the current economy dependent on logging, fishing, 

ecotourism, and sport hunting and fishing. Subsistence remains an essential 

part of the local way of life, with deer, halibut, salmon, and black sea weed 

identified as the most important subsistence resources (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). Shellfish, bear, waterfowl, and berries are also important food sources. 

The City of Kake, the school district, and Kake Tribal Corporation are the largest 

employers in the community. The Gunnock Creek Hatchery, a non-profit 

organization, operates a salmon hatchery to assist in sustaining the salmon 

fishery in the area and provides some local employment (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013).

Community leaders indicated in a recent survey by the Alaska Fisheries Science 

Center that current challenges for Kake’s fishing economy include high costs of 

electricity, fuel, and labor, and shipping constraints for delivering fresh products 

to market ((Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 21 

percent of the labor force in Kake was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Kake 710 701 680 660 659 644 626 609 592 578 557 577 597 621 626

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

750

1970 Population: 488

1980 Population: 555

1990 Population: 700
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-604 Final EIS

Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was 

$38,750, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 24 9

Construction 18 7

Manufacturing 39 15

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 36 14

Information 2 1

Financial Activities 9 4

Professional and Business Services 4 2

Educational and Health Services 26 10

Leisure and Hospitality 1 0

State Government 2 1

Local Government 91 35

Other 6 2

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 258 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Kake has some of the highest electric rates in Alaska due to the use of diesel 

generated power. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of 

PCE payments were 62 cents/kWh and 22 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 

in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates 

were 62 cents/kWh (Table 3.12b-3). The proposed Kake to Petersburg Intertie 

Project, which is currently undergoing NEPA review, would connect Kake to the 

SEAPA system. The SEAPA system is sourced primarly from hydroelectric 

power (Swan Lake and Tyee Lake) and connects Ketchikan, Petersburg, and 

Wrangell.

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Kake

in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is shown on 

Figure 3.23-31. This area contains 454,186 acres of NFS land (among other 

land ownerships). Table 3.23-31 shows the estimated maximum acres of younggrowth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest levels 

represent a small portion of the community use area for Kake, ranging from 

about 4.3 percent (Alternative 4) to 5.2 percent (Alternative 2). Harvest activities 

could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location favored by 

Kake residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis 

under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2, 3, and 5; 

however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have less potential total 

suitable harvest compared to Alternatives 2, 3, and 5) would have the largest 

potential old-growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-31).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-605 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-31

Kake’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-31

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Kake’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 15,927 20,462 19,814 15,449 18,274

Old Growth 5,973 3,120 2,808 4,214 2,466

Total 21,900 23,582 22,622 19,663 20,740

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

4.8% 5.2% 5.0% 4.3% 4.6%

Economy

Kake is a traditional native community where commercial fishing, timber 

harvesting, and subsistence use are important. For subsistence use, west 

Kupreanof and north Kuiu Islands are some of the important areas. Employment 

in the commercial fishing sector is not expected to be affected under any of the 

alternatives.
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-606 Final EIS

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

52 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Kake households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and marine 

invertebrates) accounted for 60 percent of per capita subsistence harvest in Kake 

in 1996 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 24 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Kake households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 28 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Kake residents in 1996 (ADF&G 2014). 

Kake residents harvest deer on Admiralty Island and Kupreanof Island, which are 

included in GMU 4 and GMU 3, respectively. GMU 4 is considered to provide a 

substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity in Southeast Alaska (Harper 

2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately severe winters the 

following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer populations throughout 

Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population has rebounded in recent 

years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in this GMU (Harper 2013). 

The deer populations within GMU 3 have historically fluctuated, with high and low 

extremes. Between 1994 and 2011, deer harvest in GMU 3 ranged from a low of 

333 to a high of 1,119 (Harper 2013). As of 2013, the harvest level was about 

100 deer below the previous 10-year mean (Harper 2013). 

Five WAAs account for the majority (76 percent) of deer harvest by Kake

Residents (Table 3.23-32). The Kake portion ranges from about 11 percent 

(WAA 1420) to 60 percent (WAA 5132) of the total harvest and from 19 percent 

to 68 percent of the rural hunter harvest in these WAAs. About 35 percent of the 

combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is 

a harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are 

placed on rural harvests. 

Table 3.23-32

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Kake Residents Obtain Approximately 

75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 20132

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Kake

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters3

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1420 30 158 276 49% 45% 45% 45% 45% 44%

3940 26 61 75 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%

3939 19 71 105 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4041 5 16 19 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%

5132 5 7 8 70% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 2008 data not available for Kake residents. 3 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Four out of the five WAAs heavily used by Kake residents would not be affected 

under all alternatives (Table 3.23-32). Deer habitat capability in WAA 1420, 

which is currently at less than half of 1954 levels, would be further reduced by 4 

to 5 percent under all alternatives (Table 3.23-32).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-607 Subregional Overview and Communities

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted in the Kake community use area by 

Kake residents, all rural hunters, and all hunters in the short term, and Kake 

residents and, under all but one of the alternatives, all rural hunters over the long 

term. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of timber 

harvest in Kake’s community use area than the alternatives considered in this 

EIS (approximately 197 to 452 percent higher). Given this and the minimal effect 

shown in Table 3.23-32, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide 

sufficient habitat capability over the long term for deer hunted by Kake residents 

and all rural hunters. However, the 1997 analysis concluded that demand would 

exceed the capability of the habitat to produce deer populations sufficient to 

avoid effects on hunter success for all hunters in the long term. It is possible this 

would still be the case under all current alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Kake residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer in one of the WAAs hunted by Kake residents 

may be affected to the point that some restriction in hunting might be necessary

over the long term, particularly for non-rural hunters, under all alternatives. The 

risk of hunting restrictions would be reduced somewhat, through more intensive 

management (e.g., thinning) of the existing and future closed-canopy, younggrowth forests in this area. Indirect effects associated with increased competition 

for deer within Kake’s subsistence use areas could also occur under all 

alternatives if hunters from other communities were displaced due to timber 

harvest activity. Such impacts would be relatively low based on the limited 

accessibility of these areas to non-local hunters. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Kasaan is a small village located on the eastern side of Prince of Wales Island. 

Originally Tlingit territory, Kasaan gets its name from the Tlingit word meaning 

“pretty town.” Haidas migrated north from the Queen Charlotte Islands in the 

early 1700s to the Island and established the village known as “Old Kasaan.” In 

1898 the Copper Queen mine, camp, sawmill, post office, and store were built on 

Kasaan Bay, and the Haida people subsequently relocated to this new site in 

1904. 

A Federally recognized tribe, the Organized Village of Kasaan, is located in the 

community. Traditionally a Haida village, the population now includes Tlingits, 

Eskimos, and non-Natives, as well as Haidas. The community had a total 

estimated population of 75 in 2014, with the population almost doubling between 

2000 and 2014 (Figure 3.23-32). Alaska Natives comprise about 35 percent of 

the local population, with 53 percent of the population identifying as White in the 

2010 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).

Kasaan’s population grew by 80 percent between 1970 and 1990. The 

population declined between 1990 and 2000, decreasing by 15 people or 28 

percent. The population has nearly doubled since 2000, with an estimated 75 

people living in Kasaan in 2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). A total of 12 students were 

enrolled in the Barry C. Stewart Kasaan School in 2014 (Table 3.23-9). 

Kasaan
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-608 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-32

Kasaan Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The majority of local residents are employed in the public sector. Two residents 

held commercial fishing permits and most villagers participate in subsistence for 

food sources, harvesting deer, salmon, halibut, shrimp, and crab. One tourismrelated business operates in the village, providing meals and lodging for visitors 

(Dugan et al. 2009). Local residents use parts of the project area for subsistence 

and recreation activities.

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 19 

percent of the labor force in Kasaan was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was 

$43,750, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 1 4

Construction 1 4

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 2 8

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 2 8

Educational and Health Services 0 0

Leisure and Hospitality 2 8

State Government 2 8

Local Government 16 62

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Kasaan 39 48 62 64 72 75 75 83 75 82 49 80 80 75 75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970 Population: 30

1980 Population: 25

1990 Population: 54
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-609 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 26 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Kasaan is part of the AP&T system that connects the community with the 

communities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, Klawock, and Thorne 

Bay. Kasaan is served by hydroelectric generation, with diesel generation used 

as a back-up. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE 

payments were 24 cents/kWh and 16 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the 

Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 

24 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Kasaan in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-33. This area contains 540,324 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-33 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest 

levels represent a small portion of the community use area for Kasaan, ranging 

from about 2.3 percent (Alternative 1) to 4.0 percent (Alternative 2). Harvest 

activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location 

favored by Kasaan residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future 

analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher 

under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber

production within the community use area, as would be the case with Alternative 

2; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least 

amount of potential suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old-growth 

harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-33).
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-610 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-33

Kasaan’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-33

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Kasaan’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 9,329 19,061 17,845 11,390 12,858

Old Growth 2,630 1,611 1,913 2,008 2,282

Total 11,959 20,672 19,758 13,397 15,140

Harvest as a Percent of 

Total NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

2.3% 4.0% 3.8% 2.6% 2.9%

Economy

Subsistence use and commercial fishing are the primary elements of Kasaan’s 

economy. Commercial fisheries employment is not likely to be affected under 

any of the alternatives. Much of the timber harvest in the vicinity of Kasaan has 

historically been on private land owned by the Kasaan Native Corporation. This 

land would not be affected under any of the alternatives. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-611 Subregional Overview and Communities

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

74 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Kasaan households (Kruse and Frazier 1988) and 75 percent of per capita 

harvest in 1998 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS survey found that deer account for 22 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Kasaan households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 15 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Kasaan residents in 1998 (ADF&G 2014). 

The majority of deer harvest by Kasaan residents takes place near the 

community on north Prince of Wales Island, which is included in GMU 2. 

Following a deer population decline 2006 to 2009 due to severe winters, the 

population is now considered stable to increasing, with above-average deer 

harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Kasaan residents, total annual deer 

harvest is generally low, but has increased over the past decade. In 2013 deer 

harvest was more than four times as high (23 more deer) as it was in 2004 

(ADF&G 2015b). 

Residents of Kasaan harvest the majority (87 percent) of their deer from two 

WAAs (Table 3.23-34). The Kasaan portion makes up 2 percent of the total 

combined harvest and 4 percent of the rural hunter harvest in these WAAs. 

About 42 percent of the combined harvest in these WAA is by non-rural hunters, 

suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, 

before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

Table 3.23-34

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Kasaan Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Kasaan

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1315 9 201 317 56% 50% 51% 50% 51% 50%

1214 4 120 235 77% 71% 72% 71% 72% 71% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known

2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Both WAAs are in areas with substantial past timber harvest and, therefore, deer 

habitat capabilities are currently estimated to be considerably below 1954 levels 

(Table 3.23-34). Under each of the alternatives, additional harvest would occur 

that would further reduce habitat capabilities after 100 years by 5 to 6 percent 

(Table 3.23-34). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted in the Kasaan community use area by 

Kasaan residents and all rural hunters in the short term, as well as Kasaan 

residents in the long term. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially 

higher levels of timber harvest in Kasaan’s community use area than the 

alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 4 to 13 times higher). 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-612 Final EIS

Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat 

capability over the short and long term for deer hunted by Kasaan residents. 

However, the 1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the capability 

of the habitat to support deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter 

success for all rural hunters and all hunters in the long term. This may still be the 

case under all current alternatives.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Kasaan residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for nonrural hunters, under all alternatives. Kasaan is currently competing with other 

communities in their subsistence use areas and this is likely to continue to be the 

case under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be reduced 

somewhat, through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the existing 

and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect effects 

associated with increased competition for deer within Kasaan’s subsistence use 

areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from other communities 

were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Ketchikan is located on Revillagigedo Island near the southernmost boundary of 

Alaska. Ketchikan lies approximately 679 miles north of Seattle and 235 miles 

south of Juneau. It is the first Alaska port-of-call for northbound ships. 

According to the 2010 Census, Ketchikan had a population of 8,050, with Alaska 

Natives comprising 17 percent of the total (U.S. Census Bureau 2011). 

The Ketchikan area was a summer fishing camp for the Tlingit Alaska Natives. 

Their name for the area, “kitschk-him,” meant “thundering wings of an eagle.” Its 

abundant fish and timber resources eventually attracted non-Natives, with the 

first cannery opening in Ketchikan in 1886 and four more by 1912. Nearby gold 

and copper discoveries briefly brought activity to Ketchikan during the late 1890s, 

but timber and fishing became the chief economic forces at the turn of the 

century and have remained important. The 1954 construction of a pulp mill in 

Ward Cove continued a tradition begun by the 1903 opening of Ketchikan Spruce 

Mills, which operated for more than 70 years. Ketchikan has also remained an 

important hub for fishing, both for fish processing and as home to those with 

commercial fishing permits (295 area residents in 2013). 

The population of Ketchikan increased by 18 percent between 1970 and 1990 

and has remained relatively stable since, with the exception of noticeable drops 

in 2004 and 2008 (Figure 3.23-34). The population has been increasing since 

2008, with an estimated population of 8,314 in Ketchikan in 2014 (Alaska DOL 

2015b). A total of 2,360 students were enrolled in the Ketchikan Gateway 

Borough School District in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Ketchikan
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-613 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-34

Ketchikan Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Ketchikan is an industrial center and a major port of entry in Southeast Alaska. It 

has a diverse economy, supported by a large fishing fleet, fish processing 

facilities, timber and tourism. The estimated gross fishing earnings of local 

residents neared $23 million in 2013 (ACFEC 2015). Four canneries, three cold 

storage facilities, and a fish processing plant support the fishing industry in 

summer months. 

While the timber industry remains important to the economy and a home base for 

several timber companies, the Ketchikan Pulp Corporation’s pulp mill closed in 

March 1997. Closure of the mill, the community’s largest employer, resulted in 

the loss of 500 direct jobs, many of which were high paying and year round. The 

Pacific Log and Lumber sawmill, which in 2006 employed 20 people, is also now 

decommissioned (Parrent and Grewe 2014). Employment data compiled by the 

Alaska DOL indicate that employment in the lumber and wood products sector 

declined from 11.8 percent of total wage and salary employment in 1996 to 5.7 

percent in 1999 (Baker 2001), and now represents only one percent of 

employment (Alaska DOL 2015d). 

Tourism and local retail are growing economic sectors. In 2009, an estimated 

937,419 people visited Ketchikan on cruise ships (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Ketchikan has a well-developed network and system of shore-excursions, with 47 

shore excursions advertised by the various cruise lines that dock there (Dugan et 

al. 2009). Most nature-based activities that originate in Ketchikan fell into four 

general categories: flightseeing, marine charters, adventure experiences, and 

general sightseeing. In all cases, the majority of clients participating in these 

activities were cruise ship passengers (Dugan et al. 2009).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ketchikan 8,345 8,293 8,289 8,148 7,882 7,920 7,947 7,935 7,865 7,944 8,050 8,194 8,265 8,291 8,314

7,600

7,700

7,800

7,900

8,000

8,100

8,200

8,300

8,400

1970 Population: 6,994

1980 Population: 7,198

1990 Population: 8,263
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-614 Final EIS

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 11 

percent of the labor force in Ketchikan was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2014; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was 

$52,266, compared to the state median of $70,760 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 25 1

Construction 180 5

Manufacturing 262 7

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 914 25

Information 47 1

Financial Activities 194 5

Professional and Business Services 127 4

Educational and Health Services 466 13

Leisure and Hospitality 422 12

State Government 353 10

Local Government 564 16

Other 59 2

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 3,613 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Ketchikan is served by the SEAPA system that connects Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

and Wrangell. The Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects provide 

electricity to this SEAPA network (Table 3.12b-2). Residential rates for 2011 

before and after the application of PCE payments were both 10 cents/kWh (see 

Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and 

other rates were 10 cents/kWh and 8 cents/kWh, respectively. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Ketchikan in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities 

is shown on Figure 3.23-35. This area contains 1,975,122 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-35 shows the estimated maximum 

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, 

potential harvest levels represent a small portion of the community use area for 

Ketchikan, ranging from about 1.4 percent (Alternative 1) to 2.0 percent 

(Alternatives 2 and 3). Harvest activities could have localized effects if they 

coincide with a particular location favored by Ketchikan residents, and projectlevel impacts would be subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the 

potential for impacts would be higher under those alternatives with more lands 

identified as suitable for timber production within the community use area, as 

would be the case with Alternative 2 and 3; however, it may be noted that 

Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential suitable harvest) 

would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-

35).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-615 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-35

Ketchikan’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-35

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Ketchikan’s Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 21,384 36,253 35,219 28,464 29,626

Old Growth 6,006 3,149 4,502 4,853 5,618

Total 27,390 39,403 39,721 33,317 35,244

Harvest as a 

Percent of Total 

NFS Lands in the 

Community Use 

Area

1.4% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.8%

Economy

Ketchikan would be primarily influenced by changes in timber processing, 

recreation and tourism use, commercial fishing, and recreation opportunities. 

Potentail impacts on timber processing are discussed in the Regional and 

National Economy section, above. None of the alternatives are expected to 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-616 Final EIS

affect recreation and tourism-related employment or employment in the 

commercial fisheries sector.

Subsistence

Ketchikan is not classified as a subsistence community; however, many residents 

use the surrounding Tongass for hunting and fishing. Given the non-subsistence 

status of the community and its large size, no attempt is made here to summarize 

the WAAs that community residents use to hunt deer. The following paragraphs 

do, however, summarize the findings of the 1997 EIS and provide a general 

overview of the likely impacts of the current alternatives.

The majority of deer harvest by Ketchikan residents likely takes place within the 

community’s identified use area (Figure 3.23-15), which is mainly located within 

GMU 1A and GMU 2. As of 2013, deer numbers were at very low levels 

throughout most of GMU 1A and were no longer meeting local hunter demands 

or established deer harvest objectives (Harper 2013). Though not closed, 

starting in 2011 the deer hunting season was shortened to August 1 through 

November 30 instead of continuing through December. Hunters are known to be 

shifting efforts to other more productive areas, such as nearby GMU 2, leading to 

less hunter effort and fewer deer harvested in GMU 1A (Harper 2013). In GMU 

2, following a deer population decline from 2006 to 2009 due to severe winters, 

the population is now considered stable to increasing, with above-average deer 

harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by all hunters in the short term. 

However, projected deer harvest in the long term by Ketchikan residents, all rural 

hunters, and all hunters exceeded the level that is both sustainable and provides 

a reasonably high level of hunter success for their effort. If a restriction were 

necessary, sport hunting by Ketchikan residents would be restricted before 

subsistence hunting by rural hunters is restricted. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Ketchikan residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for nonrural hunters, under all current alternatives. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Klawock, located on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island, is the second 

largest community on the island. The mouth of the Klawock River, where the 

village of Klawock is now located, has been the site of Tlingit occupation for at 

least 600 years and now serves as the center of the Tlingit population on west 

Prince of Wales Island. A trading post and salmon saltery were established in 

the community in 1868, and the first cannery in Alaska was built here by a San 

Francisco firm in 1878. Klawock was incorporated as a first-class city in 1929. 

A federally recognized tribe—the Klawock Cooperative Association—is located in 

the community. The community had a total population of 802 in 2014, 

approximately 52 or 6 percent fewer residents than 14 years earlier in 2000 

(Figure 3.23-36). Population has fluctuated over this period, dropping to a low of 

697 residents in 2007. Alaska Natives comprise about 48 percent of the local 

population, with 37 percent of the population identifying as White in the 2010 

Census (Table 3.23-8).

Klawock
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-617 Subregional Overview and Communities

School enrollment in Klawock has declined since 2000, dropping from 190 

students in 2000 to 121 students in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-36

Klawock Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The community has been historically dependent on fishing and cannery 

operations; however, the timber industry has increased in importance with a 

relatively large number of residents employed in logging and ship loading in the 

Klawock and Craig area (ADCCED 2011). Viking Lumber is located between 

Klawock and Craig. A total of 39 residents held commercial fishing permits in 

2013 (ACFEC 2015).

Retail trade and services are also important to the economy of Klawock. Many 

residents of communities on northern Prince Wales, as well as recreationists and 

tourists shop at the shopping center located in Klawock. There are also three 

sport fishing lodges that provide charter and accommodation packages, as well 

as an independent operator offering day charters. Klawock also has two 

recreational vehicle (RV) parks that mostly serve long-term visitors (Dugan et al. 

2009).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 16 

percent of the labor force in Klawock was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was 

$37,083, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Klawock 854 851 835 810 801 742 741 697 723 723 755 808 798 785 802

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

1970 Population: 213

1980 Population: 318

1990 Population: 722
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-618 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 20 5

Construction 33 8

Manufacturing 28 7

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 90 23

Information 1 < 1

Financial Activities 13 3

Professional and Business Services 7 2

Educational and Health Services 59 15

Leisure and Hospitality 36 9

State Government 9 2

Local Government 92 24

Other 4 1

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 392 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Klawock is part of the AP&T system that connects the community with the 

communities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, and Thorne 

Bay. Klawock is served by hydroelectric generation, with diesel generation used 

as a back-up. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE 

payments were 24 cents/kWh and 16 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the 

Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 

24 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Klawock in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-37. This area contains 767,934 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-36 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total areas available for 

harvest range from about 7.7 percent of the Klawock community use area under 

Alternative 1 to 10.6 percent under Alternative 2. Harvest activities could have 

localized effects if they coincide with a particular location favored by Klawock 

residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis under 

NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it 

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential 

suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in this area 

(see Table 3.23-36).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-619 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-37

Klawock’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-36

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Klawock’s Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 47,273 73,058 68,617 56,495 60,686

Old Growth 9,442 4,955 5,525 7,505 7,738

Total 56,715 78,013 74,142 64,000 68,424

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

7.7% 10.6% 10.1% 8.7% 9.3%
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-620 Final EIS

Economy

Klawock is a traditional native community. Timber employment, subsistence use, 

and retail services are most likely to be affected in this community. Viking 

Lumber, the largest and most modern sawmill in the region, is located between 

Craig and Klawock. The alternatives would all supply old-growth volume to 

support operations in Southeast Alaska in the short term, including Viking 

Lumber, but the amount of old-growth timber available for sale would decrease 

over time as the Forest Service completes the transition to young growth. The 

speed of the transition and the relative and absolute volumes of young growth 

would vary by alternative as discussed in the Regional and National Economy

section, above.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

75 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Klawock households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 71 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Klawock in 1997 (ADF&G 2014). The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer 

accounted for 19 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources 

harvested by Klawock households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 

15 percent of per capita subsistence harvest by Klawock residents in 1997 

(ADF&G 2014). 

Klawock residents mainly harvest deer on north Prince of Wales Island, which is 

included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline 2006 to 2009 due to 

severe winters, the population is now considered stable to increasing, with 

above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Klawock 

residents, total annual deer harvest has generally increased over the past 

decade, and in 2013 was 71 percent higher (183 more deer) than in 2004 

(ADF&G 2015b). 

Residents of Klawock harvest the majority (74 percent) of their deer from eight 

WAAs (Table 3.23-37). The Klawock portion represents from about 5 percent 

(WAA 1420) to 34 percent (WAA 1318) of the total harvest and about 9 percent 

to 42 percent of the rural hunter harvest in these WAAs. About 34 percent of the 

combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is 

a limited harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions 

are placed on rural harvests. 

Most of the WAAs identified in Table 3.23-37 occur in areas with substantial past 

harvest and, therefore, deer habitat capabilities are currently estimated to be 

below 1954 levels. Under each of the alternatives, additional harvest would 

occur that would reduce habitat capabilities after 100 years in all of the WAAs 

except for one (WAA 1107) by 1 to 7 percent (Table 3.23-37). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Klawock residents in the short term 

and long term. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of 

timber harvest in Klawock’s community use area than the alternatives considered 

in this EIS (approximately 107 to 325 percent higher). Therefore, it is likely all of 

the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat capability over the short 

and long term for deer hunted by Klawock residents. However, the 1997 analysis 

concluded that demand would exceed the capability of the habitat to support deer 

populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success for all rural hunters and 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-621 Subregional Overview and Communities

all hunters in both the short and long terms. This may still be the case under all 

current alternatives.

Table 3.23-37

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Klawock Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Klawock

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1318 67 159 198 90% 83% 85% 84% 84% 84%

1422 65 247 383 57% 50% 52% 51% 50% 50%

1319 28 169 226 74% 67% 67% 69% 69% 69%

1214 26 120 235 77% 71% 72% 71% 72% 71%

1107 22 99 130 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

1315 21 201 317 56% 50% 51% 50% 51% 50%

1317 19 93 133 58% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56%

1420 15 158 276 49% 45% 45% 45% 45% 44% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Klawock residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary, especially for non-rural hunters, under 

all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be reduced somewhat, 

through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the existing and future 

closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect effects associated with 

increased competition for deer within the Klawock subsistence use areas could 

also occur under all alternatives if hunters from other communities were 

displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Metlakatla is located on Annette Island, 15 miles south of Ketchikan. Believed to 

have been occupied at one time by Tlingit Indians, Metlakatla was settled in 1887 

by Church of England minister William Duncan and about 830 Tsimshian 

followers from northern British Columbia. In 1891, an Act of Congress declared 

Annette Island an Indian Reservation (the Annette Island Reserve), the only one 

in Alaska. This action set aside the reservation for the exclusive use and 

occupancy by “Metlakatla Indians and such other Natives of Alaska who might 

join them” (ADF&G 1994).

Metlakatla is a traditional Tsimshian community with a subsistence lifestyle. The 

community was not part of ANCSA. The 86,000-acre Island reservation and 

surrounding 3,000 feet of coastal waters are not subject to State jurisdiction. The 

Annette Island Reserve regulates commercial fishing in these waters, and 

operates its own tribal court system (Alaska DCED 2006). 

The population of Metlakatla increased by a third between 1970 and 1990, and 

has since remained fairly constant. Population has fluctuated over the last 14 

years, reaching a low of 1,291 residents in 2007. Population has increased in 

Metlakatla
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-622 Final EIS

Metlakatla since 2007, with an estimated total of 1,407 residents in 2014 (Figure 

3.23-38). Alaska Natives comprised 83 percent of the population in 2010 (Table 

3.23-8).

A total of 359 students were enrolled in the Annette Island School District in 

2014, up from 272 students in 2010 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-38

Metlakatla Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Metlakatla is a federal Indian reservation with no local taxes. The economy is 

based primarily on commercial fishing, fish processing, and services (HimesCornell et al. 2013). A total of 42 residents held commercial fishing permits in 

2013, with estimated gross earnings of $1.6 million (ACFEC 2015). Metlakatla 

Indian Community, the largest employer, operates a salmon hatchery on Tamgas 

Creek, the tribal court, and all local services and utilities (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). Annette Island Packing Co. is a cold storage facility in Metlakatla owned 

by the community and is the second largest employer (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). The school district, Metlakatla Housing Authority, the State, Metlakatla 

Power & Light, and several private companies are also important employers 

(Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Historically the community’s economy was also supported by the timber industry; 

however, the two sawmills located in Metlakatla are no longer in operation 

(Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. Approximately 15 

percent of the labor force in Metlakatla was identified as unemployed and seeking 

work in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Metlakatla 1,375 1,337 1,336 1,312 1,308 1,348 1,332 1,291 1,319 1,345 1,405 1,420 1,460 1,470 1,480

1,150

1,200

1,250

1,300

1,350

1,400

1,450

1,500

1970 Population: 1,050

1980 Population: 1,056

1990 Population: 1,407
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-623 Subregional Overview and Communities

Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $49,663, 

compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the Prince 

of Wales-HyderCA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 1 < 1

Construction 18 3

Manufacturing 3 < 1

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 80 12

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 54 8

Professional and Business Services 4 1

Educational and Health Services 12 2

Leisure and Hospitality 11 2

State Government 16 2

Local Government 489 71

Other 1 < 1

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 689 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Metlakatla in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities 

is shown on Figure 3.23-39. This area contains 1,975,123 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-38 shows the estimated maximum 

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, 

potential harvest levels represent a small portion of the community use area for 

Metlakatla, ranging from about 1.4 percent (Alternative 1) to 2.0 percent 

(Alternatives 2 and 3). Harvest activities could have localized effects if they 

coincide with a particular location favored by Metlakatla residents, and projectlevel impacts would be subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the 

potential for impacts would be higher under those alternatives with more lands 

identified as suitable for timber production within the community use area, as 

would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted that 

Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential suitable harvest) 

would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-

38).
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-624 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-39

Metlakatla’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-38

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Metlakatla’s Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 21,384 36,253 35,219 28,464 29,626

Old Growth 6,006 3,149 4,502 4,853 5,618

Total 27,390 39,403 39,721 33,317 35,244

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

1.4% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.8%

Economy

Metlakatla could be affected primarily by changes in commercial fishing and

subsistence opportunities. Commercial fisheries employment is not likely to be 

affected under any of the alternatives. 

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-625 Subregional Overview and Communities

75 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Metlakatla households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). 

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for 15 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Metlakatla households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). 

The majority of deer harvest by Metlakatla residents occurs in the vicinity of the 

community in GMU 1A and on north Prince of Wales Island in GMU 2. As of 

2013, deer numbers were at very low levels throughout most of GMU 1A and 

were no longer meeting local hunter demands or established deer harvest 

objectives (Harper 2013). Though not closed, starting in 2011 the deer hunting 

season was shortened to August 1 through November 30 instead of continuing 

through December. Hunters are known to be shifting efforts to other more 

productive areas, such as nearby GMU 2, leading to less hunter effort and fewer 

deer harvested in GMU 1A (Harper 2013). In GMU 2, following a deer population 

decline from 2006 to 2009 due to severe winters, the population is now 

considered stable to increasing, with above-average deer harvest in this GMU 

(Harper 2013). Among Metlakatla residents, total annual deer harvest fluctuated 

between 2004 and 2013 with a low of 18 deer in 2011 and a high of 97 the next 

season in 2012 (ADF&G 2015b). As of 2013, harvest remained about 38 percent 

higher (12 more deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

The majority (72 percent) of deer harvest by Metlakatla residents takes place in 

ten WAAs (Table 3.23-39). Metlakatla residents account for 1 percent (WAA 

1315) to 100 percent (WAAs 0405 and 0406) of the rural harvest in these WAAs, 

and 1 percent (WAAs 1214 and 1315) to 15 percent (WAA 0405) of all harvest.. 

About 39 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, 

suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, 

before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

The WAAs used by Metlakatla residents occur in areas that have been affected 

to variable degrees by past timber harvest and, therefore, deer habitat 

capabilities are currently estimated at 56 to 100 percent of 1954 levels (Table 

3.23-39). Two of the 10 WAAs (1107 and 1210) used most by Metlakatla 

residents would not be affected by any of the alternatives (Table 3.23-39). In the 

remaining eight WAAs, additional harvest would occur under all alternatives that 

would reduce habitat capabilities after 100 years by a further 1 to 7 percent 

(Table 3.23-39). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted in the Metlakatla community use area 

by Metlakatla residents, all rural hunters, and all hunters in both the short and 

long terms. Because proposed harvest is substantially less under all current 

alternatives than in the 1997 analysis, it is likely that all of the current alternatives 

would also provide sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Metlakatla 

residents, all rural hunters, and all hunters in this area over the course of Forest 

Plan implementation. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-626 Final EIS

Table 3.23-39

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Metlakatla Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Metlakatla

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1107 8 99 130 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

1318 7 159 198 90% 83% 85% 84% 84% 84%

1422 6 247 383 57% 50% 52% 51% 50% 50%

0405 4 4 25 89% 87% 87% 87% 87% 86%

1214 3 120 235 77% 71% 72% 71% 72% 71%

1421 3 76 102 68% 62% 63% 63% 63% 64%

1315 3 201 317 56% 50% 51% 50% 51% 50%

1210 2 4 31 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

0406 2 2 55 76% 72% 74% 72% 72% 71%

0509 2 2 19 95% 93% 94% 93% 94% 93% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Meyers Chuck is a small fishing village on the northwest tip of Cleveland Peninsula, 

40 miles northwest of Ketchikan. According to the 2000 Census, Meyers Chuck 

had a 2000 population of 21, none of whom were Alaska Native (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2001). As noted earlier, effective June 1, 2008, Meyers Chuck was 

incorporated into the WrangellCity and Borough CA and its population is no longer 

separately counted or estimated by the federal or state government. 

Beginning as a protected anchorage for fishing vessels, Meyers Chuck grew with 

the building of a cannery in Union Bay in 1916. Postal service began in 1922. 

Fishing and fish processing, and support services sustained the community until the 

mid-1900s. Fishing and fish processing are still the basic sources of income in the 

community. 

Meyers Chuck’s population was the same in 1990 as it was in 1970, but declined 

by 16 residents, or 43 percent, between 1990 and 2000. The population declined 

by a further 6 people or 29 percent between 2000 and 2005. Total estimated

population was 11 in Meyers Chuck in 2006 (Alaska DOL 2007).

Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2006

Population 37 50 37 21 15 11

Source: USDA Forest Service 1997a; U.S. Census Bureau 2001; Alaska DOL 2007

Economic Conditions

The Meyers Chuck economy is primarily based on fishing with ten residents 

holding commercial fishing licensees in 2013, bringing in over $300,000 in 

estimated gross earnings (ACFEC 2015). Due to the relatively few cash 

opportunities, many residents depend on subsistence activities (Alaska DCED 

2002).

Meyers Chuck
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-627 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by industry data for Meyers Chuck were not available. The 2000 

U.S. Census identified 3 people as employed in a potential workforce of 13 

residents. While no adults in Meyers Chuck were identified as unemployed and 

seeking work in 2000, 77 percent of the population was identified as unemployed 

and not seeking work. Meyers Chuck has no central utility system and residents 

rely upon individual generators.

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Meyers Chuck in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence 

activities is shown on Figure 3.23-40. This area contains 380,308 acres of NFS

land (among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-40 shows the estimated 

maximum acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In 

general, potential harvest levels represent a small portion of the community use 

area for Meyers Chuck, ranging from about 0.4 percent (Alternatives 1 and 4) to 

0.8 percent (Alternative 3). Harvest activities could have localized effects if they 

coincide with a particular location favored by Meyers Chuck residents, and 

project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis under NEPA. In 

general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those alternatives with 

more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the community use 

area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted 

that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential suitable 

harvest) would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in this area (see 

Table 3.23-40).

Figure 3.23-40

Meyers Chuck’s Community Use Area
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-628 Final EIS

Table 3.23-40

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Meyers Chuck’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 989 2,326 2,640 1,388 1,554

Old Growth 361 309 386 282 290

Total 1,350 2,635 3,025 1,670 1,844

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

0.4% 0.7% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5%

Economy

Meyers Chuck is primarily a fishing community and would be primarily influenced 

by changes in fishing. Commercial fishing is not likely to be affected under any 

of the alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

80 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Meyers Chuck households (Kruse and Frazier, 1988). 

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for 5 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Meyers Chuck households (Kruse 

and Frazier, 1988). 

Data were not provided for Meyers Chuck in the ADF&G deer harvest reports for 

2004 to 2013. The majority of deer harvest by Meyers Chuck residents likely 

takes place in GMU 1A and GMU 2. As of 2013, deer numbers were at very low 

levels throughout most of GMU 1A and were no longer meeting local hunter 

demands or established deer harvest objectives (Harper 2013). Though not 

closed, starting in 2011 the deer hunting season was shortened to August 1 

through November 30 instead of continuing through December. Hunters are 

known to be shifting efforts to other more productive areas, such as nearby GMU 

2, leading to less hunter effort and fewer deer harvested in GMU 1A (Harper 

2013). Following a deer population decline from 2006 to 2009 due to severe 

winters, the population is now considered stable to increasing, with aboveaverage deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources (fish and marine invertebrates) 

by Meyers Chuck residents is not expected to be affected under any of the 

alternatives. Given the small portion (0.4 to 1.4 percent) of the Meyers Chuck 

community use area that could be affected by timber harvest, subsistence use of 

deer is also not likely to be affected under any of the alternatives.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Naukati Bay is located on the northwest coast of Prince of Wales Island. The 

area was named “Naukatee Nay” in 1904 after the local Native name for the 

area. The community of Naukati Bay was initially developed as a logging camp, 

but was later settled as an Alaska Department of Natural Resources land 

disposal site (Alaska DCED 2006). Naukati Bay is now a Home Owners 

Association and a 501(c)(4) Corporation; in 2006, the community rejected a 

Naukati Bay
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-629 Subregional Overview and Communities

proposal to become a second-class city and remains an unincorporated 

community with a homeowners association (Naukati Bay 2015). 

The population of Naukati Bay increased by 42 people or 45 percent between 

1990 and 2000. The population has fluctuated since 2000 but overall remained 

fairly constant, with a total estimated population of 121 in 2014 (Figure 3.23-41). 

Alaska Natives comprised 6 percent of the population in Naukati Bay in 2010 

(Table 3.23-8). A total of 19 students were enrolled in Naukati School in 2014, 

down from 36 students in 2000 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-41

Naukati Bay Population 1990 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Naukati Bay economy is dependent on the timber industry and employment 

is largely seasonal. The Naukati Logging camp provides log transfer services for 

several smaller camps on Prince of Wales Island. With help from the State and 

Forest Service, Naukati Bay built an oyster nursery raising oyster seed and sells 

the larger oysters to the grow out farms regionally and around Alaska (Naukati 

Bay 2015). Two residents held commercial fishing permits in 2013 (ACFEC 

2015). Local businesses also include a cabin rental business and one sport fish

charter operation (Dugan et al. 2009). A new marina and boat ramp was 

completed in 2014 (Naukati Bay 2015).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. While no one was 

estimated to be unemployed and seeking work in 2013, an estimated 20 percent 

of the population was not in the labor force, which includes seasonal workers 

interviewed during the off season who were not looking for work (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014b). Median household income was $45,750, compared to the state 

median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA 

was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Naukati Bay 135 127 109 105 104 113 126 124 116 111 113 121 113 123 121

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1990 Population: 93
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-630 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 6 13

Construction 12 26

Manufacturing 1 2

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 1 2

Information 1 2

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 12 26

Leisure and Hospitality 2 4

State Government 1 2

Local Government 10 21

Other 1 2

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 47 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Naukati Bay has some of the highest electric rates in Alaska due to the use of 

diesel-generated power. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the 

application of PCE payments were 55 cents/kWh and 18 cents/kWh, respectively 

(see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial 

and other rates were 55 cents/kWh. In June of 2013, residential rates before and 

after PCE payments had reached 58 cents/kWh and 36 cents/kWh, respectively 

(AEDG 2015a). The high cost of energy currently impedes economic 

development for commercial and industrial ventures (Alexander et al. 2010).

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Naukati Bay in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence 

activities is shown on Figure 3.23-42. This area contains 1,109,349 acres of 

NFS land (among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-41 shows the estimated 

maximum acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total 

areas available for harvest range from about 9.3 percent of the Naukati Bay

community use area under Alternative 1 to 12.2 percent under Alternative 2. 

Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular 

location favored by Naukati Bay residents, and project-level impacts would be 

subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts 

would be higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable 

for timber production within the community use area, as would be the case with 

Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would 

have the least amount of potential suitable harvest) would have the largest 

potential old-growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-41).

Economy

Naukati Bay is primarily a logging community and as such would be directly 

affected by the amount of logging opportunities on north Prince of Wales Island. 

Potential impacts to the timber industry are discussed in the Regional and 

National Economy section, above. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-631 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-42

Naukati Bay’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-41

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Naukati Bay’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 85,483 124,350 118,471 97,431 108,007

Old Growth 14,861 7,317 6,553 10,975 11,537

Total 100,344 131,666 125,024 108,406 119,544

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

9.3% 12.2% 11.6% 10.1% 11.1%

Subsistence

Naukati Bay was not surveyed by the Tongass Resource Use Cooperative 

Survey, and there are no baseline subsistence data for this community. No 

significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 73 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Naukati Bay in 1998 (ADF&G 2014). Deer accounted for 19 percent of per 

capita subsistence harvest by Naukati Bay residents in 1988 (ADF&G 2014). 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-632 Final EIS

Naukati Bay residents harvest deer almost entirely on Prince of Wales Island, 

which is included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline from 2006 to 

2009 due to severe winters, the population is now considered stable to 

increasing, with above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among 

Naukati Bay residents, total annual deer harvest in 2013 was more than double 

the 2004 harvest level (34 more deer) (ADF&G 2015b). 

Residents of Naukati Bay harvest the majority (73 percent) of their deer from 

three WAAs on north Prince of Wales Island (1422, 1529, and 1531). As shown 

in Table 3.23-42, the Naukati Bay portion ranges from 2 percent to 21 percent of 

the total harvest and from 4 percent to 37 percent of the rural hunter harvest in 

these WAAs. About 40 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is by 

non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could be 

restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

Table 3.23-42

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Naukati Bay Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed 

as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Naukati Bay

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1422 30 247 383 57% 50% 52% 51% 50% 50%

1531 8 22 39 64% 64% 64% 64% 64% 63%

1529 3 77 154 68% 64% 69% 69% 68% 66% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The three WAAs heavily used by Naukati Bay residents occur in an area with 

substantial past harvest and, therefore, deer habitat capabilities are currently 

estimated to be considerably below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-42). Under each of 

the alternatives, additional harvest would occur that would reduce habitat 

capabilities after 100 years by a further 1 to 7 percent (Table 3.23-42). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted in the Naukati Bay community use 

area by Naukati residents, all rural hunters, and all hunters in the short term, as 

well as for Naukati Bay residents in the long term. All of the 1997 alternatives 

included higher levels of timber harvest in Naukati Bay’s community use area 

than the alternatives considered in this EIS (34 to 247 percent higher). 

Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat 

capability over the short and long terms for Naukati residents. However, the 

1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the capability of the habitat 

to support deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success for all 

rural hunters and all hunters in the long term. This may still be the case under all 

current alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Naukati Bay residents (fish

and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that 

some restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-633 Subregional Overview and Communities

non-rural hunters, under all alternatives The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat, through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect 

effects associated with increased competition for deer within Naukati Bay’s 

subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from 

other communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Pelican is a fishing village along Lisianski Inlet on the northwest corner of 

Chichagof Island, located approximately 70 air miles north of Sitka and 70 air 

miles west of Juneau. Part of the community is built on pilings over tideland. A 

boardwalk serves as the town’s main thoroughfare due to lack of flat land for 

roads. Prior to its settlement in 1938, the Pelican area was used as a safe 

harbor by fishermen and as a hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering site by 

Hoonah Tlingit groups, who claimed lands on either side of Cross Sound 

(ADF&G 1994).

Pelican was incorporated in 1943 and is a first-class city with a Strong Mayor 

form of government. The government includes a seven-person city council 

including the mayor, a five-person advisory school board, a five-person planning 

and zoning commission, and a number of municipal employees. The community

also has an active local Fish and Game Advisory Committee (ADF&G 2015a). 

The Native community, largely Tlingit, is represented by a local Tlingit and Haida 

Community Council. No Native land allotments or withdrawals occur in the 

immediate vicinity of Pelican. Pelican is accessible via the Alaska Marine 

Highway System, as well as floatplane from Juneau or Sitka (ADF&G 1994).

The population of Pelican grew by 67 percent between 1970 and 1990, 

increasing from 133 to 222 residents over this period. The population of Pelican 

decreased by 59 residents (27 percent) from 1990 to 2000, and has continued to 

trend downward since 2000, with a total estimated population of 75 residents in 

2014 (Figure 3.23-43). Alaska Natives comprised 34 percent of the population in 

2010 (Table 3.23-8). School enrollment has also declined since 1990, dropping 

from 51 students in 1990 to 13 students in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Pelican
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-634 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-43

Pelican Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Pelican economy is primarily based on commercial fishing, sport fishing, and 

tourism. In 2013, 30 residents held commercial fishing permits and brought in 

estimated gross earnings of just over $1 million (ACFEC 2015). Salmon, halibut, 

and sablefish are the most important local fisheries. Pelican Seafoods, a fish

processing plant that was formerly the largest employer, went through a series of 

ownership changes and ultimately closed after forecolosure on the last owner in 

2010 (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

There have been low levels of tourism in Pelican for some time but more recently 

has begun to play a more important role in the local economy (Dugan et al. 

2009). Tourism in Pelican is primarily focused on sport fishing and marine 

wildlife viewing charters, with 12 marine charters operating out of the town in 

2005. The town also serves as a jumping-off point for independent travelers 

accessing nearby wilderness (Dugan et al. 2009).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 31 

percent of the labor force in Pelican was unemployed and seeking work in 2013, 

compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 

2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $89,167, compared 

to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the HoonahAngoon CA was $49,545 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pelican 163 150 108 103 107 104 96 98 102 112 88 83 82 79 75

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1970 Population: 133

1980 Population: 180

1990 Population: 222
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-635 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 0 0

Construction 0 0

Manufacturing 1 3

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 2 7

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 1 3

Leisure and Hospitality 0 0

State Government 4 14

Local Government 21 72

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 29 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

The City of Pelican runs its own 0.7MW run-of-river hydroelectric project that serves 

the community (Table 3.12b-2). The facility failed during a major flood event in 

2009, causing the project to be completely renovated and upgraded over several 

years. The Pelican Hydroelectric project became operational again in March 2013. 

The residential rates for 2011 are during the period when the Pelican hydroelectric 

project power was unavailable and rates increased. At that time, residential rates 

before and after the application of PCE payments were 69 cents/kWh and 31 

cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 

2015]). Commercial and other rates were 69 cents/kWh. As of June 2013, 

residential rates before and after PCE payments were 61 cents/kWh and 47 

cents/kWh, respectively (AEDG 2015b). 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Pelican in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-44. This area contains 488,851 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). As shown in Table 3.23-43, no young-growth or oldgrowth harvest is projected to take place in the community use area for Pelican 

over the next 100 years under any alternative; therefore, no timber-harvestrelated effects to this area are expected.
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-636 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-44

Pelican’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-43

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Pelican’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 0 0 0 0 0

Old Growth 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Economy

The Pelican economy is primarily based on commercial fishing, sport fishing, and 

tourism. None of the alternatives are expected to affect these activities.

Subsistence

In terms of subsistence use, Lisianski Inlet, Icy Strait, northwest Chichagof, and 

Yakobi Island are important areas to Pelican. These areas are presently 

legislatively withdrawn from timber harvest as either Wilderness or LUD II or 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-637 Subregional Overview and Communities

allocated to the Mostly Natural LUDs. Therefore, it is unlikely that subsistence 

use in Pelican would be directly affected under any of the alternatives.

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

63 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Pelican households (Kruse and Frazier, 1988). 

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for 30 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Pelican households (Kruse and 

Frazier, 1988). 

The WAAs used by Pelican residents for hunting deer lie within GMU 4. GMU 4 

is considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity in 

Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately 

severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer 

populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population 

has rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in 

this GMU (Harper 2013). However, deer harvest by Pelican residents has 

generally declined over the past decade, with about 61 percent lower total annual 

harvest (or 47 fewer deer) in 2013 than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

Pelican residents take the majority (94 percent) of their deer from three WAAs on 

northwestern Chichagof Island (3417, 3418, and 3419). As shown in Table 3.23-

44, these WAAs and, therefore, subsistence deer harvest would not be affected 

by any of the alternatives. 

Table 3.23-44

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Pelican Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest 

from 2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Pelican

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3419 20 23 40 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3418 13 18 26 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3417 6 60 115 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Petersburg

Petersburg is located on the northwest end of Mitkof Island, where the Wrangell

Narrows meet Frederick Sound. Formerly the City of Petersburg, the community 

of Petersburg is now part of the larger Petersburg Borough, which includes the 

former city and the rest of Mitkof Island, part of Kupreanof Island, and the 

mainland coastline north to Endicott Arm. The City of Petersburg was dissolved 

in January 2013 and became part of the new home-rule Petersburg Borough at 

this time. 

Petersburg and 

Kupreanof
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-638 Final EIS

Tlingit Indians from Kake historically used the north end of Mitkof Island as a 

summer fish camp, with some reportedly living year-round at the site. Petersburg

was named after Norwegian immigrant Peter Buschmann, who arrived in the late 

1890s. By 1900, he had built the Icy Strait Packing Company cannery, a sawmill, 

and a dock. The City incorporated in 1910, and by 1920, 600 people lived in 

Petersburg year-round. Alaska’s first shrimp processor, Alaska Glacier 

Seafoods, was founded in Petersburg in 1916, and a cold storage plant was built 

in 1926. 

Today, Petersburg is one of Alaska’s major fishing communities. Petersburg has 

one of the largest home-based halibut fleets in Alaska, and is also well-known for 

shrimp, crab, salmon, herring, and other fish products. Subsistence remains an 

important part of the local way of life. The community maintains a mixture of 

Tlingit and Scandinavian history and is known as “Little Norway.” Petersburg has 

a local Fish and Game Advisory Committee, which takes an active interest in 

resource management issues, meeting three to four times a year (ADF&G 

2015a).

The population of Petersburg grew by 57 percent between 1970 and 1990, with 

the number of residents increasing from 2,042 to 3,207 (Figure 3.23-45). The

population remained more or less constant between 1990 and 2000, increasing 

by less than 1 percent over this period. Petersburg had a total estimated 

population of 2,964 in 2014, approximately 260 or 8 percent fewer residents than 

14 years earlier in 2000. Alaska Natives comprised 7 percent of the population in 

2010 (Table 3.23-8). School enrollment has also declined since 2000, 

decreasing at a faster rate than the population, with a total of 436 students 

enrolled in 2014 versus 678 students in 2000 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-45

Petersburg Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Petersburg 3,224 3,240 3,196 3,141 3,187 3,161 3,109 3,063 3,017 3,008 2,948 3,020 2,965 2,954 2,964

2,800

2,850

2,900

2,950

3,000

3,050

3,100

3,150

3,200

3,250

3,300

1970 Population: 2,042

1980 Population: 2,821

1990 Population: 3,207
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-639 Subregional Overview and Communities

Kupreanof

The City of Kupreanof is located across the Wrangell Narrows from Petersburg,

on the northeast shore of Kupreanof Island. Originally known as West 

Petersburg, the town was homesteaded around the turn of the century. In 1911, 

the Knudsen brothers established the first business in town, a small sawmill that 

produced barrels for salted fish. The Yukon Fur Farm was established in the 

early 1920s. The farm initially raised foxes, but soon shifted to mink and became 

the first mink farm in Alaska. During the 1920s, more than 100 people resided in 

West Petersburg, with residents operating a small store and a gaff hook factory. 

Businesses in the 1930s and 1940s included a small ship repair facility, an 

outboard motor shop, commercial logging, and a clam cannery. 

Although the Knudsen Mill and Yukon Fur Farm continued to operate until the 

1960s, the population fell during the 1950s, dropping from 60 in 1950 to 26 in 

1960. The population has since remained stable. The community changed its 

name to Kupreanof when it incorporated as a second class city in 1975.

Kupreanof is a small, closely knit, non-Native community. All of the homes are 

built on the waterfront; there are no roads. Residents use skiffs to travel to 

Petersburg for schooling, goods and services. The majority of Kupreanof’s 

working residents are self-employed although some commute by boat to jobs in 

Petersburg. Subsistence and recreation uses of resources around Kupreanof 

supplement household incomes; deer, salmon, halibut, shrimp and crab are 

favorites. Although located within the boundary for the recently formed 

Petersburg Borough, the City of Kupreanof continues to exist as a separate 

municipality. The City has no full-time staff, few services, and no public utilities. 

Kupreanof had a total estimated population of 25 in 2014. Population in the 

community has remained constant for more than two decades with some minor 

fluctuations. Total estimated population was 23 in 1990 and 2000 (Alaska DOL 

1999, 2010a, 2015b). 

Economic Conditions

The Petersburg economy is primarily based on the commercial fishing industry 

(443 residents had commercial fishing permits in 2013). Estimated gross fishing 

revenues of local residents was approximately $68 million in 2013 (ACFEC 

2015). Petersburg is among the top-ranked ports in the United States for quality 

and value of fish landed. The city includes several processors operating cold 

storage, canneries, and custom packing services and the state-run Crystal Lake 

salmon hatchery. Petersburg also has two small active saw mills, and provides 

supplies and services for many of the area logging camps (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). 

While there is no deep water dock suitable for cruise ships, some small-ship 

cruise lines stop in Petersburg and local charter boats and fishing lodges draw 

tourism visitation (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In the summer of 2007, about 

13,000 people visited Petersburg for nature-based tourism (mainly fishing lodges 

and charters) generating over $2.7 million in revenue (Dugan et al. 2009).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 4 

percent of the labor force in Petersburg was unemployed and seeking work in 

2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $66,125, 

compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the 

Petersburg Borough was $63,934 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-640 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 26 2

Construction 69 6

Manufacturing 155 14

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 229 20

Information 18 2

Financial Activities 24 2

Professional and Business Services 34 3

Educational and Health Services 165 14

Leisure and Hospitality 77 7

State Government 67 6

Local Government 253 22

Other 30 3

Unknown 26 2

Total Employment 1,147 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Petersburg is served by the SEAPA system that connects Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

and Wrangell. The Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects provide 

electricity to this SEAPA network (Table 3.12b-2). Residential rates for 2011 

before and after the application of PCE payments were both 10 cents/kWh (see 

Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and 

other rates were 12 cents/kWh and 11 cents/kWh, respectively. Three SEAPA 

hydroelectric projects would help support reliability on the Swan-Tyee Intertie, 

including Whitman Lake, Swan Lake Expansion, and Mahoney Lake (Table 

3.12b-3). Petersburg has been involved in a regional effort to connect 

hydroelectric systems to sell power and help smaller communities replace their 

dieslel systems (Alexander et al. 2010). 

Kupreanof has no central utility system, and residents rely upon individual 

generators. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Petersburg in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-46. This area contains 742,197 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-45 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest 

levels represent a small portion of the community use area for Petersburg, ranging 

from about 2.9 percent (Alternative 1) to 3.8 percent (Alternative 2). Harvest 

activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location 

favored by Petersburg residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to 

future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher 

under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production

within the community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; 

however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of 

potential suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in 

this area (see Table 3.23-45).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-641 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-46

Petersburg’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-45

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Petersburg’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 16,017 24,972 23,692 17,644 20,437

Old Growth 5,760 3,268 3,993 4,390 5,049

Total 21,777 28,240 27,685 22,034 25,486

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

2.9% 3.8% 3.7% 3.0% 3.4%

Economy

Commercial fishing is particularly important to Petersburg. Commercial fisheries 

employment is not likely to be affected under any of the alternatives. 

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

52 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Petersburg households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 86 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Petersburg in 2000 (ADF&G 2014).
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-642 Final EIS

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 21 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Petersburg households 

(Kruse and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 11 percent of per capita 

subsistence harvest by Petersburg residents in 1987 (ADF&G 2014). 

Petersburg residents harvest deer on and around Mitkof and Kupreanof Islands, 

with the majority of harvest occurring within GMUs 3 and 4. The deer 

populations within GMU 3 have historically fluctuated with high and low 

extremes. Between 1994 and 2011, deer harvest ranged from a low of 333 to a 

high of 1,119 (Harper 2013). As of 2013, the harvest level was about 100 deer 

below the previous 10-year mean (Harper 2013). GMU 4 is considered to 

provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity in Southeast Alaska 

(Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately severe winters 

the following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer populations 

throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population has 

rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in this 

GMU (Harper 2013). Among Petersburg residents, total annual deer harvest 

appears to have followed a corresponding pattern, dipping after 2006 and then 

gradually increasing. In 2013, total annual harvest by Petersburg residents was 

still 32 percent less (209 fewer deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

Seventeen WAAs account for the majority (74 percent) of deer harvest by 

Petersburg residents. As shown in Table 3.23-46, the Petersburg portion ranges 

from 2 to 100 percent of all hunters and 4 to 100 percent of all rural hunters in 

these WAAs, and represents the majority or all of rural hunter deer harvest in 12 

of the 17 WAAs. About 30 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is by 

non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a limited harvest buffer that could be 

restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

In 7 of the 17 WAAs, there would be no effect to deer habitat capability under all 

alternatives (Table 3.23-46). In the remaining 10 WAAs, all of which currently 

have deer habitat capability below 1954 levels due to prior timber harvest, deer 

habitat capability would be further reduced by 1 to 7 percent (Table 3.23-46). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Petersburg residents, all rural 

hunters, and all hunters in the short term, as well as for Petersburg residents in 

the long term. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of 

timber harvest in Petersburg’s community use area than the alternatives 

considered in this EIS (approximately 122 to 516 percent higher). Therefore, it is 

likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat capability over 

the short and long terms for deer hunted by Petersburg residents. However, the 

1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the capability of the habitat 

to produce deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success for all 

rural hunters under the two most timber intensive alternatives and for all hunters 

under all alternatives in the long term. This may still be the case under all current 

alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-643 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-46

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Petersburg Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed 

as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Petersburg

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2104 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

5138 56 56 61 80% 73% 76% 75% 73% 72%

2007 43 44 46 75% 72% 73% 72% 73% 71%

3939 42 71 105 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3938 30 41 75 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3940 30 61 75 93% 93% 93% 93% 93% 93%

1605 24 24 27 77% 76% 76% 76% 77% 74%

1603 18 21 25 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94%

1528 18 30 36 78% 76% 78% 78% 78% 78%

1905 16 190 204 73% 68% 71% 71% 67% 67%

1706 14 14 15 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1530 12 57 124 61% 58% 60% 59% 58% 57%

1529 10 77 154 68% 64% 68% 68% 68% 66%

5134 9 10 13 89% 89% 89% 89% 89% 89%

5136 9 9 9 84% 74% 81% 81% 76% 77%

1420 7 158 276 49% 45% 45% 45% 45% 44%

5137 7 7 7 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

5133 6 6 6 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Petersburg residents (fish

and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer in some of the WAAs hunted by 

Petersburg residents may be affected to the point that some restriction in hunting 

might be necessary over the long term, especially for non-rural hunters, under all 

alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be reduced somewhat, 

through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the existing and future 

closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect effects associated with 

increased competition for deer within Petersburg’s subsistence use areas could 

also occur under all alternatives if hunters from other communities were 

displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Point Baker is located on the northern tip of Prince of Wales Island, 101 air miles 

northwest of Ketchikan. Point Baker received its name in 1793 from Captain 

George Vancouver. Native settlement of the area was already established 

during Vancouver’s time. Tlingits used fish camps at Point Baker to participate in 

both customary trade and subsistence fishing. Commercial fishing at Point Baker 

began in the early 1900s, when the area was used as the site of a floating fish 

packer. Land sales in Point Baker accounted for part of an increase in yearround residents, the majority being non-Native (ADF&G 1994).

Point Baker
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-644 Final EIS

Point Baker is accessible by floatplane and skiff. The community of Point Baker 

is not incorporated or located within any other local government jurisdiction. 

Point Baker is part of the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA.

The population of Point Baker decreased between 1970 and 1990, dropping by 

50 percent from 80 people in 1970 to 39 people in 1990. Population in Point 

Baker has trended downward since 2000, falling from 35 residents in 2000 to 13 

residents in 2014 (Figure 3.23-47). According to the 2010 Census, there were no 

Alaska Native residents in Point Baker. Point Baker is served by the school in 

Port Protection.

Figure 3.23-47

Point Baker Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Point Baker economy is heavily dependent on the fishing industry, with the 

entire adult population holding commercial fishing permits (ACFEC 2015). In 

2013, local residents grossed an estimated $611,000 from salmon and halibut 

fishing (ACFEC 2015). Residents also participate in subsistence and 

recreational harvest of deer, salmon, halibut, shrimp, and crab (Himes-Cornell et 

al. 2013). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. While no adults in 

Point Baker were identified as unemployed and seeking work in 2013, an 

estimated 68 percent of the population was not employed and not seeking work

(U.S. Census Bureau 2014b). Median household income was $18,906, 

compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the 

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Point Baker 35 34 35 33 25 21 17 16 16 12 15 14 16 15 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1970 Population: 80

1980 Population: 90

1990 Population: 39
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-645 Subregional Overview and Communities

Point Baker has no central utility system and residents rely upon individual 

generators.

Employment by Industry (2012) Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 0 0

Construction 0 0

Manufacturing 1 17

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 1 17

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 1 17

Leisure and Hospitality 0 0

State Government 0 0

Local Government 1 17

Other 2 33

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 6 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Point 

Baker in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-48. This area contains 842,636 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-47 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total areas available for 

harvest range from about 8.0 percent of the Point Baker community use area 

under Alternative 1 to 10.8 percent under Alternative 2. Harvest activities could 

have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location favored by Point 

Baker residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis 

under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it 

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential 

suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in this area 

(see Table 3.23-47).

Economy

Commercial fisheries and subsistence use are important to Point Baker. 

Commercial fisheries employment is not expected to be affected under any of the 

alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 59 

percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Point 

Baker households (Kruse and Frazier, 1988). Marine resources (fish and marine 

invertebrates) accounted for 79 percent of per capita subsistence harvest in Point 

Baker in 1996 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for 27 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Point Baker households (Kruse 

and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 16 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Point Baker residents in 1996 (ADF&G 2014). 

Point Baker residents harvest deer on north Prince of Wales Island and 

Kupreanof Island, which are included in GMUs 2 and 3, respectively. In GMU 2, 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-646 Final EIS

following a deer population decline 2006 to 2009 due to severe winters, the 

population is now considered stable to increasing, with above-average deer 

harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). The deer populations within GMU 3 have 

historically fluctuated with high and low extremes. Between 1994 and 2011, deer 

harvest ranged from a low of 333 to a high of 1,119 (Harper 2013). As of 2013, 

the harvest level was about 100 deer below the previous 10-year mean (Harper 

2013). Among Point Baker residents, data was not available for the 2011 to 

2013 hunting seasons; however, data from 2004 to 2010 indicates generally low 

levels of harvest, and in 2010 total annual harvest was about 40 percent higher 

(4 more deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

Figure 3.23-48

Point Baker’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-47

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Point Baker’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 54,062 81,809 78,311 63,653 69,043

Old Growth 10,174 5,005 4,297 7,090 7,056

Total 64,236 86,814 82,608 70,743 76,100

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

8.0% 10.8% 10.2% 8.8% 9.4%
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-647 Subregional Overview and Communities

Residents of Point Baker harvest the majority (69 percent) of their deer from two 

WAAs, 1529 and 1529. As shown in Table 3.23-48, the Point Baker portion is 

about 6 percent of the total combined harvest and 12 percent of the rural hunter 

harvest in these WAAs. About 48 percent of the combined harvest in these 

WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could 

be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

Both WAAs used most by Point Baker residents occur in an area with substantial 

past timber harvest and, therefore, deer habitat capabilities are currently 

estimated to be below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-48). Under each of the 

alternatives, additional harvest would occur that would reduce habitat capabilities 

after 100 years by a further 1 to 4 percent (Table 3.23-48). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Point Baker residents and all rural 

hunters in the short term and long term. All of the 1997 alternatives included 

substantially higher levels of timber harvest in Point Baker’s community use area 

than the alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 41 to 288 percent 

higher). Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide 

sufficient habitat capability over the long term for deer hunted by Point Baker 

residents. However, the 1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the 

capability of the habitat to produce deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on 

hunter success for all hunters in the long term. This may still be the case under 

all current alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Point Baker residents (fish

and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer on Prince of Wales Island may 

be affected to the point that some restriction in hunting might be necessary over 

the long term, especially for non-rural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of 

hunting restrictions would be reduced somewhat, through more intensive 

management (e.g., thinning) of the existing and future closed-canopy, younggrowth forests in this area. Indirect effects associated with increased competition 

for deer within Point Baker’s subsistence use areas on Prince of Wales Island 

could also occur under all alternatives if of hunters from other communities were 

displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Table 3.23-48

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Point Baker Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 20132

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Point 

Baker

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters3

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1529 10 77 154 68% 64% 69% 69% 68% 66%

1527 1 17 27 72% 69% 71% 71% 70% 70% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 Data from 2011-2013 not available for Point Baker residents. 3 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-648 Final EIS

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Port Alexander is located on the southern tip of Baranof Island about 85 miles 

south of Sitka. Port Alexander was named in 1849 by the governor of the 

Russian American colonies. In 1913, salmon trollers discovered the rich fishing 

grounds in the area, and two floating processors arrived soon after. By 1916, 

there was a fishing supply store, a shore station, and a bakery at Port Alexander. 

During the 1920s and 1930s, a prosperous fishing fleet evolved, and houses, 

stores, restaurants, and a school were constructed. The 1940s and 1950s saw a 

steep decline in Port Alexander’s population. 

Today, people choose Port Alexander as a home because of its independent, 

subsistence lifestyle, and commercial fishing opportunities, as well as its remote 

setting. There are no roads in Port Alexander; travel within the community is by 

skiff, boardwalks, and footpaths (ADF&G 1994). The community has a local Fish

and Game Advisory Committee; however, the last meeting was held in 2008 and 

it is currently considered inactive (ADF&G 2015a). .

Port Alexander’s population more than tripled between 1970 and 1990, 

increasing from 36 in 1970 to 119 in 1990 (Figure 3.23-49). Population in Port 

Alexander has trended downward since 2000, dropping by 44 percent from 81 

people in 2000 to 45 people in 2014. Alaska Natives comprised 4 percent of the 

population in Port Alexander in 2010 (Table 3.23-8). A total of 10 students were 

enrolled in Port Alexander School in 2014, down from 18 students in 2000 (Table 

3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-49

Port Alexander Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Port Alexander

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Port Alexander 81 78 74 71 69 66 63 60 57 55 52 58 61 56 45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970 Population: 36

1980 Population: 86

1990 Population: 119
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-649 Subregional Overview and Communities

Economic Conditions

The economy of Port Alexander is largely based on commercial fishing and 

subsistence use of marine and forest resources. In 2013, 17 residents, about 30 

percent of the population that year, held commercial fishing permits (ACFEC 2015). 

Subsistence food sources include deer, salmon, halibut, shrimp, and crab (HimesCornell et al. 2013). The City, the Armstrong Keta salmon hatchery (several miles to 

the north), a private construction company, a private lodge, the school, and post 

office provide employment in the area (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

This is a small, remote community of approximately 60 summer residents and 

30-40 residents in the offseason. Summer commercial and guided sport fishing 

drive the local economy in this board walk community.

Employment by industry data for Port Alexander by the Alaska Department of 

Labor and Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. While no 

adults in Point Alexander were identified as unemployed and seeking work in 

2013, an estimated 25 percent of the population was not employed and not 

seeking work (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b). Median household income was 

$56,250, compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for 

the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Port Alexander has no central utility system and residents rely upon individual 

generators. 

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 10 39

Construction 2 8

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 0 0

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 0 0

Leisure and Hospitality 2 8

State Government 1 4

Local Government 11 42

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 26 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Port 

Alexander in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities 

is shown on Figure 3.23-50. This area contains 86,828 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). As shown in Table 3.23-49, no young-growth or 

old-growth harvest is projected to take place in the community use area for Port 

Alexander over the next 100 years under any alternative; therefore no timberharvest-related effects to this area are expected.

Economy

Port Alexander is primarily a commercial fishing town. Commercial fishing and 

subsistence use are important to the community. Commercial fishing

employment is not expected to be affected under any of the alternatives.
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-650 Final EIS

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

55 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Port 

Alexander households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). 

Deer account for 36 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources 

harvested by Port Alexander households (Kruse and Frazier, 1988). 

Port Alexander residents take the majority (71 percent) of their deer from one 

WAA (3734) on the south end of Baranof Island. This WAA is located within 

GMU 4. GMU 4 is considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting 

opportunity in Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 

and moderately severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline 

in the deer populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer 

population has rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful 

hunters in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Port Alexander residents, deer 

harvest has fluctuated, and in 2013 was over four times as high than in 2004 (22 

more deer) (ADF&G 2015b). 

As shown in Table 3.23-50, WAA 3734 would not be affected under any of the

alternatives as no timber harvest is proposed in these areas. It is also unlikely 

that Port Alexander residents would be affected by increased competition 

because of the limited access to this area. 

Figure 3.23-50

Port Alexander’s Community Use Area
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-651 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-49

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Port Alexander’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 0 0 0 0 0

Old Growth 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0 0

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Table 3.23-50

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Port Alexander Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed 

as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Port 

Alexander

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters 2

All 

Hunter

s 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3734 26 59 66 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Port Protection, located on the northern end of Prince of Wales Island in a bay 

facing Sumner Strait, is only accessible by air and water. The community’s 

setting along the waterfront of the cove requires skiff travel for most purposes 

(ADF&G 1994). The community of Port Protection is not incorporated or located 

within any other local government jurisdiction. Port Protection is part of the 

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA.

Port Protection was first reported to the western world by the English explorer 

George Vancouver in 1793. Signs of earlier indigenous occupation of the 

northern shoreline of Prince of Wales Island include stone and wooden stake fish

weirs and traps, as well as shell middens of edible marine invertebrates (ADF&G 

1994). A scow served as a fish-buying station until it was replaced in 1946 by a 

trading post. A long float dock accommodated many fishing boats at the post 

(ADF&G 1994).

The population of Port Protection, which increased by approximately 50 percent 

between 1980 and 1990, was approximately the same in 2000 as it was in 1990. 

The population decreased by an estimated 7 people or 11 percent between 2000 

and 2014. Total estimated population was 56 in Port Protection in 2014 (Alaska 

DOL 2015b).

Port Protection
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-652 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-51

Port Protection Population 1980 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Port Protection economy peaks during the fishing season in summer and 

fall. In 2013, one resident held a commercial fishing permit (ACFEC 2015) and 

some residents provide sport fishing charters. The school district, Port Protection 

Community Association, Woodenwheel Cove Trading Post, and the Rural Alaska 

Community Action Program provide are main employers (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2013). Local residents also depend on subsistence for year-round support 

(Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. While no adults in 

Port Protection were unemployed and seeking work in 2013, an estimated 27 

percent were unemployed and not seeking work (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b). 

Median household income was $27,875, compared to the state median of 

$70,760; the corresponding median for the Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was 

$46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Port Protection has no central utility system and residents rely upon individual 

generators. 

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 1 4

Construction 0 0

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 5 21

Information 1 4

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 0 0

Leisure and Hospitality 2 8

State Government 0 0

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Port Protection 63 63 50 53 44 53 54 52 57 62 48 52 42 57 56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1980 Population: 40

1990 Population: 62
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-653 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Local Government 4 17

Other 11 46

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 24 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Port 

Protection in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-52. This area contains 706,627 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-51 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total areas available for 

harvest range from about 9.0 percent of the Port Protection community use area 

under Alternative 1 to 12.3 percent under Alternative 2. Harvest activities could 

have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location favored by Port 

Protection residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis 

under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it 

may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would have the least amount of potential 

suitable harvest) would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in this area 

(see Table 3.23-51).

Figure 3.23-52

Port Protection’s Community Use Area
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-654 Final EIS

Table 3.23-51

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Port Protection’s

Community Use Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 51,735 78,265 75,194 61,160 65,828

Old Growth 9,117 4,498 4,283 6,869 6,797

Total 60,852 82,763 79,476 68,029 72,625

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

9.0% 12.3% 11.8% 10.1% 10.8%

Economy

Port Protection’s economy primarily depends upon commercial fishing. 

Subsistence use is also important in this community. Commercial fisheries 

employment is not expected to be affected under any of the alternatives.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 69 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Port Protection in 1996 (ADF&G 2014).

Deer accounted for 21 percent of per capita subsistence harvest by Port 

Protection residents in 1996 (ADF&G 2014). 

Port Protection residents harvest deer almost entirely on Prince of Wales Island, 

which is included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline 2006 to 2009 

due to severe winters, the population is now considered stable to increasing, with 

above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Port Protection 

residents, total annual deer harvest is generally low, and in 2013 was 23 percent 

higher (3 more deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

Port Protection residents take the majority (64 percent) of their deer from two 

WAAs (Table 3.23-52). As shown in Table 3.23-52, the Port Protection portion of 

harvest represents about 3 percent of the total combined harvest and about 6

percent of the rural hunter harvest in these WAAs. About 41 percent of the 

harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest 

buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural 

harvests. 

Both WAAs occur in an area with substantial past harvest and, therefore, deer 

habitat capabilities are currently estimated to be considerably below 1954 levels 

(Table 3.23-52). Under each of the alternatives, additional harvest would occur that 

would reduce habitat capabilities after 100 years by a further 1 to 4 percent (Table 

3.23-52). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Port Protection residents and by all

hunters in the short-term. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially 

higher levels of timber harvest in Port Protection’s community use area than the 

alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 40 to 263 percent higher). 

Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat 

capability over the long term for deer hunted by Port Protection residents. 

However, the 1997 analysis found that, in the long term, the affected WAAs may 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-655 Subregional Overview and Communities

not be able to provide deer for all rural hunters and all hunters. This may still be 

the case under all current alternatives.

Table 3.23-52

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Port Protection Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 20132

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Port 

Protection

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters3

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1529 9 77 154 68% 64% 68% 68% 68% 66%

1317 1 93 133 58% 56% 56% 56% 56% 56% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 2011 data not available for Port Protection residents. 3 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Port Protection residents (fish

and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that 

some restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for 

non-rural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat, through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect 

effects associated with increased competition for deer within Port Protection’s 

subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from 

other communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Saxman is located on west Revillagigedo Island on the Tongass Highway, about 

three miles south of Ketchikan. In 1894, Tlingits from the old Cape Fox and 

Tongass villages chose Saxman as the site for a new village and the location of a 

government school and a Presbyterian church. Saxman was incorporated in 

1929 and was certified by the federal government as a second class municipal 

corporation. Three years later, the federal government issued a patent to 365 

acres of land to the townsite trustee for Saxman (ADF&G 1994).

When the Ketchikan Gateway Borough was formed in 1963, Saxman was 

included within its boundaries. In 1971 and 1973, respectively, Saxman was 

recognized and then certified as a Native village under ANCSA. An elected 

mayor and six city council members constitute the governing body of the 

municipality as organized under state law. The community has a local Fish and 

Game Advisory Committee that has been considered inactive since mid-2010 

(ADF&G 2015a).

When the Tlingits left their old villages to move to Saxman, they left behind 

houses, totems, carvings, and other cultural and ceremonial artifacts. In 1938, 

the Civilian Conservation Corps retrieved and brought to Saxman original totems 

from the abandoned villages and cemeteries of Tongass, Cat, and Pennock 

Saxman
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-656 Final EIS

Islands, and Cape Fox. The Totem Park in Saxman has become a major 

attraction for Ketchikan area visitors (ADF&G 1994).

The population of Saxman almost tripled between 1970 and 1990, increasing 

from 135 in 1970 to 379 in 1990 (Figure 3.23-53). Population in Saxman has 

remained fairly constant since 2000, with 419 residents in 2014 down from 431 

residents in 2000. Alaska Natives comprised 51 percent of the population in 

Saxman in 2010 (Table 3.23-8). The community of Saxman is served by the 

Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District.

Figure 3.23-53

Saxman Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Most employment opportunities for Saxman residents are in the City of 

Ketchikan. The City of Saxman, the Saxman Seaport, and the Cape Fox 

Corporation provide employment for a number of local residents. The Saxman 

Totem Park with a tribal house, a carving center, and a cultural hall for traditional 

Tlingit dance, has become an attraction for Ketchikan area visitors (Alaska DCED 

2002).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 22 

percent of the labor force in Saxman was unemployed and seeking work in 2013, 

compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 

2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $46,250, compared 

to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the Ketchikan

Gateway Borough was $62,519 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Saxman 431 422 412 421 385 401 416 423 410 420 411 436 432 411 419

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

1970 Population: 135

1980 Population: 263

1990 Population: 379
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-657 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 1 1

Construction 13 7

Manufacturing 9 5

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 50 27

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 6 3

Professional and Business Services 2 1

Educational and Health Services 18 10

Leisure and Hospitality 29 16

State Government 15 8

Local Government 40 22

Other 3 2

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 186 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Saxman is currently served by Ketchikan Public Utilities, sourced from a mix of 

hydroelectricity and diesel generation (Southeast Conference 2015). Ketchikan 

Public Utilities residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE 

payments were both 10 cents/kWh (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report 

[Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 10 cents/kWh and 8 

cents/kWh, respectively. The City of Saxman holds a FERC license issued in 

1998 to construct the 9.6 MW Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project; as of 2015,

this project has not been built (Table 3.12b-3).

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Saxman in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-54. This area contains 1,975,123 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-53 shows the estimated maximum 

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, 

potential harvest levels represent a small portion of the community use area for 

Saxman, ranging from about 1.3 percent (Alternative 1) to 2.0 percent 

(Alternative 3). Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide 

with a particular location favored by Saxman residents, and project-level impacts 

would be subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for 

impacts would be higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as 

suitable for timber production within the community use area, as would be the 

case with Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which 

would have the least amount of potential suitable harvest) would have the largest 

potential old growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-53).

Economy

Saxman, a traditional native community, could be affected primarily by changes 

in recreation and tourism use, commercial fishing, timber processing, and 

subsistence opportunities. Commercial fisheries employment is not expected to 

be affected under any of the alternatives. Recreation and tourism in Saxman is 

also unlikely to be affected under any of the alternatives.

The proposed Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project is located in a Semi-Remote 

Recreation LUD and Inventoried Roadless Area 524. Semi-Remote Recreation 

is considered a TUS “window” under the 2008 Forest Plan, an area potentially 

available for the location of transportation or utility corridors and sites. This 

classification and the standards and guidelines in the current Forest Plan would 

continue to apply under Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 through 5, energy 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-658 Final EIS

projects would be managed under the Renewable Energy Plan Components 

identified in Chapter 5 of the proposed amended Forest Plan. 

Figure 3.23-54

Saxman’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-53

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Saxman’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 20,284 33,533 33,248 26,392 25,562 

Old Growth 5,393 2,639 5,735 4,411 3,669 

Total 25,678 36,172 38,983 30,804 29,231 

Harvest as a Percent of 

Total NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

1.3% 1.8% 2.0% 1.6% 1.5%

Subsistence

No significant decline in salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

68 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Saxman households (Kruse and Frazier, 1988). Marine resources (fish and 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-659 Subregional Overview and Communities

marine invertebrates) accounted for 70 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Saxman in 1999 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 19 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Saxman households 

(Kruse and Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 13 percent of per capita 

subsistence harvest by Saxman residents in 1999 (ADF&G 2014). 

Data were not provided separately for Saxman in the ADF&G deer harvest 

reports for 2004 to 2013. The majority of deer harvest by Saxman residents 

likely takes place in GMU 1A. As of 2013, deer numbers were at very low levels 

throughout most of GMU 1A and were no longer meeting local hunter demands 

or established deer harvest objectives (Harper 2013). Though not closed, 

starting in 2011 the deer hunting season was shortened to August 1 through 

November 30 instead of continuing through December. Hunters are known to be 

shifting efforts to other more productive areas, such as nearby GMU 2, leading to 

less hunter effort and fewer deer harvested in GMU 1A (Harper 2013).

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

habitat capability for deer hunted in the Saxman community use area by Saxman 

residents, all rural hunters, and all hunters in the short term. All alternatives were

also estimated to provide sufficient habitat capability for Saxman residents and 

all rural hunters in the long term. All of the 1997 alternatives included 

substantially higher levels of timber harvest in Saxman’s community use area 

than the alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 3 to 11 times as high). 

Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat 

capability over the long term for deer hunted by Saxman residents. However, the 

1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the capability of the habitat 

to produce deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success for all 

hunters in the long term. This may still be the case under all current alternatives.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Saxman residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, under all 

alternatives. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Located on the west side of Baranof Island, Sitka is the only community in 

Southeast Alaska that fronts the open sea. Sitka was originally inhabited by a 

major tribe of Tlingits who called the village “Shee Atika.” Traditionally, the 

Tlingits used a wide area surrounding the community for hunting, fishing, and 

gathering wild resources. The site became “New Archangel” in 1799, the capital 

of Russian America (ADF&G 1994). 

Sitka became the focal point of Russian fur trade in North America beginning in 

1741. During the mid-1800s, Sitka was the major port on the north Pacific coast, 

with ships calling from many nations. After the purchase of Alaska by the United 

States in 1867, it remained the capital of the Territory until 1906, when the seat 

of government moved to Juneau. During the early 1900s gold mines contributed 

to its growth, and during World War II the town was fortified. After the war, the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs converted some of the buildings to a boarding school for 

Alaska Natives (ADF&G 1994). The APC pulp mill operated in Sitka from 1959 

through 1993, employing almost 400 people at the time of closure.

Sitka
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-660 Final EIS

The population of Sitka grew by 41 percent between 1970 and 1990, increasing 

from 6,109 residents in 1970 to 8,588 residents in 1990 (Figure 3.23-55). The 

population in Sitka has remained fairly constant sine 1990, increasing by 3 

percent between 1990 and 2000, and another 3 percent or an estimated 226 

residents between 2000 and 2014. Total estimated population was 9,061 in 

Sitka in 2014. Alaska Natives comprised 17 percent of the population in Sitka in 

2010 (Table 3.23-8). 

While the population in Sitka has remained fairly constant over the past two 

decades or so, it has been aging at faster than normal rates (Alexander et al. 

2010). This is reflected in the school district enrollment, with enrollment dropping 

from 2,008 students in 1990 to 1,796 students in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-55

Sitka Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Sitka has a diversified economy, with tourism, fishing, fish processing, 

government, health care services, transportation, and retail all contributing to its 

base (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In 2013, 574 residents held commercial fishing 

permits, with estimated gross earnings of over $48 million (ACFEC 2015). The 

seafood industry is a major employer, as well as regional health care services,

the Forest Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

A study conducted by the Alaska DOL in 2003 suggested that Sitka’s economy 

appears to have survived the downturn in its economy caused by the pulp mill 

closure, in large part because it has a relatively diversified economy (Gilbertson

2003). While the community of Sitka does not appear to have been as negatively 

affected by the closure of the pulp mill as some predicted, the effects have been 

felt by the workers who lost their jobs. By 2001, 57 percent of the former pulp 

mill labor force were no longer employed in Alaska, 43 percent had left the State, 

and 14 percent were in the State but had left the workforce, most likely retired. 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Sitka 8,835 8,737 8,812 8,918 8,860 8,990 9,043 8,678 8,698 8,730 8,881 9,022 9,055 9,034 9,061

8,000

8,200

8,400

8,600

8,800

9,000

9,200

1970 Population: 6,109

1980 Population: 7,803

1990 Population: 8,588
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-661 Subregional Overview and Communities

Only 25 percent of the former pulp mill workers were still living and working in 

Sitka (Gilbertson 2003).

Nature-based tourism in Sitka is less dominated by large cruise ships than in the 

other coastal communities with independent travelers making up a larger share 

of total visitors (Dugan et al. 2009). Multi-day fishing packages and kayaking and 

hunting are popular nature-based tourist activities operating from Sitka. Overall, 

nature-based tourism generated nearly $74 million in revenue in 2006 (Dugan et 

al. 2009). 

Sitka experienced an estimated high of 289,000 cruise ship passengers in 2008, 

followed by a steady decline to an estimated low of 90,000 passengers in 2014. 

(SEDA 2015). In September 2012, a new deepwater dock opened for cruise 

ships in Sitka, making it possible for non-lightering cruise vessels to visit Sitka, 

resulting in additional visits beyond projections. In 2014, Sitka had almost 

106,000 cruise ship passengers (not counting smaller cruise vessels such as 

Disney and National Geographic), with 19 percent of passengers disembarking at 

the new deepwater dock (known as the “Old Sitka Dock”) located near Old Sitka

(SEDA 2015). The remaining cruise ships anchor offshore and transport 

passengers to Sitka on smaller lightering vessels. In 2015, the large cruise ship 

industry anticipates a 28 percent increase in passenger visits, to 130,000 (SEDA 

2015).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 5 

percent of the labor force in Sitka was unemployed and seeking work in 2013, 

compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 

2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $69,405, compared 

to the state median of $70,760 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 54 1

Construction 252 7

Manufacturing 262 7

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 657 17

Information 44 1

Financial Activities 113 3

Professional and Business Services 197 5

Educational and Health Services 702 19

Leisure and Hospitality 347 9

State Government 374 10

Local Government 702 19

Other 99 3

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 3,803 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Sitka is currently served by the Blue Lake and Green Lake hydropower projects run 

by the City and Borough of Sitka (Table 3.12b-2). The system cannot meet Sitka’s 

full energy demand, and is supplemented by diesel generation during peak load 

hours on a daily basis (Alexander et al. 2010). The Blue Lake Expansion project 

was completed in 2015 and increased electricity output for Sitka by about 27 

percent(Blue Lake Expansion Project 2015). 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Sitka

in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is shown on 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-662 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-56. This area contains 425,121 acres of NFS land (among other 

land ownerships). Table 3.23-54 shows the estimated maximum acres of younggrowth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest levels 

represent a small portion of the community use area for Sitka, ranging from about 

1.0 percent (Alternative 4) to 3.1 percent (Alternative 2). Harvest activities could 

have localized effects if they coincide with a particular location favored by Sitka 

residents, and project-level impacts would be subject to future analysis under 

NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be higher under those 

alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber production within the 

community use area, as would be the case with Alternative 3; however, it may be 

noted that Alternative 1 (which would have less potential total suitable harvest 

compared to Alternative 3) would have the largest potential old-growth harvest in 

this area (see Table 3.23-54).

Economy 

Commercial fishing, recreation and tourism, and subsistence are important to 

Sitka residents. Commercial fishing is not expected to be significantly affected 

under any of the alternatives. None of the alternatives are expected to affect 

recreation and tourism-related employment in Sitka.

Figure 3.23-56

Sitka’s Community Use Area
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-663 Subregional Overview and Communities

Table 3.23-54

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Sitka’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 5,529 12,808 10,217 3,777 9,560

Old Growth 922 448 565 440 430

Total 6,451 13,256 10,782 4,217 9,990

Harvest as a Percent of 

Total NFS Lands in the 

Community Use Area

1.5% 3.1% 2.6% 1.0% 2.4%

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

69 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Sitka households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and marine 

invertebrates) accounted for 68 percent of per capita subsistence harvest in Sitka 

in 1996 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 27 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Sitka households (Kruse 

and Frazier, 1988). Deer accounted for 22 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Sitka residents in 1996 (ADF&G 2014). 

Sitka residents mainly harvest deer on Baranof Island, which is included in GMU 

4. GMU 4 is considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting 

opportunity in Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 

and moderately severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline 

in the deer populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer 

population has rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful 

hunters in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Sitka residents, total annual deer 

harvest has fluctuated in recent years, and in 2013 was 20 percent lower (525 

fewer deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b). 

Sixteen WAAs account for the majority (75 percent) of deer harvest by Sitka

residents. As shown in Table 3.23-55, the Sitka portion represents about 97

percent of the rural hunter harvest and 87 percent of the total harvest in these 

WAAs. About 11 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural 

hunters, suggesting that there is little harvest buffer that could be restricted, if 

necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests.

Of the 16 WAAs used most heavily by Sitka residents, under all alternatives only 

one would have a reduction in deer habitat capability (Table 3.23-55). In WAA

3308, Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 would further reduce deer habitat capability after 

100 years of Forest Plan implementation by 1 percent (Table 3.23-55).

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that at that time, Sitka residents were harvesting 

deer at a rate above what was considered both sustainable and able to provide a 

reasonably high level of hunter success. In addition, all 1997 alternatives would 

not be able to provide sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted in the Sitka 

community use area by Sitka residents, all rural hunters, and all hunters in the 

short term or long term. The Final EIS analysis concluded that at some point a 

restriction in hunting might be necessary. The 1997 alternatives all included 

more timber harvest than the alternatives considered in this EIS, ranging from 

about 47 percent to over 1,800 percent higher (or 19 times as high). Due to the 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-664 Final EIS

lower level of timber harvest, and minimal change in deer habitat capability, it is 

unlikely any of the current alternatives would have a noticeable effect on the 

availiabity of deer for Sitka hunters. However, as in the 1997 analysis, in the 

long term a restriction in hunting may be necessary under all alternatives due to 

existing circumstances. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Sitka residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may reach a point that some restriction in 

hunting might be necessary over the long term, under all alternatives. The risk of 

hunting restrictions would be reduced somewhat, through more intensive 

management (e.g., thinning) of the existing and future closed-canopy, younggrowth forests in this area. Indirect effects associated with increased competition 

for deer within Sitka’s subsistence, use areas could also occur under all 

alternatives if hunters from other communities were displaced due to timber 

production activity.

Table 3.23-55

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Sitka Residents Obtain Approximately 

75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Sitka

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3001 334 338 361 82% 82% 82% 82% 82% 82%

3002 268 272 299 69% 69% 69% 69% 69% 69%

3003 144 144 152 86% 86% 86% 86% 86% 86%

3314 122 123 136 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%

3311 112 113 127 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

3313 106 107 125 97% 97% 97% 97% 97% 97%

3310 88 92 100 92% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

3207 86 88 94 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3104 73 75 84 74% 74% 74% 74% 74% 74%

3416 71 78 88 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3309 70 72 81 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3733 69 77 81 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3312 68 69 76 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

3206 61 63 68 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3105 56 58 68 99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99%

3308 52 61 107 66% 65% 66% 66% 65% 65% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Skagway is located in northern Southeast Alaska at the head of Taiya Inlet, 95 

air miles north of Juneau. It is the end-of-the line for the Alaska Marine Highway 

System and the entrance to the Klondike Highway. The area was initially settled 

by Chilkoot Tlingit who called it “Skagua,” or “the place where the north wind 

blows.” The Chilkoots controlled access into the interior along what has become 

known as the Chilkoot Trail, which follows along the Taiya River and over the 

Skagway
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-665 Subregional Overview and Communities

Chilkoot Pass. The Chilkoot Trail was a major trade route for the Chilkoot Tlingit, 

interior Tlingit, and Athabaskans (ADF&G 1994).

The current settlement began in Skagway in 1887 when a seafarer named William 

Moore decided to develop a trading and mining route into the Yukon Territory 

using the Chilkoot Trail. As the Klondike gold rush hit the area in 1896, the 

Chilkoot and White Pass trails became the major routes into the Interior. Within a 

few years, the trails were superseded by the adjacent White Pass and Yukon 

Railway. The railway continued to function as a supply and shipping route 

between Skagway and Whitehorse until 1982 (ADF&G 1994). The railway 

currently operates as a tourist attraction.

Skagway became the first incorporated first-class city in Alaska in 1900. During 

2007, the city government dissolved and the Municipality of Skagway Borough 

formed. The community participates in the Upper Lynn Canal Fish and Game 

Advisory Committee (ADF&G 2015a). 

The population of Skagway, which declined between 1980 and 1990, increased 

by 170 people or 25 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 3.23-57). The 

population continued to increase by an estimated 156 residents or 19 percent 

between 2000 and 2014. Total estimated population was 957 in Skagway in 

2014 (Alaska DOL 2015b). Alaska Natives comprised 4 percent of the 

population in Skagway in 2010 (Table 3.23-8). 

Despite the steady increase in population in Skagway over the past two decades 

or so, school enrollment has dropped, falling by more than a third between 2000 

and 2014, with 132 and 86 students enrolled in 2000 and 2014, respectively 

(Table 3.23-9). Local leaders reportedly attribute this decline to the closure of 

the year-round railroad operation of the White Pass-Yukon Railroad (Alexander 

et al. 2010).

Figure 3.23-57

Skagway Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Skagway 811 796 808 813 851 818 847 840 850 881 920 915 909 926 967

600

680

760

840

920

1,000

1970 Population: 675

1980 Population: 814

1990 Population: 692
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-666 Final EIS

Economic Conditions

Skagway has a strong base in the tourism industry. It is a port of call for cruise 

ships and a transfer site for interior rail and bus tours. The Alaska Marine 

Highway System also connects travelers to the rest of Southeast Alaska. More 

than 600,000 cruise ship passengers and numerous state ferry travelers visit 

Skagway each year. Skagway is also the site of trans-shipment of lead/zinc ore, 

fuel, and freight via the Port and Klondike Highway to and from Canada (Alaska 

DCED 2002; 2006).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 8 

percent of the labor force in Skagway was unemployed and seeking work in 

2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $71,435, 

compared to the state median of $70,760 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 0 0

Construction 18 5

Manufacturing 10 3

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 155 39

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 9 2

Professional and Business Services 13 3

Educational and Health Services 9 2

Leisure and Hospitality 77 19

State Government 16 4

Local Government 84 21

Other 9 2

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 400 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Skagway is part of an AP&T system that connects Haines and Skagway in the 

Upper Lynn Canal Region, and is connected via an intertie to the existing Inside 

Passage Electric Cooperative system that serves Klukwan and Chilkat Valley.

The existing AP&T Goat Lake and Dewey Lakes hydropower projects support 

this system (Table 3.12b-2). Residential rates for 2011 before and after the 

application of PCE payments were 22 cents/kWh and 15 cents/kWh, respectively 

(see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and 

other rates were 22 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Skagway in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-58. This area contains 199,938 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). As shown in Table 3.23-56, no young-growth or oldgrowth harvest is projected to take place in the community use area for Skagway

over the next 100 years under any alternative; therefore no timber-harvestrelated effects to this area are expected.

There are no acres within the Skagway Community Use Area allocated to 

Wilderness/National Monument LUDs under any of the alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-667 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-58

Skagway’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-56

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Skagway’s Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 0 0 0 0 0 

Old Growth 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 0 0 0 0 0

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Economy

Recreation, tourism, and subsistence use are important to the community of 

Skagway. None of the alternatives are expected to affect recreation and tourismrelated employment in Skagway.

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-668 Final EIS

88 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Skagway households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). 

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for only a small fraction of the 

total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Skagway households 

(Kruse and Frazier, 1988). 

Skagway residents primarly harvest deer in four WAAs (Table 3.23-57); three of 

these WAAs are located in GMU 4; the other is located in GMU 1C. GMU 4 is 

considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity in 

Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately 

severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer 

populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population 

has rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in 

this GMU (Harper 2013). Deer populations in GMU 1C have historically 

fluctuated with periodic severe winter weather, most recently during the winter of 

2006-2007. The snow pack led to a substantial deer die off, and opportunities to 

harvest deer will likely improve in the coming years if winter weather isn’t too 

severe (Harper 2013). Skagway residents harvested very few deer from 2004 to 

2013 (Table 3.23-57). Residents harvested an annual average of two to four 

deer over this period. 

As shown in Table 3.23-57, the four WAAs used by Skagway residents would not 

be affected by any of the alternatives as no timber harvest is proposed in these 

areas. Indirect effects could occur under all alternatives if hunters from other 

communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Table 3.23-57

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Skagway Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 20132

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent of 

the 1954 Habitat Capability

Skagway

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters3

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3836 4 16 210 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2515 2 1 12 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2722 2 6 302 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4044 2 6 57 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 Data from 2007 and 2008 not available for Skagway residents. 3 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Tenakee Springs is located 50 miles northeast of Sitka on the north shore of 

Tenakee Inlet (east Chichagof Island). Tenakee Springs, accessible only by 

floatplane or boat, is a stop on the Alaska Marine Highway System. 

A Tlingit winter village site was historically located in the vicinity of the presentday harbor and a summer village was located across the Inlet at Kadashan Bay 

(ADF&G 1994). Early prospectors and fishermen came to the site to wait out the 

Tenakee Springs
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-669 Subregional Overview and Communities

winters and enjoy the natural hot springs in Tenakee. Around 1895, a large tub 

and building were constructed to provide a warm bathing place. The 108-degree 

sulfur springs is the social focus of the community, with bathing times scheduled 

for men and women. 

In 1904, E. Snyder bought a tract of land from a Tlingit resident, including a 

house located near the public bathhouse. The post office, established in 1903, 

used the name Tenakee. In 1928, the community’s name was changed to 

Tenakee Springs. The community has a local Fish and Game Advisory 

Committee (though currently inactive), and many residents practice a 

subsistence lifestyle, actively exchanging resources with neighbors (ADF&G 

1994, 2015c).

Residents use four wheelers on the single dirt road in the community, but no 

vehicles, other than the city-owned fuel truck, are allowed access. The harbor is 

poorly protected, especially during the winter storms and unloading barged 

supplies can be challenging (Alexander et al. 2010).

Tenakee Springs’ population fluctuated between 1980 and 2000. The population 

has generally trended upward since 2000, increasing from 104 in 2000 to 128 in 

2014, with a peak estimated population 151 in 2012 (Figure 3.23-59). Alaska 

Natives comprised 1 percent of the population in Tenakee Springs in 2010 (Table 

3.23-8). School enrollment has hovered around 10 students since 1990, with 

total enrollment of 12 students in 2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Figure 3.23-59

Tenakee Springs Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Tenakee Springs is often considered a retirement and vacation community, 

though fishing and tourism are important sources of income (Himes-Cornell et al. 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tenakee Springs 104 103 99 107 110 106 116 117 118 129 131 144 151 140 128

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1970 Population: 86

1980 Population: 138

1990 Population: 94
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-670 Final EIS

2013). The City, State of Alaska, local store, school, bakery, and post office are 

main employers (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

An estimated 25 percent of the homes in Tenakee Springs are second homes. 

Tourism activities are limited to two family-run marine charters and Tenakee 

Springs residents have been vocal in their opposition to tourism development 

(Dugan et al. 2009). The Chichagof Conservation Council noted in 2007 that 

small-scale, locally-owned businesses catering to independent travelers are a 

large part of the Tenakee Springs economy. Local residents opposed cruise ship 

development, not all tourism development. 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 5 

percent of the labor force in Tenakee Springs was unemployed and seeking work 

in 2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $62,813, 

compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the 

Hoonah-Angoon CA was $49,545 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 1 2

Construction 8 18

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 7 16

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 1 2

Educational and Health Services 1 2

Leisure and Hospitality 1 2

State Government 5 11

Local Government 21 47

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 45 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Tenakee Springs has the second highest electricity rates in the region due to the 

use of diesel generated power (tied with the community of Pelican). Residential 

rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE payments were 69

cents/kWh and 31 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the Energy Resource 

Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 69 cents/kWh. 

The City of Tenakee Springs is constructing an 180 kW run-of-river hydroelectric 

project on Indian River (Table 3.12b-3). The project would supply approximately 

90 percent of the city’s electricity use, reducing diesel use and lowering rates 

substantially. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Tenakee 

Springs in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-60. This area contains 196,031 acres of National Forest the 

System land (among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-58 shows the estimated 

maximum acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, 

potential harvest levels represent a small portion of the community use area for 

Tenakee Springs, ranging from about 2.5 percent (Alternative 4) to 3.6 percent 

(Alternatives 2 and 5). Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide 

with a particular location favored by Tenakee Springs residents, and project-level 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-671 Subregional Overview and Communities

impacts would be subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential 

for impacts would be higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as 

suitable for timber production within the community use area, as would be the case 

with Alternatives 2 and 5; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would 

have less potential total suitable harvest compared to Alternative 2) would have the 

largest potential old-growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-58).

Figure 3.23-60

Tenakee Springs’ Community Use Area

Table 3.23-58

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Tenakee Spring’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 3,161 6,075 4,951 3,530 5,409

Old Growth 2,196 1,066 1,289 1,339 1,569

Total 5,357 7,141 6,240 4,869 6,978

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

2.7% 3.6% 3.2% 2.5% 3.6%
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-672 Final EIS

Economy

Tenakee Springs is primarily a commercial fishing, subsistence, and retirement 

community. Commercial fishing is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives.

The Tenakee Springs/Indian River project is located on non-NFS lands and 

would not be directly affected by the Renewable Energy Plan Components 

identified in Chapter 5 of the proposed amended Forest Plan. 

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 55 

percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Tenakee 

Springs households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). 

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 39 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Tenakee Springs households (Kruse 

and Frazier, 1988). 

The WAAs used by Tenakee Springs residents for hunting deer lie within GMU 4. 

GMU 4 is considered to provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity 

in Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately 

severe winters the following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer 

populations throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population has 

rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in this GMU 

(Harper 2013). Among Tenakee Springs residents, total annual deer harvest has 

fluctuated up and down over the past decade, and in 2013 was about 12 percent less 

(9 fewer deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b).

Tenakee Springs residents take the majority (71 percent) of their deer from six WAAs 

(Table 3.23-59). As shown in Table 3.23-59, the Tenakee Springs portion ranges 

from about 4 to 31 percent of total harvest and 8 to 90 percent of all rural deer 

harvest in these WAAs. About 58 percent of the combined harvest in these WAAs is 

by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could be restricted, 

if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests. 

Table 3.23-59

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Tenakee Springs Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed 

as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Tenakee 

Springs

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

3627 20 25 63 76% 72% 74% 75% 72% 72%

3526 15 28 63 80% 77% 79% 79% 77% 78%

3629 14 23 66 91% 91% 91% 91% 91% 91%

3525 5 56 118 75% 69% 71% 71% 70% 72%

3630 4 6 18 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99%

3628 2 2 8 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-673 Subregional Overview and Communities

All of the WAAs identified in Table 3.23-59 are in areas with at least some past 

timber harvest and, therefore, deer habitat capabilities are currently estimated to 

be below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-59). Under each of the alternatives, additional 

harvest would occur that would reduce habitat capabilities in three of the six 

WAAs by a further 1 to 6 percent (Table 3.23-59). 

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability over the short term and long term for deer hunted by 

Tenakee Springs residents and all rural hunters, and over the short term for all 

hunters. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of timber 

harvest in Tenakee Spring’s community use area than the alternatives 

considered in this EIS (approximately 4 to 11 times as high). Therefore, it is 

likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat in the short 

and long terms for deer hunted by Tenakee Spring’s residents and all rural 

hunters. However, the 1997 analysis concluded that all alternatives may have 

future inadequate habitat capability for the total deer hunt and at some point a 

restriction in hunting may be necessary. This may still be the case under all 

current alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Tenakee Springs residents 

(fish and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that 

some restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for 

non-rural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat, through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Thorne Bay is located at the head of Thorne Bay on eastern Prince of Wales 

Island, approximately 40 air miles northwest of Ketchikan. Petroglyphs and other 

archaeological remains indicate occupation and use of the area by Alaska 

Natives dating back at least 3,000 years. Post-contact development began in the 

early 1900s with construction of a saltery on the south shore of Thorne Bay. 

Thorne Bay developed as a result of the long-term timber sale contract between 

the Forest Service and the Ketchikan Pulp Company. In 1960, a floating logging 

camp was built in Thorne Bay, and, in 1962, a shop, barge terminal, log sort 

yard, and camp were built to replace facilities at Hollis. During this era, Thorne 

Bay was considered the largest logging camp in North America. Thorne Bay was 

incorporated as a second-class city in 1982, making it one of Alaska’s newest 

cities. 

Thorne Bay’s population decreased by 4 percent between 1990 and 2000, 

dropping by a further 21 percent between 2000 and 2009, but has since

rebounded nearly to 2000 levels. Total estimated population was 530 in Thorne 

Bay in 2014 (Figure 3.23-61). Alaska Natives comprised 2 percent of the 

population in Thorne Bay in 2010 (Table 3.23-8). A total of 76 students were 

enrolled in Thorne Bay in 2014, down from 136 students in 2000 and 168 

students in 1990 (Table 3.23-9).

Thorne Bay
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-674 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-61

Thorne Bay Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Thorne Bay economy is primarily based on the timber industry and the 

USDA Forest Service management of the National Forest. Logging operations in 

the area are generally seasonal (March to November) and include a major log 

transfer site for Prince of Wales Island. The 2013 mill survey conducted for the 

USDA Forest Service identified four active timber processors in Thorne Bay: 

Porter Lumber Company, Thuja Plicata Lumber Company, Good Faith Lumber 

Company, and Western Gold Cedar Products. These mills had a combined 

installed production capacity of 22 MMBF and together processed approximately 

2 MMBF in 2013 and employed about 12 people (Parrent and Grewe 2014). 

Northern Star Cedar Products and Thorne Bay Enterprises, also located in 

Thorne Bay, are currently idle (Parrent and Grewe 2014).

Commercial fishing, tourism, and government also provide employment (HimesCornell et al. 2013). In 2013, 17 residents held commercial fishing permits and 

grossed an estimated $523,000 (ACFEC 2015). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 8 

percent of the labor force in Thorne Bay was unemployed and seeking work in 

2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $49,323, 

compared to the state median of $70,760; the corresponding median for the 

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA was $46,071 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 12 7

Construction 21 12

Manufacturing 5 3

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Thorne Bay 557 520 499 481 507 496 495 480 452 442 471 492 508 518 530

200

260

320

380

440

500

560

620

1970 Population: 443

1980 Population: 377

1990 Population: 581
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-675 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 37 21

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 5 3

Professional and Business Services 6 3

Educational and Health Services 13 7

Leisure and Hospitality 11 6

State Government 7 4

Local Government 62 34

Other 1 1

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 180 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Thorne Bay is part of the AP&T system that connects the community with the 

communities of Coffman Cove, Craig, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, and Klawock. 

Thorne Bay is served by hydroelectric generation, with diesel generation used as 

a back-up. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of PCE 

payments were 24 cents/kWh and 16 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 in the 

Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates were 

24 cents/kWh. 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Thorne Bay in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities 

is shown on Figure 3.23-62. This area contains 1,000,251 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-60 shows the estimated maximum 

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total areas 

available for harvest range from about 10.4 percent of the Thorne Bay 

community use area under Alternative 1 to 13.6 percent under Alternative 2. 

Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular 

location favored by Thorne Bay residents, and project-level impacts would be 

subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts 

would be higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable 

for timber production within the community use area, as would be the case with 

Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would 

have the least amount of potential suitable harvest) would have the largest 

potential old-growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-60).

Economy

Thorne Bay is primarily a logging community and as such would be directly 

affected by the amount of logging opportunities on north Prince of Wales Island, 

as well as elsewhere on the Tongass. Several small timber operators produce 

value-added products in and near Thorne Bay. These value added products 

include music wood, cabinets, and other products. These operators process 

relatively low volumes of timber, but require specific species and grades to meet 

their needs. All alternatives would supply old-growth volume (5 MMBF) to 

support the small operators in Southeast Alaska, including those located in and 

around Thorne Bay. 

The lodges located near the community would not be affected under any of the 

alternatives. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-676 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-62

Thorne Bay’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-60

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Thorne Bay’s Community Use 

Area by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 85,483 124,351 118,472 97,432 108,007

Old Growth 14,881 7,326 6,634 10,990 11,555

Total 100,365 131,677 125,105 108,422 119,562

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

10.4% 13.6% 12.9% 11.2% 12.4%

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 75 

percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Thorne 

Bay households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and marine 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-677 Subregional Overview and Communities

invertebrates) accounted for 54 percent of per capita subsistence harvest in 

Thorne Bay in 1998 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer accounted for 20 percent of the total 

edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Thorne Bay (Kruse and 

Frazier 1988). Deer accounted for 27 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

by Throne Bay residents in 1998 (ADF&G 2014). 

Thorne Bay residents harvest deer almost entirely on Prince of Wales Island, 

which is included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline 2006 to 2009 

due to severe winters, the population is now considered stable to increasing, with 

above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among Thorne B ay 

residents, total annual deer harvest has generally increased over the past 

decade, and in 2013 was about 40 percent higher (89 more deer) than in 2004 

(ADF&G 2015b). 

Residents of Thorne Bay harvest the majority (70 percent) of their deer from two 

WAAs in north-central Prince of Wales Island (1319 and 1315). As shown in 

Table 3.23-61, the Thorne Bay portion represents about 38 percent and 40

percent of the total harvest and about 59 percent and 53 percent of the rural 

hunter harvest in these WAAs, respectively. About 32 percent of the combined 

harvest in these WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a limited 

harvest buffer that could be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed 

on rural harvests. 

WAAs 1319 and 1315 occur in an area with substantial past harvest and, 

therefore, deer habitat capabilities are currently estimated to be below 1954 levels 

(Table 3.23-61). Under each of the alternatives, additional harvest would occur 

that would reduce habitat capabilities after 100 years by a further 5 to 7 percent in 

WAA 1319 and 5 to 6 percent in WAA 1315 (Table 3.23-61). 

Table 3.23-61

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Thorne Bay Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Thorne 

Bay

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1319 119 201 317 74% 67% 67% 69% 69% 69%

1315 90 169 226 56% 50% 51% 50% 51% 50% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all1997 alternatives except for the most timber 

intenstive (Alternatives 2, 7, and 9) should be able to provide sufficient habitat 

capability over the short and long term for deer hunted by Thorne Bay residents. 

All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of timber harvest 

in Thorne Bay’s community use area than the alternatives considered in this EIS 

(approximately 36 to 252 percent higher). Therefore, it is likely all of the current 

alternatives would provide sufficient habitat capability over the long term for deer 

hunted by Thorne Bay residents. However, projected deer harvest in the Thorne 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-678 Final EIS

Bay community use area by all rural hunters and all hunters was estimated to 

exceed the level that the analysis is assumed would provide a reasonably high 

level of hunter success for their effort, in the short and long term. This may still 

be the case under all alternatives.

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Thorne Bay residents (fish

and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that 

some restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for 

non-rual hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat, through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect 

effects associated with increased competition for deer within Thorne Bay’s 

subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from 

other communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Whale Pass is an unincorporated community located on the northeast coast of 

Prince of Wales Island. Whale Pass was originally established as a logging 

camp by Ketchikan Pulp Company in the early 1960s. According to local 

residents, a float camp housed loggers and their families in this location for 

almost 30 years. In 1982, the float camp was removed and many of the logging 

families left. Others moved to trailer pads on land at the head of the cove. That 

same year, Whale Pass became the site of a State land sale, which brought 

renewed population growth and the founding of a homeowners association. The 

community has been connected to the road system on Prince of Wales Island 

since 1981. A log transfer station remains on the southwest side of the bay 

(ADF&G 1994).

The population of Whale Pass dropped from 90 in 1970 to 58 in 2000, and has 

continued to generally trend downward since 2000, with a total estimated 

population of 39 in 2014 (Figure 3.23-63). According to the 2010 Census, there 

were no Alaska Native residents in Whale Pass (Table 3.23-8). Whale Pass 

school was closed in 2000 and 2010; 11 students were enrolled in the school in 

2014 (Table 3.23-9).

Whale Pass
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-679 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-63

Whale Pass Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

Whale Pass is primarily dependent on the timber industry, tourism, sport fishing 

and hunting, with logging operations and related services as the only steady 

employment opportunities (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). Subsistence activities 

and public assistance payments supplement income (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Most visitors arrive by car coming in through Craig or Ketchikan, with visitors to 

the one high-end ecolodge arriving by float plane included in the guest package 

(Dugan et al. 2009). Five visitor operations were in business in the summer of 

2007, grossing an estimated $120,000 from about 275 guests (Dugan et al. 

2009).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. According to the 

ACS, in 2013, the entire active labor force in Whale Pass (an estimated 16 

residents) was unemployed and looking for work, and the remaining adult 

residents were unemployed and not looking for work (U.S. Census Bureau 

2014b). These estimates conflict with the State data presented below (that are 

direct counts), which identify 25 people in Whale Pass as employed. The 

sampling limitations of the ACS for small communities can lead to a large margin 

of error; in this case, the estimate of 100 percent unemployment had a margin of 

error of 58 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b). Median household income is 

not available for this community. State data indicate that 84 percent of resident 

workers’ annual wages were $50,000 or less (Alaska DOL 2015d). 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Whale Pass 58 49 56 56 65 58 44 39 31 37 31 32 39 39 39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1970 Population: 90

1980 Population: 75

1990 Population: 58
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-680 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 4 16

Construction 4 16

Manufacturing 0 0

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 3 12

Information 0 0

Financial Activities 0 0

Professional and Business Services 0 0

Educational and Health Services 2 8

Leisure and Hospitality 5 20

State Government 3 12

Local Government 4 16

Other 0 0

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 25 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Whale Pass has some of the highest electric rates in Alaska due to the use of 

diesel generated power. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the 

application of PCE payments were 60 cents/kWh and 26 cents/kWh, respectively 

(see Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial 

and other rates were 60 cents/kWh. The high cost of energy is believed to 

currently impede economic development for commercial and industrial ventures 

(Alexander et al. 2010). 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Whale 

Pass in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-64. This area contains 1,000,251 acres of NFS land 

(among other land ownerships). Table 3.23-62 shows the estimated maximum 

acres of young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. Total areas 

available for harvest range from about 10.4 percent of the Whale Pass

community use area under Alternative 1 to 13.6 percent under Alternative 2. 

Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular 

location favored by Whale Pass residents, and project-level impacts would be 

subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts 

would be higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable 

for timber production within the community use area, as would be the case with 

Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would 

have the least amount of potential suitable harvest) would have the largest 

potential old-growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-62).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-681 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-64

Whale Pass’ Community Use Area

Table 3.23-62

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Whale Pass’ Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 85,483 124,351 118,472 97,432 108,007

Old Growth 14,881 7,326 6,634 10,990 11,555

Total 100,365 131,677 125,105 108,422 119,562

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

10.4% 13.6% 12.9% 11.2% 12.4%

Economy

Residents of Whale Pass could be potentially affected by changes in timber 

harvest, karst protection, recreation and tourism, and subsistence opportunities. 

Members of several speliological societies derive a portion of their income from 

cave and karst analysis and exploration in the vicinity. The Whale Pass Resort 

and a retail store are located in Whale Pass. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-682 Final EIS

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

60 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Whale Pass households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 61 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Whale Pass in 2012 (ADF&G 2014).

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for 27 percent of the total edible 

pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Whale Pass households (Kruse 

and Frazier, 1988). Deer accounted for 29 percent of per capita subsistence 

harvest by Whale Pass residents in 2012 (ADF&G 2014). 

The majority of deer harvest by Whale Pass residents occurs on Prince of Wales 

Island, which is included in GMU 2. Following a deer population decline 2006 to 

2009 due to severe winters, the population is now considered stable to 

increasing, with above-average deer harvest in this GMU (Harper 2013). Among 

Whale Pass residents, total annual deer harvest is generally low and in 2013 was 

about 10 percent higher (3 more deer) than in 2004 (ADF&G 2015b).

Residents of Whale Pass harvest the majority (72 percent) of their deer from two 

WAAs in north Prince of Wales Island (1530 and 1527). As shown in Table 3.23-

63, the Whale Pass portion represents about 15 percent and 11 percent of the 

total harvest and about 32 percent and 18 percent of the rural hunter harvest in 

these WAAs, respectively. About 51 percent of the combined harvest in these 

WAAs is by non-rural hunters, suggesting that there is a harvest buffer that could 

be restricted, if necessary, before restrictions are placed on rural harvests. 

WAAs 1530 and 1527 occur in an area with substantial past timber harvest and, 

therefore, deer habitat capabilities are currently estimated to be below 1954 

levels (Table 3.23-63). Under each of the alternatives, additional harvest would 

occur that would reduce habitat capabilities after 100 years by a further 2 to 4 

percent WAA 1530 and 1 to 3 percent in WAA 1527. 

Table 3.23-63

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Whale Pass Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Whale 

Pass

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1530 18 57 124 61% 58% 60% 59% 58% 57%

1527 3 17 27 72% 69% 71% 71% 70% 70% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability over the short and long term for deer hunted by Whale 

Pass residents. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of 

timber harvest in Whale Pass’ community use area than the alternatives 

considered in this EIS (approximately 36 to 252 percent higher). Therefore, it is 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-683 Subregional Overview and Communities

likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat capability over 

the short and long term for deer hunted by Whale Pass residents. However, the 

1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the capability of the habitat 

to produce deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success for all 

rural hunters and all hunters in both the short and long terms. This may still be 

the case under all current alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Whale Pass residents (fish

and marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the 

alternatives. However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that 

some restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for 

non-rural hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be 

reduced somewhat, through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the 

existing and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. Indirect

effects associated with increased competition for deer within the Whale Pass 

subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from 

other communities were displaced due to timber harvest activity. 

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

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. 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 military fur trading center, and as an 

outfitter for gold prospectors between 1861 and the 1930s (ADF&G 1994; Alaska 

DCED 2006).

In 2008, residents decided by local election that the City of Wrangell should 

dissolve and incorporate as the City and Borough of Wrangell. This added the 

communities of Meyers Chuck, Union Bay, Thoms Place, Olive Cove, and Farm 

Island to the new unified city and borough. The community has an active local 

Fish and Game Advisory Committee focused on commercial, sport, and personal 

use fishing, hunting, and subsistence (ADF&G 2015a). 

Wrangell’s population increased between 1970 and 2000, with a total of 2,448 

residents identified in 2000 (Figure 3.23-65). Population has fluctuated since 

2000, reaching its lowest level in 2006, with an estimated 2,232 residents. Total 

estimated population was 2,406 in Wrangell in 2014 (Figure 3.23-65). Alaska 

Natives comprised 16 percent of the population in Wrangell in 2010 (Table 3.23-

8). School enrollment in Wrangell has decreased at a much higher rate than 

population, with enrollment decreasing from 491 students in 2000 to 275 

students in 2014, a drop of 44 percent (Table 3.23-8).

Wrangell
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-684 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-65

Wrangell Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Wrangell economy is primarily based on commercial fishing, fish processing, 

the timber industry, and tourism (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In 2013, 205 

residents held commercial fishing permits and estimated gross fishing earnings 

of local residents exceeded $14 million (ACFEC 2015). A dive fishery, including 

for urchins, sea cucumbers, and geoducks, is developing. Tourism provides a 

significant source of income and employment; in 2009, Wrangell attracted 23,000 

independent travelers, 4,400 small cruise ship passengers, and 470 pleasure 

vessel calls (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

The Alaska Pulp Corporation mill and subsequent Silver Bay Logging mill are 

both closed. In 2010, very little timber related employment existed (HimesCornell et al. 2013). No timber-related employment was identified in Wrangell in 

2012 (see the Subregional Overview discussion of employment, above).

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 8 

percent of the labor force in Wrangell was unemployed and seeking work in 

2013, compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $45,841, 

compared to the state median of $70,760 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 29 3

Construction 67 8

Manufacturing 50 6

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 145 17

Information 7 1

Financial Activities 23 3

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Wrangell 2,448 2,384 2,369 2,349 2,281 2,258 2,232 2,316 2,362 2,352 2,369 2,412 2,445 2,453 2,406

2,000

2,060

2,120

2,180

2,240

2,300

2,360

2,420

2,480

1970 Population: 2,029

1980 Population: 2,184

1990 Population: 2,479
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-685 Subregional Overview and Communities

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Professional and Business Services 18 2

Educational and Health Services 106 12

Leisure and Hospitality 61 7

State Government 54 6

Local Government 273 32

Other 24 3

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 857 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Wrangell is served by the SEAPA system that connects Ketchikan, Petersburg, 

and Wrangell. The Swan Lake and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects provide 

electricity to this SEAPA network (Table 3.12b-2). Residential rates for 2011 

before and after the application of PCE payments were both 11 cents/kWh (see 

Table 3 in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). 

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of 

Wrangell in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is 

shown on Figure 3.23-66. This area contains 819,240 acres of NFS land (among 

other land ownerships). Table 3.23-64 shows the estimated maximum acres of 

young-growth and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest 

levels represent a small portion of the community use area for Wrangell, ranging 

from about 2.6 percent (Alternative 1) to 3.5 percent (Alternatives 2 and 3). 

Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular 

location favored by Wrangell residents, and project-level impacts would be 

subject to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would 

be higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for 

timber production within the community use area, as would be the case with 

Alternatives 2 and 3; however, it may be noted that Alternative 1 (which would 

have the least amount of potential suitable harvest) would have the largest 

potential old growth harvest in this area (see Table 3.23-64).

Economy

Commercial fishing, recreation and tourism, and subsistence opportunities are 

particularly important to Wrangell. Wrangell is one of the stop-over points for 

visitors traveling to the Stikine River and the Stikine-LeConte Wilderness. 

Commercial fisheries employment and recreation and tourism activities are not 

likely to be affected under any of the alternatives. 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-686 Final EIS

Figure 3.23-66

Wrangell’s Community Use Area

Table 3.23-64

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Wrangell’s Community Use Area 

by Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 16,183 25,434 25,030 19,978 21,780

Old Growth 5,428 3,072 3,968 4,349 4,869

Total 21,611 28,506 28,998 24,327 26,648

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

2.6% 3.5% 3.5% 2.9% 3.2%

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

52 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Wrangell households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 71 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Wrangell in 2000 (ADF&G 2014).
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-687 Subregional Overview and Communities

The 1988 study found that deer account for 21 percent of the total edible pounds 

of subsistence resources harvested by Wrangell households (Kruse and Frazier 

1988). Deer accounted for 17 percent of per capita subsistence harvest by 

Wrangell residents in 2000 (ADF&G 2014). 

Wrangell residents mainly harvest deer on Wrangell, Zarembo Island, and other 

surrounding islands, with the majority of harvest occurring in GMU 3. Deer 

harvest in GMU 3 has historically fluctuated. Between 1994 and 2011, deer 

harvest ranged from a low of 333 to a high of 1,119 (Harper 2013). The harvest 

level in 2013 was about 100 deer below the previous 10 year mean (Harper 

2013). From 2004 to 2013, deer harvest by Wrangell residents fluctuated, 

ranging from 370 to 506 deer, with similar numbers harvested in 2004 and 2013 

(ADF&G 2015b).

Deer harvest by Wrangell residents is spread over many WAAs, but the majority 

(76 percent) of their deer are from six WAAs located on Wrangell and 

surrounding islands. Zarembo Island (WAA 1905) alone accounted for 39 

percent of the annual average deer harvest by Wrangell residents from 2004 to 

2013. The Wrangell portion of the harvest in these six WAAs represents about 

76 percent of the total harvest and about 85 percent of the rural hunter harvest

(Table 3.23-65). 

The majority of the WAAs used heavily by Wrangell residents are in areas with 

substantial past harvest and deer habitat capabilities are currently estimated to 

be considerably below 1954 levels (Table 3.23-65). Under each of the 

alternatives, additional harvest would further reduce habitat capabilities after 100 

years by 1 to 6 percent (Table 3.23-65). 

Table 3.23-65

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Wrangell Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 

2004 to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of 

Full Implementation Under Each Alternative, 

Expressed as a Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Wrangell

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

1905 170 190 204 73% 68% 71% 71% 67% 67%

1903 67 69 72 84% 80% 82% 81% 82% 82%

1901 53 56 62 90% 89% 89% 88% 89% 89%

1003 15 28 44 59% 55% 58% 58% 54% 55%

1528 12 30 36 78% 76% 78% 78% 78% 78%

1904 12 12 14 66% 67% 66% 66% 66% 66% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known. 2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives except for Alternative 7 and 

9 should be able to provide sufficient habitat capability over the long term for 

deer hunted by Wrangell residents. All of the 1997 alternatives included 

substantially higher levels of timber harvest in Wrangell’s community use area 

than the alternatives considered in this EIS (approximately 2 to 6 times as high). 

Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide sufficient habitat 

capability over the long term for deer hunted by Wrangell residents. However, 

the 1997 analysis concluded that demand would exceed the capability of the 
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-688 Final EIS

habitat to produce deer populations sufficient to avoid effects on hunter success 

for all hunters in the long term. This may still be the case under all current 

alternatives. 

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Wrangell residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction on hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for all 

hunters, under all alternatives. The risk of hunting restrictions would be reduced 

somewhat through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the existing 

and future closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area.

Affected Environment

Overview and Demographic Characteristics

Yakutat is located in the lowlands along the northern Gulf of Alaska, 212 miles 

northwest of Juneau at the mouth of Yakutat Bay. Yakutat, which means “the 

place where the canoes rest,” has a diverse cultural history. The original settlers, 

believed to have been Eyak people from the Copper River area, were later 

conquered by the Tlingits. Intensive contact with European explorers came in 

the late 1700s when a Russian fur trading company moved into the Yakutat area. 

By the mid-1800s, foreign traders were well established along the coast. The 

contemporary town grew up around “the old village,” which was established in 

1889 by missionaries (ADF&G 1994).

Incorporated as a first-class city in 1948, Yakutat is governed by a mayor and a 

city council. Yakutat Borough, incorporated in 1992, expanded the original city 

boundaries to include a large section of the Gulf Coast north of Cape 

Fairweather. Yakutat has an active local Fish and Game Advisory Committee

(ADF&G 2015a). Yakutat is accessible by jet service from Juneau and 

Anchorage. Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park, Russell Fiords Wilderness, and 

Glacier Bay National Park are located northwest, northeast, and southeast of 

Yakutat, respectively.

The population of Yakutat increased almost threefold between 1970 and 1990, 

and increased by an additional 27 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 3.23-

67). Population in Yakutat has fluctuated since 2000, with 49 fewer residents in 

2014 than in 2000. Total estimated population was 631 in Yakutat in 2014 

(Alaska DOL 2015b). Alaska Natives comprised 36 percent of the population in 

Yakutat in 2010 (Table 3.23-8). 

Enrollment in Yakutat schools has also declined since 2000, dropping from 167 

in 2000 to 109 in 2014, a 35 percent decrease, compared to an overall declinein 

population of 7 percent (Table 3.23-9; Figure 3.23-67). 

Yakutat
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-689 Subregional Overview and Communities

Figure 3.23-67

Yakutat Population 1970 to 2014

Sources: Alaska DOL 2015b; USDA Forest Service 1997a

Economic Conditions

The Yakutat economy is primarily dependent on fishing, fish processing, and 

government (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). In 2013, a total of 158 residents held 

commercial fishing permits, with estimated gross earnings of approximately $5.4 

million (ACFEC 2015). Fishing opportunities in the area, both freshwater in the 

Situk River and saltwater, are considered world class. Most residents depend on 

subsistence hunting and fishing (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). Employment 

remains largely seasonal; in 2008 the number of jobs almost doubled in the 

summer (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

In addition to fish-related industries and government, tourism is important to 

Yakutat. As of 2010, there were 41 businesses within the area providing lodging 

of some type, including 27 located directly in Yakutat. Tourists come for rafting 

trips, sport fishing, surfing, and cruise trips (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). 

Employment by industry data compiled by the Alaska Department of Labor and 

Workforce Development are summarized in the table below. An estimated 7 

percent of the labor force in Yakutat was unemployed and seeking work in 2013, 

compared to 6 percent for Southeast Alaska as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau 

2014b; Alaska DOL 2015d). Median household income was $72,500, compared 

to the state median of $70,760 (Tables 3.23-4 and 3.23-8).(U.S. Census Bureau 

2014b). 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Yakutat 680 657 693 674 672 706 710 675 684 742 662 646 621 622 631

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

1970 Population: 190

1980 Population: 449

1990 Population: 534
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-690 Final EIS

Employment by Industry in 2013 Number Percent of Total

Natural Resources and Mining 2 1

Construction 12 4

Manufacturing 14 5

Trade, Transportation and Utilities 48 16

Information 2 1

Financial Activities 9 3

Professional and Business Services 13 4

Educational and Health Services 8 3

Leisure and Hospitality 33 11

State Government 21 7

Local Government 141 46

Other 1 < 1

Unknown 0 0

Total Employment 304 100

Source: Alaska DOL 2015d

Yakutat has some of the highest electric rates in Alaska due to the use of diesel 

generated power. Residential rates for 2011 before and after the application of 

PCE payments were 50 cents/kWh and 17 cents/kWh, respectively (see Table 3 

in the Energy Resource Report [Tetra Tech 2015]). Commercial and other rates 

were 50 cents/kWh. Resolute Marine Energy has proposed a wave energy 

project that could make Yakutat one of the first municipalities in North America to 

generate electrical grid power from wave energy (Table 3.12b-3). The Yakutat 

Wave project would have a capacity of 500 to 750 kW.

Potential Effects

Community Use Area

The general area commonly used or related to by many of the residents of Yakutat

in their local day-to-day work, recreational, and subsistence activities is shown on 

Figure 3.23-68. This area contains 250,271 acres of NFS land (among other land 

ownerships). Table 3.23-66 shows the estimated maximum acres of young-growth 

and old-growth harvest by alternative. In general, potential harvest levels 

represent a small portion of the community use area for Yakutat, ranging from 

about less than 0.1 percent (Alternative 4) to 1.3 percent (Alternatives 1 and 2). 

Harvest activities could have localized effects if they coincide with a particular 

location favored by Yakutat residents, and project-level impacts would be subject 

to future analysis under NEPA. In general, the potential for impacts would be 

higher under those alternatives with more lands identified as suitable for timber 

production within the community use area, as would be the case with Alternative 1.

Economy

Commercial fishing and subsistence are important to Yakutat. The Yakutat 

Forelands are some of the community’s important subsistence use areas. 

Commercial fishing is not expected to be affected under any of the alternatives. 

The proposed Yakutat Wave Project is located in a Scenic Viewshed LUD. 

Scenic Viewshed is considered a TUS “window” under the 2008 Forest Plan, an 

area potentially available for the location of transportation or utility corridors and 

sites. This classification and the standards and guidelines in the 2008 Forest 

Plan would continue to apply under Alternative 1. Under Alternatives 2 through 

5, energy projects would be managed under the Renewable Energy Plan 

Components identified in Chapter 5 of the proposed Forest Plan amendment. 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-691 Subregional Overview and Communities

Subsistence

No significant effect on salmon, other finfish, or invertebrate habitat capability is 

expected from implementation of any alternative. These resources account for 

82 percent of the total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by 

Yakutat households (Kruse and Frazier 1988). Marine resources (fish and 

marine invertebrates) accounted for 74 percent of per capita subsistence harvest 

in Yakutat in 2000 (ADF&G 2014).

Moose are more important than deer as a subsistence meat source for Yakutat

residents. Moose availability would not be significantly affected under any of the 

alternatives.

The 1988 TRUCS study found that deer account for only a small fraction of the 

total edible pounds of subsistence resources harvested by Yakutat households 

(Kruse and Frazier, 1988). Deer accounted for 1 percent of per capita 

subsistence harvest by Yakutat residents in 2000 (ADF&G 2014). 

Figure 3.23-68

Yakutat’s Community Use Area
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-692 Final EIS

Table 3.23-66

Estimated Maximum Harvest (acres) over 100 Years in Yakutat’s Community Use Area by 

Alternative

Alternative

1 2 3 4 5

Young Growth 2,309 2,907 2,849 12 2,495

Old Growth 1,126 550 0 0 0

Total 3,435 3,457 2,849 12 2,495

Harvest as a Percent of Total NFS 

Lands in the Community Use Area

1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 0.0% 1.0%

Yakutat residents harvested an annual average of 36 deer from 2004 to 2013, 

with four WAAs accounting for 76 percent of this annual average (Table 3.23-67). 

These WAAs are located in GMU 4 and GMU 5A. GMU 4 is considered to 

provide a substantial portion of the deer hunting opportunity in Southeast Alaska 

(Harper 2013). Severe winter weather in 2006 and moderately severe winters 

the following two winters led to a dramatic decline in the deer populations 

throughout Southeast Alaska (Harper 2013). The deer population has 

rebounded in recent years, leading to an increase in successful hunters in this 

GMU (Harper 2013). In 1991, the Board of Game instituted a limited hunt in Unit 

5A, with a one month bucks only season. Deer populations remain low in the 

Yakutat area, but are believed to be much more abundant than ever before and 

to have expanded their range inland (Harper 2013). Annual average deer 

harvest by Yakutat residents fluctuated from 2004 to 2013, but was substantially 

higher in 2013 than 10 years earlier (61 deer versus 33 deer) (ADF&G 2015b).

Table 3.23-67

Deer Harvest (2004 to 2013) and Deer Habitat Capability on NFS Lands in 2014 and 

After 100 Years of Full Implementation under Each Alternative, Expressed as a Percent 

of 1954 Habitat Capability, for the WAAs where Yakutat Residents Obtain 

Approximately 75% of their Average Annual Deer Harvest1

WAA

Average Deer Harvest from 2004

to 2013

Deer Habitat Capability in 2014 and after 100 Years of Full 

Implementation Under Each Alternative, Expressed as a 

Percent of the 1954 Habitat Capability

Yakutat

Residents

All Rural 

Hunters2

All 

Hunters 2014 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

4504 15 15 17 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

4508 7 7 7 94% 94% 94% 94% 94% 94%

3315 3 38 46 84% 84% 84% 84% 84% 84%

3835 3 5 141 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 Calculated based on harvest where location is known.

2 The category “All Rural Hunters” includes residents of Southeast Alaska communities, excluding the cities of Juneau and 

Ketchikan.

The Deer Availability and Anticipated Demand analysis completed for the 1997 

Forest Plan EIS determined that all 1997 alternatives should be able to provide 

sufficient habitat capability for deer hunted by Yakutat residents in the short term 

and long term. All of the 1997 alternatives included substantially higher levels of 

timber harvest in Yakutat’s community use area than the alternatives considered 

in this EIS. Therefore, it is likely all of the current alternatives would provide 

sufficient habitat capability over the short and long term for deer hunted by 

Yakutat residents. However, the 1997 analysis concluded that demand would 

exceed the capability of the habitat to support deer populations sufficient to avoid 

effects on hunter success for all hunters in the long term. This may still be the 

case under all current alternatives.
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-693 Subregional Overview and Communities

In summary, use of most subsistence resources by Yakutat residents (fish and 

marine invertebrates) is not expected to be affected by any of the alternatives. 

However, subsistence use of deer may be affected to the point that some 

restriction in hunting might be necessary over the long term, especially for nonrural hunters, under all alternatives. The highest use areas for Yakutat 

households are within Wilderness and LUD II designations that will not change 

by alternative. The risk of hunting restrictions would be reduced somewhat, 

through more intensive management (e.g., thinning) of the existing and future 

closed-canopy, young-growth forests in this area. 

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires each federal agency 

to make the achievement of environmental justice part of its mission by 

identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. The Order further stipulates that the agencies conduct their 

programs and activities in a manner that does not have the effect of excluding 

persons from participating in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting 

persons to discrimination under such programs, policies, and activities because 

of their race, color, or national origin.

Race and ethnicity are shown by borough in Table 3.23-68. These data show 

that 65 percent of the population of Southeast Alaska identified as White in the 

2010 census. American Indian and Alaska Native was the largest minority group, 

accounting for 16 percent of the total Southeast Alaska population. Table 3.23-

68 indicates that there are relatively large proportions of Alaska Natives in 

Hoonah-Angoon, Yakutat, and Prince of Wales-Hyder. The populations of 

Haines, Juneau, and Skagway in contrast, have relatively low proportions of 

Alaska Natives, below the Southeast Alaska average of 16 percent.

Alaska Native populations are identified as a percentage of total population by 

community in Table 3.23-8. This information is presented graphically in Figure 

3.17-1 (in the Subsistence section). These data indicate that 14 of Southeast 

Alaska’s 32 communities have Alaska Native populations that comprise a larger 

share of total population than the regional average (16 percent). Alaska natives 

comprised a particularly large share of total population in Angoon (76 percent), 

Hoonah (53 percent), Hydaburg (85 percent), Kake (67 percent), Klawock (51 

percent), Metlakatla (77 percent), and Saxman (51 percent), all considered 

traditional Native communities.
3 Environment and Effects

Subregional Overview and Communities 3-694 Final EIS

Table 3.23-68

Race/Ethnicity by Borough/Census Area, 2010

Geographic Area

Total 

Population

Percent of Total Population

White1

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native1

Hispanic or 

Latino

Other 

Race1,2

Two or More 

Races1

Northern Boroughs

Haines Borough 2,508 82 9 2 1 5

Hoonah-Angoon CA 2,150 46 40 4 1 10

City and Borough of Juneau 31,275 67 11 5 8 9

City and Borough of Sitka 8,881 64 16 5 7 9

Municipality of Skagway

Borough

968 90 4 2 1 4

City and Borough of Yakutat 662 40 35 3 6 15

Southern Boroughs

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 13,477 66 14 4 8 8

Petersburg CA 3,815 69 16 3 3 8

Prince of Wales-Hyder CA 5,559 50 39 2 1 8

City and Borough of Wrangell 2,369 72 16 2 2 9

Southeast Alaska 71,664 65 16 4 6 8

Alaska 710,231 64 14 6 10 6

CA – Census Area 1 Non-Hispanic only. The Federal Government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin (ethnicity) to be two separate and distinct 

concepts. People identifying as Hispanic or Latino origin may be of any race. In this table people identifying as Hispanic or Latino are 

included in the Other Race category only. 2 The “Other Race” category presented here includes census respondents identified as Black or African American, Asian, Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, or Some Other Race. 

Source: Alaska DOL 2015g

Median household income and the percent of households below the poverty line 

is presented by borough in Table 3.23-6. The percent of people below the 

poverty line in Alaska as a whole was 10.1 percent in 2013. Median household 

income was approximately $70,760. Juneau is the only borough in the region 

with median household income above the state median. Median household 

income as a share of the state median in the other boroughs ranged from 60.3 

percent in Hoonah-Angoon to 94.3 percent in Sitka (Table 3.23-6). The share of 

the population below the poverty level in the northern boroughs in 2013 ranged 

from 4.2 percent in Skagway to 19.2 percent in Hoonah-Angoon compared to the 

statewide average of 10.1 percent (Table 3.23-6).

The percent of households below the poverty line and the median household 

income in 2013 are identified by community in Table 3.23-8. The U.S. Census 

identified 20 communities in Southeast Alaska with 10 percent or more of their 

population below the poverty line. All but four of the communities identified in 

Table 3.23-8 had median household incomes below the state average. 

The potential effects of the alternatives on the economic and social environment 

of Southeast Alaska are discussed in the Regional and National Economy

section of this document. The principal regional effects would be those 

associated with changes in the timber industry and recreation and tourism. 

There could also be potential effects upon subsistence use and heritage 

resources that have particular significance for Alaska Native populations.

The effects of the alternatives on communities are discussed by community in 

the preceding part of this section. These community assessments include a 

discussion of the potential effects to the subsistence resources and the land base 

used by each community. Overall effects on heritage resources are expected to 
Environment and Effects 3

Final EIS 3-695 Subregional Overview and Communities

be low under all the alternatives because of the protection offered by Forest-wide 

standards and guidelines. Further, the potential effects of the alternatives upon 

heritage resources are expected to be the lower than under the 2008 Forest Plan

because of the lower allowable amount of potential timber harvest. 
CHAPTER 4

LIST OF PREPARERS
List of Preparers 4

Final EIS 4-1 List of Preparers

Chapter 4.

List of Preparers

Provided below are brief bio-sketches of the primary preparers and contributors from the Forest Service 

and Tetra Tech. Additional Forest Service, Tetra Tech, and other agency staff, who contributed to various 

sections through an extensive internal review process, or in other ways, are also listed.

Susan Howle, Project Manager and Plan Amendment Team Leader – Forest Service

Education

M.S., Geography, University of Massachusetts, 1998

B.S., Geography, Middle Tennessee State University, 1988

Experience

Twelve years of Forest Service experience in land and resource management planning, 

NEPA compliance, interdisciplinary team leadership, and project management in 

Regions 1, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10, and the Washington Office

Five years of Bureau of Land Management experience in land use planning, NEPA

compliance, wildland fire, partnerships, special initiatives coordination, and fuels program 

management in Nevada

Rick Abt, Operations and Planning Staff Officer – Forest Service

Education

B.S., Forest Management, University of Montana, 1979

Experience

Over twenty years of Forest Service experience as a project manager or interdisciplinary 

team leader for NEPA projects on the Tongass National Forest, including four years as 

the Forest Planner and two years developing land and resource management plans.

Four years of experience as Social Forester as Peace Corps volunteer in Philippines in

community development.

Sheila Spores, Forest Silviculturist – Forest Service

Education

M.E.M. and B.S., Forest Resource Management and Ecosystem Management, University of 

Montana, 1996

B.A., Geography, University of Mary Washington, 1990

Experience

Twenty-three years of Forest Service experience in silviculture and forest management in 

Region 10, Tongass National Forest.

Melissa Dinsmore, Special Uses Program Manager and Energy Coordinator – Forest Service

Education

B.S.F., Forestry, Purdue University, 1990
4 List of Preparers

List of Preparers 4-2 Final EIS

Experience

Twenty-two years of experience with the Forest Service in lands and special uses

management, energy project coordination, business, and pre-sale forestry in Region 10, 

Tongass National Forest

Cathy Tighe, Inventory and Monitoring Program Manager – Forest Service

Education

B.S., Biology, University of Oregon, 1994

A.A., Umpqua Community College, 1992

Experience

Twenty-two years of Forest Service experience including recreation and wilderness program 

management, interdisciplinary team contributor for wildlife, recreation and wilderness, 

and timber/silviculture, and support services in Region 10, Tongass National Forest

Randal Fairbanks, Interdisciplinary Team Leader, Project Manager, Timber Lead – Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Forest Science/Biostatistics, University of Washington, 1979

B.S., Wildlife Science, University of Washington, 1972

Experience

Over forty years of experience in design, conduct, and management of ecological and forest 

inventory and research, impact assessments, and mitigation plans.

Project manager or interdisciplinary team leader for 14 major forest management-related 

EIS/EA efforts.

Major contributor to dozens of other EISs, EAs, and Environmental Reports.

David Cox, Deputy Project Manager; Forest Plan and NEPA Specialist – Tetra Tech

Education

B.S., Environmental and Engineering Geology, Western Washington University, 2000

Experience

Fifteen years of experience in conducting and leading hydrologic, soil, geomorphic and 

aquatic resource surveys.

Thirteen years of experience in preparing and managing NEPA projects on federal lands, 

including six EISs on the Tongass.

Matt Dadswell, Senior Social Scientist/Economist – Tetra Tech

Education

Ph.D., Candidate, Geography, University of Washington

M.A., Geography, University of Cincinnati, 1990

B.A., Economics and Geography, Portsmouth Polytechnic, 1988

Experience

Fifteen years of experience conducting economic, social, and environmental regulatory 

analysis on a variety of natural resource projects, including Forest Service and NEPA 

projects.

Ten years of experience working on Forest Service projects, including projects on the 

Tongass National Forest.
List of Preparers 4

Final EIS 4-3 List of Preparers

John Knutzen, Senior Fisheries Biologist/Aquatic Ecologist – Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Fisheries, University of Washington, 1977

B.A., Biology, Western Washington State College, 1972

Experience

Thirty-eight years of experience evaluating developmental activity impacts to lakes, rivers, 

and stream water quality and aquatic resources in the Pacific Northwest, with emphasis 

on salmonids.

Experience working on more than 80 projects in the Pacific Northwest, including assessing 

effects of federal actions on endangered fish species.

Provided scientific evaluation on more than 30 NEPA documents, including Forest Service 

EISs for the Tongass National Forest.

Steve Negri, Wildlife Biologist – Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Wildlife Ecology, Michigan State University, 1995

B.S., Business Finance, University of Missouri, 1985

Experience

Eighteen years of experience as a wildlife biologist, including work on three EISs for the 

Tongass National Forest and more than a dozen Forest Service-related projects. 

Experience working on approximately 20 EISs and other NEPA documents in the Pacific 

Northwest and Alaska.

Previous experience includes working 5 years as threatened and endangered species 

biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Brita Woeck, Wildlife Biologist – Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Wildlife Ecology and Management, University of Missouri, Columbia, 2003

B.S., Wildlife Science, University of Washington, 1999

Experience

Fourteen years of experience in environmental planning and permitting, biological resource 

analysis, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems monitoring.

Expertise in Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation, including Biological Assessment 

and Habitat Conservation Plans development; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and state equivalents, including management and/or facilitation of all aspects of the 

NEPA process; Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments 

(EA) preparation for natural resource, renewable energy, mining, land management, 

transmission line, and gas pipeline projects; and wildlife surveys and habitat 

assessments. 

Mary Jo Watson, GIS Analyst – Tetra Tech

Education

B.S., Computer Information Systems, Menlo College

Experience

Twenty-three years of experience as a GIS analyst specializing in creating complex riparian 

models, surface models, habitat models, perspective scene analysis, aerial photo 
4 List of Preparers

List of Preparers 4-4 Final EIS

interpretation of logging units, preparation of field maps, and final production of maps for 

numerous timber sale EISs.

Experience includes serving as lead GIS analyst on more than a dozen Forest Service 

projects, including four EIS projects specific to Southeast Alaska and the Tongass 

National Forest.

Karen Brimacombe, Wetland Scientist /Botanist – Tetra Tech

Education

B.A., Botany, University of Washington, 2000

M.B.A., University of Chicago, 1993

Experience

Over fourteen years of experience in plant ecology, wetland biology, vegetation mapping, 

rare plant, noxious weed, and general botanical surveys, including work on the Tongass 

National Forest.

Seven years of experience working on EIS and NEPA documents.

Chris James, Hydrology – Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Forest Hydrology, University of Washington, 2007

Certified, Watershed Management, Portland State University, 2005 

B.A., Environmental Resources (Chemistry minor), Lewis and Clark College, 1999

Experience

Fifteen years of experience performing surface water data collection, analysis, and reporting 

to evaluated impacts associated with water and fisheries resources.

Ten years of experience working on NEPA documents, including projects on the Tongass.

John Crookston, Biologist and Planner– Tetra Tech

Education

B.S., Biology, University of California San Diego, 2002

M.S., Ecology, San Diego State University, 2007 

Experience 

Twelve years of experience as a biologist and environmental planner, including NEPA and 

ESA related studies and impact analyses, and computer based population modeling.

Bob Evans, Landscape Architect – Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Landscape Architecture, 2006

M.S., Community Planning, 2006

B.S., Environmental Design, 2003

Experience

More than nine years of experience in interdisciplinary environmental planning with an 

extensive focus on visual resource inventory and analysis.

Jeff Phillips, Geomorphologist– Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Fluvial Geomorphology, University of British Columbia, 2007

B.S., Physical Geography, University of Utah, 2005
List of Preparers 4

Final EIS 4-5 List of Preparers

Experience

Nine years of experience designing and conducting ecological research and assessments 

including the impacts of forest practices on soil and aquatic resources.

Josh Rodriguez, Forest Health – Tetra Tech

Education

M.S., Forestry, University of Montana, 2005

B.S., Forest Resources Management, University of Montana, 2001

Experience

Ten years of experience in designing, managing and completing ecological studies including 

extensive work in forest, range and wetland ecosystems.

T. Weber Greiser, Heritage Resource Specialist/Archaeologist

Education

M.A., Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 1972

B.A., Anthropology, University of New Mexico, 1969

Experience

Thirty-four years of experience as Project Manager and/or Principal Investigator on heritage 

resource projects in Alaska and throughout the Western U.S. Experience includes 

prehistoric and historic archaeological predictive modeling; heritage resource surveys, 

testing projects, and excavations; laboratory analysis of artifacts and faunal remains; and 

ethnographic investigations and oral interviews of native inhabitants regarding land use, 

water use, and sacred lands.

Heritage resource Principal Investigator for background research, cultural resource survey, 

preparation of specialist report, and/or preparation of EA or EIS cultural resource 

sections for nine projects since 1993 on the Tongass.

Other Contributors

Forest Service

Craig Anderson – Timber Sale Preparation 

Jason Anderson – Tongass Advisory Committee

Jim Baichtal – Geology/Karst

Bonnie Bennetsen – Wildlife and Subsistence

Ben Case – Young-growth

Carla Casulucan – Tribal Coordination

Forrest Cole – Forest Supervisor, Retired

Kent Cummins – Public Affairs

Vel Diemert – GIS 

Karen Dillman – Air Quality, Climate Change

Marla Dillman – Wildlife

Lisa Fluharty –Wilderness, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Recreation Special Uses

Milt Fusselman – Recreation Trails and Facilities

Mary Friberg – Wildlife 

Michael Goldstein – Regional Planner

Nicole Grewe – Economics

Barth Hamberg – Scenery

Greg Hayward – Regional Wildlife Ecologist

Karen Iwamoto – Administrative Record/PALS Database
4 List of Preparers

List of Preparers 4-6 Final EIS

Sheila Jacobson – Fisheries

Sue Jennings – Roadless

Patti Krosse – Botany, Ecology, Invasive Plants

Dennis Landwehr – Soils

Brian Logan – Wildlife

Tim Marshall – Heritage, Sacred Sites

Stan McCoy – Timber

Matt Reece – Minerals

Carol Seitz-Warmuth – Transportation

Cynthia Sever – Timber

Dani Snyder – Scenery

Earl Stewart – Forest Supervisor

Regis Terney – Planning Specialist

Theresa Thibault – Heritage, Sacred Sites

Julianne Thompson – Hydrology

Cathy Tighe – Wildlife Biologist

Janette Turk – Public Affairs

Hillary Woods – Lands

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Steve Brockmann – Wildlife Biologist, Southeast Alaska Coordinator

Tetra Tech

Wayne Watson – Geospatial Analyst

David Gravender – Technical Editor

Dawn Nelson – Desktop Publishing

Steve Flegel – Desktop Publishing

Mason Bruce and Girard

Mark Rasmussen – Forest Planner and Economist

Kendrick Greer – Forest Planning Analyst

Andrew Burrow – Forest Planning Analyst

Jessica Burton Desrocher – Geospatial Analyst
CHAPTER 5

LIST OF DOCUMENT RECIPIENTS
List of Document Recipients and Those Notified 5

Final EIS 5-1 List of Document Recipients

and Those Notified

Chapter 5

List of Document Recipients and 

Those Notified

Federal Agencies

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Environmental Compliance Branch

Federal Highway Administration, Division Administrator 

Library of Congress

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NWS Office of Strategic Planning and Policy

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat 

Conservation Division, Alaska Region

National Environmental Coordinator, NRCS

US Government Accountability Office

US Government Publishing Office, Federal Digital System

US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Planning and Review

US Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division

US Coast Guard, Environmental Management CG-443

US Coast Guard, Coast Guard Commandant CG47th 

US Department of Agriculture, APHIS PPD/EAD

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Alaska Region

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Chugach National Forest

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forestry Services Library

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Legislative Affairs

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Office of the Chief

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Office of General Counsel

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 10, Regional Office Planning

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeast Regional Subsistence Advisory Council

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Admiralty National Monument

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Deputy Forest Supervisor, 

Alaska Region

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Hoonah Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Juneau Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Supervisor's Office

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Petersburg Supervisor's Office
5 List of Document Recipients and Those Notified

List of Document Recipients 5-2 Final EIS

and Those Notified

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Sitka Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Thorne Bay Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Wrangell Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, Yakutat Ranger District

US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library

US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

US Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service

US Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage District

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks District

US Department of the Interior, Federal Subsistence Management Program

US Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance

US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Alaska Science Center

US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Regional Director

US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Alaska Division Administrator

US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Review and Sediment Management Unit

US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Field Office

US Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau Field Office

US Navy, Energy and Environmental Readiness Division

US Navy, Office of the Chief of Navy Operations

USGS Alaska Science Center

Federal Advisory Committee

Tongass Advisory Committee

Jason Anderson

Jaeleen Araujo

Wayne Benner

Leslie Cronk

Jason Custer

Kirk Hardcastle

Philip Hyatt

Lynn Jungwirth

John C. Maisch

Brian McNitt

Robert Mills

Eric Nichols

Richard Peterson

Christopher Rose

Keith Rush

Carol Rushmore

Erin Steinkruger

Andrew Thoms

Kate Troll
List of Document Recipients and Those Notified 5

Final EIS 5-3 List of Document Recipients

and Those Notified

Lawerence Widmark

Jeffery Wade Zammit

State and Federal Congressional Representatives

Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator

Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senator

Don Young, U.S. Representative

Dennis Egan, Senator (Alaska Legislature, Dist. Q)

Sam Kito, Representative (Alaska Legislature, Dist. 35)

Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Representative (Alaska Legislature, Dist. 35)

Cathy Muñoz, Representative (Alaska Legislature, Dist. 34)

Dan Ortiz, Representative (Alaska Legislature, Dist. 36)

Bert Stedman, Senator (Alaska Legislature, Dist. R)

Alaska Native Tribes and Corporations

Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp

Alaska Native News

Alaska Tribal Leader Committee

Angoon Community Association 

Alaska Native Sisterhood Grand Camp

Cape Fox Corporation

Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

Chilkat Indian Village

Chilkoot Indian Association

Craig Tribal Association

Douglas Indian Association

Goldbelt, Incorporated

Haida Corporation

Hoonah Indian Association

Huna Totem Corporation

Hydaburg Cooperative Association

Kake Tribal Corporation

Kavilco Inc.

Ketchikan Indian Community

Klawock Cooperative Association

Klawock Heenya Corporation

Klukwan Inc. 

Kootznoowoo Inc.

Metlakatla Indian Community

Organized Village of Kake

Organized Village of Kasaan

Organized Village of Saxman

Petersburg Indian Association

Sealaska Corporation
5 List of Document Recipients and Those Notified

List of Document Recipients 5-4 Final EIS

and Those Notified

Shaan-Seet Inc.

Shee Atika Incorporated

Sitka Tribe of Alaska

Skagway Traditional Council

Wrangell Cooperative Association

Yak-Tat Kwaan, Inc.

Yakutat Tlingit Tribe

State Agencies

Alaska Congressional Delegation

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Alaska Energy Authority

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Air Quality

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Health

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Administrative Services

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Boards Support Section

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Habitat

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Sport Fish

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce and Development

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management and Permitting

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management and Permitting, ANILCA

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Office

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management and Permitting

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, State Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Southcoast Region

Alaska Office of the Governor

Alaska Office of the Lieutenant Governor

Alaska State Legislature

University of Alaska

City and Borough Agencies, Libraries, and Schools

Alaska Court System, Juneau Law Library

Alaska Court System, Ketchikan Law Library

Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency, Legislative Reference Library
List of Document Recipients and Those Notified 5

Final EIS 5-5 List of Document Recipients

and Those Notified

Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS)

Angoon Public School Library

Bruce Hill School

City and Borough of Juneau

City and Borough of Sitka

City and Borough of Wrangell

City and Borough of Yakutat

City of Angoon

City of Coffman Cove

City of Craig

City of Edna Bay

City of Hoonah

City of Hydaburg

City of Kake

City of Kasaan

City of Ketchikan

City of Klawock

City of Kupreanof

City of Pelican

City of Point Baker

City of Port Alexander

City of Saxman

City of Tenakee Springs

City of Thorne Bay

Community of Naukati West

Community of Whale Pass

Craig Public Library

Douglas Public Library

Edna Bay School Library

Elfin Cove Public Library

Haines Borough

Esther Greenwald Library

Greater Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce

Haines Public Library

Hollis Public Library

Hoonah Public Library

Howard Valentine School

Hydaburg School Library

Hyder Public Library

Hyder School

Juneau Chamber of Commerce

Juneau City Clerk

Juneau Public Library

Kake Community Library

Kasaan Community Library

Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce
5 List of Document Recipients and Those Notified

List of Document Recipients 5-6 Final EIS

and Those Notified

Ketchikan Gateway Borough

Ketchikan High School Library

Ketchikan Public Library

Ketchikan Visitors Bureau

Kettleson Memorial Library

Klawock Public Library

Legislative Reference Library

Mendenhall Valley Public Library

Metlakatla Centennial Library

Municipality of Skagway

Pelican Public Library

Petersburg Borough

Petersburg Borough Police Department

Petersburg Borough Chamber of Commerce

Petersburg Public Library

Port Protection School

Prince of Wales Island Chamber of Commerce 

Reville High School

Skagway Public Library

Skagway Traditional Council

Southeast Island School District

Sunnyside School Library

Tenakee Springs Public Library

Thorne Bay Community Library

Transylvania Cooperative Extension Service

University of Alaska - Southeast, Ketchikan College Library

University of Alaska - Southeast, William A. Egan Library

University of Alaska at Fairbanks

University of Alaska at Fairbanks Elmer E. Rasmussen Library

University of Alaska at Fairbanks, School of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Palmer 

Research Center

University of Alaska at Sitka

University of Alaska Facilities and Land Management

USDA National Agriculture Library

Whale Pass Community Library

Whale Pass School

Wrangell Chamber of Commerce

Wrangell Public Library

Yakutat School District Library

Other Organizations

Alaska Independent Power Producers Association

Alaska Audubon

Alaska Dispatch News

Alaska Forest Association
List of Document Recipients and Those Notified 5

Final EIS 5-7 List of Document Recipients

and Those Notified

Alaska Mental Health Trust

Alaska Miners Association

Alaska Power & Telephone Co. (AP&T)

Alaska Power and Telephone Skagway

Alaska Public Radio Network

Alaska Resource Development Council (RDC)

Alaska Wilderness League

Alaska Wildlife Alliance

Alaska Wood Utilization Research and Development Center

All Aboard Yacht Charters & Southeast Alaska Wilderness Tours Association

Allen Marine Inc.

Anchorage LIO

Audubon Alaska

Baranof Wilderness Lodge/Beyond Boundaries Expeditions

Capital City Weekly

Cascadia Wildlands

Center for Biological Diversity

Chatham School District

Daily Sitka Sentinel

Defenders of Wildlife

Earthjustice

EDC Alaska, Inc.

First Things First Alaska Foundation

Geos Institute

Greenpeace USA

Hook on Juneau

Inter-Island Ferry Authority

Juneau Audubon Society

Juneau Economic Development Council Southeast Cluster Initiative

Ketchikan Daily News

Ketchikan High School Youth Advisory Council

KCAW-FM, Raven Radio

KFSK Petersburg Community Radio

KHNS – FM

KINY – AM, KSUP – FM (Juneau)

KJNO – AM, KTKU – FM (Juneau)

Konnintie15

KRBD Community Radio for Southern Southeast Alaska

KSTK-FM Stikine Silver Radio Wrangell

KTKN/KGTW Ketchikan Radio Center

KTOO Juneau Public Radio and Television

Maybeso Creek Enterprises

Narrows Conservation Coalition

National Audubon Society

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northern Ecologic LLC
5 List of Document Recipients and Those Notified

List of Document Recipients 5-8 Final EIS

and Those Notified

Petersburg Pilot

Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries Inc

Prince Rupert Port Authority

Prince Rupert Visitor’s Centre

Public Land News /Resources Publishing Company

Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)

Resource Development Council

Sealaska Corporation

Sierra Club

Sierra Club Alaska (Tongass Group)

Sitka Conservation Society

Sound Sailing

Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

Southeast Alaska Power Agency

Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition

Southeast Conference

Stewart-Hyder International Chamber of Commerce

T&H Ketchikan

Tenakee Logging Company

Tenakee Springs Business Association

The Boat Company

The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy in Alaska

Thorne Bay Wood Products Enterprise

Three Rivers Timber

Trout Unlimited 

Trout Unlimited Alaska

Van Ness Feldman

Venture Travel

Viking Lumber

Wesley Rickard Inc.

Whale Pass Home Owners' Association

Woodbury Enterprise

W.R. Jones & Son Lumber Co.

Wrangell Sentinel

Individuals

Notifications of the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement were also sent to over 42,000 

individuals.
CHAPTER 6

REFERENCES
References 6

Final EIS 6-1 References

Chapter 6 References

Abrahamson, M. 2013. Alaska’s Mining Industry. Strong growth in jobs, wages, 

and production value. Alaska Economic Trends. May. Volume 33, Number 

5, pp. 4-11.

ACFEC (Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission). 2015. 2013 Permit and 

Fishing Activity by Alaskan Community. Available online at 

http://www.cfec.state.ak.us/gpbycen/2013/MenuComm.htm

Adams, T.K., and K. Sullivan. 1989. The physics of forest stream heating: a simple 

model. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Report Number TFW-WQ3-90-007. 

Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, Washington.

ADCCED (Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic 

Development). 2011. Community Profiles Online. Available online at: 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm

ADEC (Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation). 2014a. Juneau –

Particulate Matter

ADEC. 2014b. 18 Alaska Administrative Code 50 Air Quality Control.

ADEC. 2013. Alaska’s Final 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment Report. December 23.

ADEC. 2008. Alaska’s Final 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment Report. April 1.

ADEC. 2006. Water Quality Standards. As Amended through September 1, 2006. 

18 AAC 70.

ADEC and USDA Forest Service. 1992. Memorandum of Agreement between the 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region. 2534.1 - Exhibit 01.

ADED (Alaska Division of Economic Development). 2013. Small Ships, Big 

Benefits for Alaska Visitors and Businesses. Small Cruise Ship Market 

Update. October 8. Available online at: 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/ded/DEV/TourismDevelopment/Tour

ismResearch.aspx

ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2016. Alaska Sport Fishing Survey 

– Southeast Alaska Region. Web site Access May 2016. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sf/sportfishingsurvey/index.cfm?ADFG=region.h

ome

ADF&G . 2015a. Invasive Species web site 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=invasive.main Accessed Feb 

2015)

ADF&G. 2015b. Sitka black-tailed deer harvest dataset and summary statistics by 

Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) for harvests in Southeast, Alaska during the 

period 2004-2013. Division of Wildlife Conservation, Southeast Region. 

Juneau.

ADF&G. 2015c. Advisory Committees by Region. Southeast Region. Available 

online at: http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=process.acregion
6 References

References 6-2 Final EIS

ADF&G. 2015d. 2015-2016 Alaska Hunting Regulations. 

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=wildliferegulations.hunting

ADF&G. 2014. Community Subsistence Information System. Available online at: 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/

ADF&G. 2013. Deer management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 2010-

30 June 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Species Management 

Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2013-1, Juneau.

ADF&G. 2012. Status of wolves in southeast Alaska. Division of Wildlife 

Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

ADF&G. 2006. Subsistence Community Profile Database. Available online at: 

http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/FISH.GAME/subsist

ADF&G. 2004. Comprehensive Salmon Enhancement Plan for Southeast Alaska: 

Phase III. Developed by Joint Northern/Southern Southeast Regional 

Planning Team. Juneau, Alaska. June 2004. 

ADF&G. 2000. Southeast Alaska Unit 4 Brown Bear Management Strategy. 

Available online at: 

http://www.alaskabears.alaska.gov/management/planning/planning_pdfs/u4r

ep.pdf

ADF&G. 1999. Draft Southeast Alaska Elk Management Plan. Division of Wildlife 

Conservation.

ADF&G. 1998. Tongass Fish and Wildlife Resource Assessment.

ADF&G. 1994. Subsistence Resource Use Patterns in Southeast Alaska: 

Summaries of 30 Communities.

ADNR (Alaska Department of Natural Resources). 2013. Alaska Forest Resources 

& Practices Regulations, 2013. Division of Forestry. Anchorage, Alaska.

ADNR. 1997-2005. Alaska’s Mineral Industry. Special Reports 51-59 (annual 

reports for 1996 through 2004). Alaska Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. 

ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities). 2014. Draft 

Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. Available online at: 

http://dot.alaska.gov/sereg/projects/satp/assets/SATP_2014_Draft_Final_W

eb.pdf

ADOT&PF. 2004. Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan. August 2004. 

AEA (Alaska Energy Authority). 2014. Pelican. Available online at: 

http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Pelican 

AEA and REAP (Renewable Energy Alaska Project). 2013. Renewable Energy 

Atlas.

AEDG (Alaska Energy Data Gateway). 2015a. Community Data Summary –

Naukati Bay. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of 

Alaska Anchorage. Accessed online at: 

https://akenergygateway.alaska.edu/

AEDG. 2015b. Community Data Summary – Pelican. Institute of Social and 

Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Accessed online at: 

https://akenergygateway.alaska.edu/
References 6

Final EIS 6-3 References

AEL&P (Alaska Electric Light & Power). 2013. Application for Preliminary Permit 

before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Sheep Creek 

Hydroelectric Project.

AEL&P (Alaska Electric Light and Power Company). 2014. Electrical Generation 

Facilities. Available online at: http://www.aelp.com/history/electric.htm

AKEPIC (Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse). 2016. Non-Native Plant 

Species List. Alaska Center for Conservation Science, University of Alaska, 

Anchorage. Available online at: http://accs.uaa.alaska.edu/invasivespecies/non-native-plant-species-list. Accessed: May 3, 2016.

AKEPIC. 2015. Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse data portal. Alaska 

Natural Heritage Program, University of Alaska, Anchorage. Available 

online at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/akepic/. Accessed: February 

12, 2015.

AKEPIC. 2006. AKEPIC Inventory. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, UAA, USDA 

Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. Available online at: 

http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/

Alaska DCED (Department of Community and Economic Development). 2006. 

Community Profiles Online. Available online at: 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/

Alaska DCED. 2002. Community Profiles Online. Available online at: 

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/

Alaska Department of Education & Early Development. 2015. Child Nutrition 

Program, National School Lunch Programs, Free and Reduced Price Meals 

Report. Program Years 2001 to 2015. Available online at: 

https://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/cnp/nslp.html

Alaska DNR (Department of Natural Resources). 2015. Kensington Gold Mine. 

http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/kensington/ 

Alaska DOL. 2015a. Alaska Population Estimates by Borough, Census Area, City, 

and Census Designated Place (CDP), 2010 to 2014. January 15. Available 

online at: http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm 

Alaska DOL. 2015b. Alaska Labor Force -- All Areas. Not Seasonally Adjusted. 

Research and Analysis Section. June 18. Available online at: 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/labforce/ 

Alaska DOL. 2015c. Worker Residency by Industry. Alaska - Southeast Region. 

2013. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research 

and Analysis Section. February 17.

Alaska DOL. 2015d. Alaska Local and Regional Information. Southeast Economic 

Region 2013 Annual Average Unemployment Rate. Available online at 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/.

Alaska DOL. 2015e. Alaska Local and Regional Information. 2013 Workers by 

Industry. Available online at http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/.

Alaska DOL. 2015f. Alaska Local and Regional Information. Accessed online at 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/.

Alaska DOL. 2015g. 2010 Census PL 94-171 Redistricting Data for Boroughs and 

Census Areas. Available online at: 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/redistr.cfm Downloaded February 6.
6 References

References 6-4 Final EIS

Alaska DOL. 2014a. Alaska Population Estimates by Borough, Census Area, City, 

and Census Designated Place (CDP), 2010-2013. Available online at: 

http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm

Alaska DOL. 2014b. Race and Ethnicity by Borough and Census Area, 2010. PL 

94-171 Redistricting Data. Available online at: 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/redistr.cfm

Alaska DOL. 2014c. Race and Ethnicity by Place, 2010. PL 94-171 Redistricting 

Data. Available online at: http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/cen/redistr.cfm

Alaska DOL. 2014d. Population of Alaska by Economic Region, Borough, and 

Census Area, 2010-2014. Research and Analysis Section. Available online 

at: http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm 

Alaska DOL. 2014e. Alaska Labor Force -- All Areas. Not Seasonally Adjusted. 

Research and Analysis Section. 10/20/2014. Available online at: 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/labforce/

Alaska DOL. 2014f. Seafood Processing Workforce by Borough or Census Area, 

2012. Southeast Region. Research and Analysis Section. Available online 

at: http://laborstats.alaska.gov/seafood/Southeast/SESFPBorca.pdf

Alaska DOL. 2010a. Population of Alaska by Economic Region, Borough, and 

Census Area, 2000-2010. Research and Analysis Section. Available online 

at: http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm 

Alaska DOL. 2010b. Alaska Population by Age, Sex and Borough/Census Area, 

2000 to 2010. Research and Analysis Section. 

http://laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/popest.htm#

Alaska DOL. 2007. Table 4.3 Alaska Places by Borough and Census Area 2000-

2006. Available online at: 

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/estimates/06t4-3x.xls

Alaska DOL. 1999. Alaska Population Estimates by Borough, Census Area, City 

and Census Designated Place (CDP), 1990-1999. Research and Analysis 

Section.

Alaska DOT (Department of Transportation). 2006. Email 

correspondence/Personal communication between Patrick Nobilio of the 

Alaska Department of Transportation and Shaun Brooks, Tetra Tech EC. 

August 17. 

Alaska Energy Authority. 2015. Gartina Falls. Accessed online at: 

http://www.akenergyauthority.org/GartinaFalls

Alaska Forest Association. Undated. Alaska Forest Facts. 

http://www.akforest.org/index.htm

Alaska Interagency Coordination Center. 2015. Yearly Fire Statistics. Available 

online at: http://fire.ak.blm.gov/predsvcs/intel.php

Alaska Invasive Species Workshop. 2010. Workshop Summary and 

Recommendations. Final Workshop Proceedings. Alaska SeaLife Center –

Seward, Alaska. March 2-4, 2010. Prepared April 20, 2010. 

http://www.alaskasealife.org/New/research/mis_documents/MIS%20Worksh

op%20Proceedings.pdf Accessed Feb 2015.

Alaska Marine Highway System. 2014. 2013 Annual Traffic Volume Report. 

Available online at: http://dot.alaska.gov/amhs/reports.shtml
References 6

Final EIS 6-5 References

Alaska Native Heritage Center. 2014. Eyak, Tlingit, Haida & Tsimshian. Cultures of 

Alaska. Available online at: http://www.alaskanative.net/en/mainnav/education-and-programs/cultures-of-alaska/eyak-tlingit-haida-andtsimshian/ Accessed on 12/29/2014

Alaska Shorebird Group. 2008. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan. Version II. 

Alaska Shorebird Group, Anchorage, Alaska. Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/alaska/mbsp/mbm/shorebirds/pdf/ascp_nov2008.pdf

Alaska State Parks. 2009. Alaska’s Outdoor Legacy. Statewide Comprehensive 

Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2009-2014. September. Available 

online at: http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/plans/scorp/scorp0914.pdf

Alaska Travel Industry. 2006. Email correspondence/Personal communication 

between Mark Miller of the Alaska Travel Industry and Shaun Brooks, Tetra 

Tech EC. July 27. 

Albert, D. and J. Schoen. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Coastal 

Forests and Mountains Ecoregion of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass 

National Forest. From the Southeast Alaska Conservation Assessment, 

Chapter 2 of The Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion of Southeastern 

Alaska and the Tongass National Forest; a conservation assessment and 

resource synthesis. Editors: Schoen, J. and Dovichin, E. March 2007.

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

planning: 2012 update memo. Regional Economist, USFS Alaska Region. 

August 9.

Alexander, E. 1990. Compaction by Shovel Yarder. North Irish Timber Sale, Unit 1. 

unpublished monitoring report. May 18, 1990. 

Alexander, E.B. 1987. Mass failure hazard rating, Tongass National Forest. 

Unpublished report. May 1987. 

Alexander, S. J., E.B. Henderson, and R. Coleman. 2010. Economic Analysis of 

Southeast Alaska: Envisioning a Sustainable Economy with Thriving 

Communities. Forest Service, Alaska Region Publication R10-MB-725, 

Juneau, AK, 93 p.

Aley, T.C. 1997. Karst Vulnerability Assessment Review, Heceta Island. Report 

prepared for the Thorne Bay District Ranger, Steve Kimball. USFS internal 

document. 7 pp.

Aley, T., C. Aley, W.R Elliott, and P. Huntoon. 1993. Karst and Cave Resource 

Significance Assessment Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest, Alaska. 

Final Report. Prepared for Ketchikan Area of the Tongass National Forest. 

79 pp. and Appendix. 

Allen, B.M., and R.P. Angliss. 2014. Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus): 

North Pacific Stock. Pp. 172–176 in Alaska Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments, 2014. NOAA-TM-AFSC-301. Revised 10/09/2014.

Andrén, H. 1994. Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in 

landscapes with different proportions of suitable habitat: a review. Oikos 71: 

355–366.

Andres, B.A., and G.A. Falxa. 1995. Black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani). 

The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 

Available online at: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/155/articles/introduction.
6 References

References 6-6 Final EIS

ANHP (Alaska Natural Heritage Program). 2015. Rare Plant Species Information. 

Available online at: http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/rare-plant-speciesinformation/ 

AP&T (Alaska Power and Telephone Company). 2014. Alaska Power Company. 

Upper Lynn Canal Power Supply System. Available online at: 

http://www.aptalaska.com/index.php?action=switchTabs&tabID=14

Arhangelsky, K. 2005. Non-native Plant Species of Prince of Wales Island, Alaska 

Summary of Survey Findings. Final Report of USDA Forest Service, State 

and Private Forestry. Turnstone Environmental Consultants, Inc. Portland, 

OR.

Arians, Alison. 2003. Summary of monitoring studies of the effectiveness of 

practices under the Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act 1990-2002. 

DNR Division of Forestry. April.

As, S. 1999. Invasion of matrix species in small habitat patches. Conservation 

Ecology [online] 3(1): 1. Available from the Internet. URL: 

http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art1/

Athey, J.E., L.K. Freeman, L.A. Harbo, and P.S. Lasley. 2014. Alaska's Mineral 

Industry 2013: Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Special 

Report 69.

Audubon Alaska and The Nature Conservancy. 2007. Coastal Forests and 

Mountains Ecoregions of Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National 

Forest: A Conservation Assessment and Resource Synthesis. Available 

online at: 

https://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationByGeography/NorthAme

rica/UnitedStates/alaska/seak/era/cfm/Pages/CA-AKCFM.aspx

Aust, W.M. , M.B. Carroll, M.C. Bolding, and C.A. Dolloff. 2011. Operational Forest 

Stream Crossings Effects on Water Quality in the Virginia Piedmont. South. 

J. Appl. For. 35(3): 123-130. 

Bachelet D., J. Lenihan, R. Neilson, R. Drapek, and T. Kittel. 2005. Simulating the 

response of natural ecosystems and their fire regimes to climate variability 

in Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 2244–2257.

Bachman, R., W. Bergmann, J. Breese, W. Davidson, P. Doherty, S. Forbes, D. 

Gordon, D. Harris, S. Heinl, K. Jensen, M. Kallenberger, S. Kelley, B. Lynch, 

B. Meredith, K. Monagle, P. Skannes, L. Shaul, T, Thynes, A. Tingley, and 

G. Woods. 2005. 2005 Commercial, Personal Use, and Subsistence 

Salmon Fisheries: Report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Division of Sport Fish and Commercial 

Fisheries. Fishery Management Report No. 05-68. December 2005.

Baichtal, J. 2006. Geologic Resources, Paleontology, Geologic Special Areas, and 

Listing of Significant Caves. Forest Plan Adjustment Proposal Report. 

Rationale and process used in making the recommended changes to the 

Plan. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. File Code 2880 

Geology and Karst Resources. Letter to Lee Kramer, Forest Plan 

Adjustment Coordinator. March 24.
References 6

Final EIS 6-7 References

Baichtal, J. 1997. Application of a Karst Management Strategy: Two Case Studies 

from the Tongass National Forest, Southeastern Alaska; The Challenges of 

Implementation. In Proceedings of the 1997 Karst and Cave Management 

Symposium 13th National Cave Management Symposium. Bellingham, 

Washington and Chilliwack and Vancouver Island, BC, Canada, October 7-

10, 1997. R. Stitt, proceedings editor. Pp. 4-11.

Baichtal, J.F., and D.J. Landwehr. 1997. Heceta Sawfly Salvage Sale, Soils, Karst, 

and Cave Resource Evaluation, Heceta Island, Southeastern Alaska. 

Unpublished, USFS internal document.

Baichtal, J.F., and D.N. Swanston. 1996. Karst Landscapes and Associated 

Resources: A Resource Assessment. General Technical Report, PNWGTR-383. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR. 13 pp.

Baird, E.J., W. Floyd, I. van Meerveld, and A. E. Anderson. 2012. Road Surface 

Erosion, Part 1: Summary of Effects, Processes, and Assessment 

Procedures. Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin 15(1) Summer 

2012.

Baker, R. 2001. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough. A Profile of the Island 

Community in Southeast Alaska, in Alaska Economic Trends, January, pp 

11-16.

Barbour, R. J., R. R. Zaborske, M. H. McClellan, L. Christian, and D. Golnick. 2005. 

Young-stand Management Options and Their Implications for Wood Quality 

and Other Values. Landscape and Urban Planning 72:79-94.

Barrett, T.M. 2014. Storage and Flux of Carbon in Live Trees, Snags, and Logs in 

the Chugach and Tongass National Forests. USDA-FS. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-889. 44 pp.

Barrett, T.M., G. Latta, P.E. Hennon, B.I.N. Eskelson, and H. Temesgen. 2012. 

Host-Parasite Distributions Under Changing Climate: Tsuga heterophylla

and Arceuthobium tsugense in Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 42: 642–656.

Bartos, L. 1989. A New Look at Low Flows after Logging. Page 96-97 in: 

Proceedings: Watershed ’89, A Conference on the Stewardship of Soil, Air, 

and Water Resources. Juneau, Alaska: USDA Forest Service.

Bartos, L.R. 1990. Low Flows after Timber Harvest Related to Geologic Zones in 

Southeast Alaska. November 27-29, 1990.

Bauder, P., and J. Heys. 2004. Exotic Plant Management at Wrangell-St. Elias 

National Park and Preserve; Summer 2004 Field Season Report. National 

Park Service. Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.

BC Hydro. 2012. Electric Load Forecast Fiscal 2013 to Fiscal 2033. Energy Planning 

and Economic Development, BC Hydro.

Beamish, R.J., B.E. Riddell, K.L. Lange, E. Farley Jr., S. Kang, T. Nagasawa, V. 

Radchenko, O. Temnykh, and S. Urawa. 2009. The Effects of Climate on 

Pacifc Salmon - A Summary of Published Literature. North Pacific 

Anadromous Fish Commission (www.npafc.org). 

http://www.npafc.org/new/publications/Special%20Publications/LRMP_Synt

hesis.pdf. Accessed Dec 2014.
6 References

References 6-8 Final EIS

The Beck Group. 2009. Transitioning to Young Growth: Prince of Wales Island, 

Southeast Alaska. Project Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy, 

Juneau, Alaska. February.

Beechie, T.J., and T.H. Sibley. 1997. Relationships between channel 

characteristics, woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington 

streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:217-229.

Bell, C. 2015. Tourism in Southeast. Visitor-related Jobs a Key Part of the 

Region’s Economy. Alaska Economic Trends. Vol. 35, 8. pp. 4-8.

Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer 

Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. 

Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group Report No. 8. June 

1992.

Ben-David, M., R.T. Bowyer and J.B. Faro. 1996. Niche Separation by Mink and 

River Otters: Coexistence in a Marine Environment. Oikos 75(1):41-48.

Ben-David, M,. R.W. Flynn, and D.M. Schell. 1997. Annual and seasonal changes in 

diets of martens: evidence from stable isotope analysis. Oecologia 111:280-

291.

Benda, L., D. Miller, J. Sias, D. Martin, R. Bilby, C. Veldhuisen, and T. Dunne. 2003. 

Wood recruitment processes and wood budgeting. American Fisheries 

Society Symposium 37:49-73.

Bentz, B.J., J. Regniere, C.J. Fettig, E.M. Hansen, J.L. Hayes, J.A. Hicke, R.G. 

Kelsey, J.F. Negron, and S.J. Seybold. 2010. Climate Change and Bark 

Beetles of the Western United States and Canada: Direct and Indirect 

Effects. BioScience 60: 602-613. 

Berg, E.C., C.B. Gale, T.A. Morgan, A.M. Brackley, C.E. Keegan, S.J. Alexander, 

G.A. Christensen, C.P. McIver, and M.G. Scudder. 2014. Alaska’s Timber 

Harvest and Forest Products Industry, 2011. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-903. 

November.

Berman, M., G.P. Juday, and R. Burnside. 1998. Climate change and Alaska’s 

forests: People problems and policies. In: G.Weller and P. A. Anderson, 

compilers. Assessing the consequences of climate change for Alaska and 

the Bering Sea region. Proceedings from a workshop held 29-30 October 

1998, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Beschta, R.L., Bilby, R.E., Brown, G.B., Holtby, L.B., Hofstra, T.D. 1987. Streamside 

Management, Forestry and Fisheries Interactions. Chapter 6: Stream 

Temperature and Aquatic Habitat: Fisheries and Forestry Interactions. Salo, 

E.O. and T.W. Cundy (Editors). Institute of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA, 191-232.

Bilby, R.E. 1979. The function and distribution of organic debris dams in forest 

stream ecosystems. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 143 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation.

Bilby, R.E. and P.A. Bisson. 1998. Function and distribution of large woody debris. 

Pages 324-346 in R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, editors. River ecology and 

management: lessons from the Pacific coastal ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, 

New York, New York.
References 6

Final EIS 6-9 References

Billings, R.F. 1970. Logging Practices on the Yakutat Forelands. Unpublished letter 

to Regional Timber Program Lead Overdorff. November 18, 1970. 

Binkley, C.S., M.J. Apps, R.J. Dixon, P.F. Kauppi, and L.O. Nilsson. 1997. 

Sequestering Carbon in Natural Forests. Critical Reviews in Environmental 

Science and Technology, 27 (Special) S23-S45.

Birdsey, R.A., A.J. Plantinga, and L.S. Heath. 1993. Past and prospective carbon 

storage in United States forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 58 

(1993) pages 33-40. 

Bishop, D.M., and M.E. Stevens. 1964. Landslides on Logged Areas in Southeast 

Alaska. USDA FS Res .Pap NOR-1 1964. Northern For Exp. Sta. Juneau, 

Alaska.

Bisson, P.A., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, M.L. 

Murphy, K.V. Koski, and J.R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested 

streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. Pages 143-190 

in E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: forestry 

and fishery interactions. College of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington, Seattle, Washington. Contribution No. 57. 

Bissonette, J.A., D.J. Harrison, C.D. Hargis, and T.G. Chapin. 1997. The influence of 

spatial scale and scale-sensitive properties on habitat selection by American 

marten. Pages 368-385 in J.A. Bissonett, editor. Wildlife and Landscape 

Ecology. Springer-Verlag, NY. 

Bjornn, T.C. and D.W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams, 

pp. 83-128. In: W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland 

Black, H.C. 1979. Black’s Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition. West Publishing

Company, St. Paul, Minn. 1,451 pp., appendix. 

Black & Veatch. 2012. Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan. Prepared for 

the Alaska Energy Authority. Available online at: 

http://www.akenergyauthority.org/southeastIRP.html

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2006. Ring of Fire Proposed Resource 

Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage Field 

Office. Anchorage, Alaska. July 2006.

BLM and USDA Forest Service. 2008. Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States. FES 08-

44. Available online at 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/geothermal/geothermal_nationwid

e/Documents/Final_PEIS.html

Blue Lake Expansion Project. 2015. The Blue Lake Expansion Project is Complete! 

Available online at: http://www.bluelakeexpansion.com/

Boag, D. A., and M. A. Schroeder. 1992. Spruce Grouse. In: A. Poole, P. 

Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America. Philadelphia: 

The Academy of Natural Sciences. Washington, DC. The American 

Ornithologists’ Union.
6 References

References 6-10 Final EIS

Boland, J.L., W.P. Smith, and J.P. Hayes. 2009. Survey of Bats in Southeast 

Alaska with emphasis on Keen’s Myotis (Myotis keenii). Northwest Science

83(3):169-179.

Bollens, S., R. Hooff, M. Butler, J. Cordell, and B. Frost. 2010. Feeding ecology of 

juvenile Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in a northeast Pacific fjord: 

diet, availability of zooplankton, selectivity for prey, and potential competition 

for prey resources. Fish. Bull. 108:393–407.

Bonsal, B.R., and T.D. Prowse. 2006. Regional Assessment of CCM-Simulated 

Current Climate Over Northern Canada. Artic Vol. 59, No, 02, pages 33-40

Booth, D. B., and C.J. Jackson. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems—

degradation thresholds, stormwater detention, and the limits of mitigation. 

Water Resources Bulletin, v. 33, p. 1077-1090.

Booth, D.B., D. Hartley, and R. Jackson. 2002. Forest Cover, Impervious-Surface 

Area, and the Mitigation of Stormwater Impacts. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association 38[3]:835–845.

Bosakowski, T., B. McCullough, F.J. Lapsansky, and M. E. Vaughn. 1999. Northern 

Goshawks nesting on a private industrial forest in western Washington. 

Journal of Raptor Research 33:240-244.

Bosch, J. M., and Hewlett, J. D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to 

determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and 

evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology, 55: 3¬23

Bowker, J.M. 2001. Outdoor recreation by Alaskans: projections for 2000 through 

2020. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-527. Portland, Oregon. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22p. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr527.pdf

Bowyer, R.T., G.M. Blundell, M. Ben-David, S.C. Jewett, T.A. Dean, and L.K. Duffy. 

2003. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on river otters: injury and 

recovery of a sentinel species. Wildlife Monographs No. 153:1-53.

Boyce, D. A., Jr., R. T. Reynolds, and R. T. Graham. 2006. Goshawk status and 

management: what do we know, what have we done, where are we going? 

Pp 312-3325 in M. L. Morrison, editor. The northern goshawk: a technical 

assessment of its status, ecology, and management. Studies in Avian 

Biology No. 31, Cooper Ornithological Society.

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

for Alaska Biogeographic Regions, Version 1.0. Unpublished report, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, AK. 45 pp.

Brackley, A.M., T.D. Rojas, and R.W. Haynes. 2006a. Timber Products Output and 

Timber Harvests in Alaska: Projections for 2005-25. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-677. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.

Brackley, A.M., D.J. Parrent, and T.D. Rojas. 2006b. Estimating Sawmill 

Processing Capacity for Tongass Timber: 2003 and 2004 Update. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. Portland, Oregon. Res. Note. PNW-RN-553. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 15 p. 
References 6

Final EIS 6-11 References

Bradner, T. 2014. Parnell signs bill to boost Bokan, Niblack mine projects. Alaska 

Journal of Commerce. June 19. Available online at: 

http://www.alaskajournal.com/business-and-finance/2014-06-19/parnellsigns-bill-boost-bokan-niblack-mine-projects

Brennan, J.S., H. Culverwell, R. Gregg, and P. Granger. 2009. Protection of Marine 

Riparian Functions in Puget Sound, Washington. Prepared for Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. Prepared by Washington Sea Grant, 

Seattle, Wa.

Brennan, J.S., K.F. Higgins, J.R. Cordell, and V.A. Stamatiou. 2004. Juvenile 

salmon composition, timing distribution, and diet in marine nearshore waters 

of central Puget Sound in 2001-2002. King County Department of Natural 

Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA. 164 p.

Brennan, J. and H. Culverwell. 2004. Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian 

Functions in Maine Ecosystems. Published by Washington Sea Grant 

Program, Seattle, WA. 34 p.

Brickell, J.E. 1989. Review of Forest Inventory Methodology and Results, Tongass 

National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, unpublished report. 

28 pp.

Brinkman, T.J. 2009. Resilience of a deer hunting system in southeast Alaska: 

integrating social, ecological, and genetic dimensions. Dissertation. 

University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK.

Brinkman, T.J. 2006. The Prince of Wales Island Deer Hunter Project. Preliminary 

Summary of Hunter Responses to Interview Questions. Community Report. 

Unpublished report. February.

Brooks, D.J., and R.W. Haynes. 1997. Timber Products Outputs and Timber 

Harvests in Alaska: Projections for 1997-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-409. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 17pp. 

Brooks, D.J., and R.W. Haynes. 1994. Timber Products Outputs and Timber 

Harvests in Alaska: Projections for 1992-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-261. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Brooks, D.J., and R.W. Haynes. 1990. Timber Products Outputs and Timber 

Harvests in Alaska: Projections for 1989-2010. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-334. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Brown, G.W. 1983. Chapter III, Water Temperature. Forestry and Water Quality. 

Oregon State University Bookstore. Pp. 47-57.

Brown, M. 1997. Letter from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

Office of the Commissioner to Phil Janik, Regional Forester, USDA Forest 

Service, Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. January 22, 1997.

Bryant, M.D. 1980. Evolution of large, organic debris after timber harvest: 

Maybeso Creek, 1949 to 1978. General Technical Report pnw-101. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 

Portland, OR. 

Bryant, M.D. 1985. Changes 30 years after logging in large woody debris, and its 

use by salmonids, pp. 329-334. In: R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, D.R. 

Patton, P.R. Folliot, and R.H. Hamre (editors). Riparian ecosystems and 
6 References

References 6-12 Final EIS

their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. First North American 

Riparian Conference, Tuscon, Arizona. General Technical Report RM-120. 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiement 

Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Bryant, M. 2009. Global Climate Change and Potential Effects on Pacific 

Salmonids in Freshwater Ecosystems of Southeast Alaska. Climate 

Change. DOI 10.1007/s10584-008-9530-x

Bryant, M.D., and Everest. 1998. Management and Condition of Watersheds in 

Southeast Alaska: The Persistence of Anadromous Salmon. Northwest 

Science, Vol. 72, No. 4, 1998.

Bryant, M.D., and B.E. Wright. [unpublished manuscript]. An analysis of juvenile 

salmonid densities from a diverse long-term data set.

Bryant, M.D., J. Caouette, and B. Wright. 2004. Evaluating stream habitat survey 

data and statistical power using an example from Southeast Alaska. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 24:1353–1362. 

Bunnell, F.L., L.L. Kremsater, and E. Wind. 1999. Managing to sustain vertebrate 

richness in forests of the Pacific Northwest: relationships within stands. 

Environmental Review. 7: 97-146.

Burgner, R. L., J.T. Light, L. Margolis, T. Okazaki, A. Tautz, and S. Ito. 1991. 

Distribution and Origins of Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in 

Offshore Waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Bulletin Number 51. 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission.

Burkey, T.V. 1995. Extinction rates in archipelagoes: implications for populations in 

fragmented habitats. Conservation Biology 9:527–541.

Buskirk, S.W. and W. J. Zielinski. 1997. American marten (Martes americana) 

ecology and conservation. Pages 17-22 in J.E. Harris, and C.V. Ogan, 

(eds.), Mesocarnivores of northern California: biology, management, and 

survey techniques, workshop manual. August 12-15, 1997, Humboldt State 

University, Arcata, CA. The Wildlife Society, California North Coast Chapter, 

Arcata, CA. 127 pp.

Caouette, J.P., and E.J. DeGayner. 2005. Predictive Mapping for Tree Sizes and 

Densities in Southeast Alaska. J. Land. Urban Plan. 72(1-3):49-63.

Caouette, J.P., M.G. Kramer, and Nowacki, G.J. 2001. Deconstructing the Timber 

Volume Paradigm in the Management of the Tongass National Forest. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-482. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR. 20 pp.

Carey, A.B. 2000. Ecology of northern flying squirrels: implications for ecosystem 

management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Pages 45–66 in R.L. 

Goldingay and J.S. Scheibe (eds). Biology of gliding mammals. Filander 

Verlag, Forth, Germany.

Carey, A.B. 2003. Biocomplexity and Restoration of Biodiversity in Temperate 

Coniferous Forest: Inducing Spatial Heterogeneity with Variable-density 

Thinning. Forestry Volume 76, No. 2.
References 6

Final EIS 6-13 References

Carlson, M., and M. Shephard. 2007. Is the spread of non-native plants in Alaska 

accelerating? In: Meeting the Challenge: Invasive Plants in Pacific 

Northwest Ecosystems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report GTR-694. 

Portland, OR.

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

Heys, J. Riley, J. Nielsen. 2008. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

Technical Report R10-TP-143.

Carstensen, R., J. Schoen, and D. Albert. 2007. Biogeographic provinces of 

southeastern Alaska. In: J. Schoen and E. Dovichin, eds. The coastal 

forests and mountains ecoregion of southeastern Alaska and the Tongass 

National Forest: A conservation assessment and resource synthesis. 

Audubon Alaska and The Nature Conservancy. Anchorage, Alaska.

Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, E.O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road 

sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson 

County, Washington, pages 38-47 in, Proceedings, conference on salmon 

spawning gravel: a renewable resource in the Pacific Northwest? Report 39: 

Washington State University, Water Research Center, Pullman, Washington

Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace. 2011. Petition to list the Alexander 

Archipelago Wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) as threatened or endangered under 

the United States Endangered Species Act. Submitted to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service August 10, 2011.

Cerveny, L.K. 2005. Tourism and its effects on southeast Alaska communities and 

resources: case studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska. Research 

Paper PNW-RP-566. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 147 p. Available online: 

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/20434

Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber Harvesting, 

Silviculture, and Watershed Processes. In: Influences of Forest and 

Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, W.R. 

Meehan (ed.), American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:181-205. 

1991.

Chapin, T.G., D.J. Harrison, and D.D. Katnik. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern 

on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation 

biology 12: 96-227.

Chapin, F.S., III, S.F. Trainor, P. Cochran, H. Huntington, C. Markon, M. 

McCammon, A. D. McGuire, and M. Serreze. 2014. Ch. 22: Alaska. 

Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 514-536. doi:10.7930/J00Z7150.

Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in 

redds of large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

117:1-21.

Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McLeod. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment 

in the Northern Rockies ecoregion. EPA 910/9-87-162. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington.
6 References

References 6-14 Final EIS

Christensen, G.A., K.R. Julin, R.J. Ross, and S. Willits. 2002. Volume Recovery, 

Grade Yield and Properties of Lumber from Young-growth Sitka Spruce and 

Weatern hemlock in Southeast Alaska. Forest Products Journal Volume 52, 

no. 5, May 2002.

CLAA (Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska). 2014a. Cruise Ship Calendar for 2014.

CLAA. 2014b. Cruise Ship Calendar for 2015.

Coe, D. 2004. The Hydrologic Impacts of Roads at Varying Spatial and Temporal 

Scales: A Review of Published Literature as of April 2004. Prepared for 

Upland Processes Science Advisory Group of the Committee for 

Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research. 

Coho, C. and S.J. Burges. 1991. Analysis of initiation mechanisms of dam-break 

floods in managed forests. Report Number TFW-SH9-91-001. Washington 

Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Division, Olympia, 

Washington. 23pp

Collins, B., D. Montgomery, K. Fetherston, and T. Abbe. 2011. The Floodplain 

Large-wood Cycle Hypothesis: A Mechanism for the Physical and Biotic 

Structuring of Temperate Forested Alluvial Valleys in the North Pacific 

Coastal Ecoregion. Geomorphology. Pages 460-470.

Colt, S. 2001. The Economic Importance of Healthy Alaska Ecosystems. Prepared 

for Alaska Conservation Foundation. January. Available online at: 

http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/resourcestudies/healthy-ecosystems.pdf 

Colway, C., and D.E. Stevenson. 2007. Confirmed Records of Two Green Sturgeon 

from the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 88:188–

192.

Conrad, S., and D. Gray. 2014a. Overview of the 2013 Southeast Alaska and 

Yakutat Commercial, Personal Use, and Subsistence Salmon Fisheries. 

Fishery Management Report No. 14-28, Anchorage, AK.

Conrad, S., and D. Gray. 2014b. Overview of the 2014 Southeast Alaska and 

Yakutat Commercial, Personal Use, and Subsistence Salmon Fisheries.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Management Report No. 14-

61, Anchorage, AK.

Cook, J.A., and S.O. MacDonald. 2001. Should endemism be the focus of 

conservation efforts along the North Pacific Coast of North America? 

Biological Conservation 97: 207-213.

Cook, J.A., N.G. Dawson, and S.O. MacDonald. 2006. Conservation of Highly 

Fragmented Systems: The North Temperate Alexander Archipelago. Biol. 

Conserv. 133: 1-15.

Coulson, J., J. Butterfiled, and E. Henderson. 1990. The Effect of Open Drainage 

Ditches on the Plant and Invertebrate Communities of Moorland and on the

Decomposition of Peat. The Journal of Applied Ecology 27(2): 549-561.

Cowardin, L., Carter, V., Golet, F., and LaRoe, E. 1979. Classification of Wetlands 

and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington DC.

Cox, D., T. Opolka, and J. Hawkins. 2013. Soil and Wetland Resource Report, Big 

Thorne Project. Tetra Tech EC, Inc. Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger 

District, Tongass National Forest.
References 6

Final EIS 6-15 References

Croke, J.C., and P.B. Hairsine. 2006. Sediment Delivery in Managed Forests: A 

Review. Environmental Review 14: 59–87. Available online at: 

http://er.nrc.ca/ (Accessed April – May 2011).

Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska. 2006. Personal communication between Fred 

Reeder of Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska and Shaun Brooks, Tetra Tech 

EC. August 31.

Cruse, C., and D. Powers. 2006. Estimating School District Poverty with Free and 

Reduced-Price Lunch Data. U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates 

Branch. Available online at: 

http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/publications/files/CrusePowers2006a

sa.pdf

Cummins, K.W., 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24:

631–641.

Dahlheim, M.E., J.M. Waite, and P.A. White. 2009. Cetaceans of Southeast 

Alaska: distribution and seasonal occurrence. Publications, Agencies, and 

Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Paper 157. Available online at: 

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usdeptcommercepub/157.

D’Aleo, J., and D. Easterbrook. 2011. Relationship of Multidecadal Global 

Temperatures to Multidecadal Oceanic Oscillations. Chapter 5 in: EvidenceBased Climate Science. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385956-3.10005-1.

D’Amore, D. 2016. Personal communication between Patricia Krosse and David 

D’Amore (USDA Forest Service Research Scientist) on 4/11/2016.

D’Amore, D. V., and W. C. Lynn. 2002. Classification of forested Histosols in 

southeast Alaska. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:554-62

D’Amore, D., and R. Edwards. No Date. Climate and Carbon in Southeast Alaska: 

Beyond the Threashold of Change in a Dynamic Landscape. Juneau 

Forestry Science Laboratory, PNW Research Station, Juneau, Alaska.

D’Amore, D., P. Herendeen, and E. Hood. 2015. Dissolved Organic Carbon Fluxes 

from Hydropendologic Units in Alaska Coastal Temperate Rainforest 

Watersheds.

D’eon, R.G., S.M. Glenn, I. Parfitt, and M. Fortin. 2002. Landscape connectivity as 

a function of scale and organism vagility in a real forested landscape. 

Conservation Ecology 6:10. Available online: 

http://www.consecol.org/vol6/iss2/art10

Daniel, T. W., J. A. Helms, and F. S. Baker. 1979. Principles of Silviculture. Second 

Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Daniels, J. 2015. Alaska Timber Demand Baseline Methods for Review. 

Unpublished Draft Methodology. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station.

Daniels, Jean M.; Paruszkiewicz, Michael D.; Alexander, Susan J. 2016. Tongass 

National Forest timber demand: projections for 2015 to 2030. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-934. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 53 p.

Darimont, C.T., and T.E. Reimchen. 2002. Intra-hair stable isotope analysis implies 

seasonal shift to salmon in gray wolf diet. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80: 

1638-1632.
6 References

References 6-16 Final EIS

Davidson, E., and I. Janssens. 2006. Temperature Sensitivity of Soil Carbon 

Decomposition and feedbacks to Climate Change. Nature Reviews.

Davis, H., A.N. Hamilton, A.S. Harestad, and R.D. Weir. 2012. Longevity and reuse 

of black bear dens in managed forests of coastal British Columbia. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 523–527.

Dawson, N.G., and J.A. Cook. 2012. Behind the genes: diversification of North 

American martens (Martes americana and M. caurina). Pages 23-38 in K. 

B. Aubry, W. J. Zielinski, M. G. Raphael, and S. W. Buskirk, editors. Biology 

and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. Cornell 

University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Dawson, N.G., S.O. MacDonald, J.A. Cook. 2007. Endemic mammals of the 

Alexander Archipelago. Chapter 6.7 In J.W. Schoen and E. Dovichin, 

editors. The Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion of Southeastern 

Alaska and the Tongass National Forest: A conservation assessment and 

resource synthesis.. The Nature Conservancy and Audubon Alaska.

Day, R.H., Nigro , D.A. & Prichard, A.K. 2000. At-sea habitat use by the Kittlitz’s 

Murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris) in nearshore waters of Prince William 

Sound, Alaska. Marine Ornithology 28: 105-114.

Deal, R.L. 2001. The effects of partial cutting on forest plant communities of 

western hemlock--Sitka spruce stands in southeast Alaska. Canadian 

Journal of Forest Research 31: 2067-2079.

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

structure and growth in western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in Southeast 

Alaska. Forest Ecology and Management 159: 173-186.

Deal, R.L., J. C. Tappeiner, and P.E. Hennon 2002. Developing Silvicultural 

Systems Based on Partial Cutting in Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce Stands 

of Southeast Alaska. Forestry Volume 75, number 4. 

Deal, R.L., J. H. Barbour, M. H. McClellan, and D. L. Parry. 2003. Development of 

epicormic sprouts in Sitka spruce following thinning and pruning in southeast Alaska. Forestry 76(4). 

Deal, R.L., J.C. Tappeiner and P.E. Hennon, 2002. Developing silvicultural systems 

based on partial cutting of western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands of 

southeast Alaska. Forestry 75: 425-431.

Deering, B. 2014. Local biomass pellets provide heat and jobs. USDA Forest 

Service. March 11. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tongass/news-events/?cid=STELPRD3792905

DeGayner, G. 1997. Summary of the 1997 American marten risk assessment 

panel. Tongass Land Management Planning Team. Available in the 

planning record for the 1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA 

Forest Service 1997a).

DellaSala, D. 2016. The Tongass Rainforest as Alaska’s First Line of Climate 

Change Defense and Importance to the Paris Climate Change Agreements.

DellaSala, D. 2014. Why Forests Are Pivotal in Planning for Climate Change.

PowerPoint presentation.

DellaSala, D., and M. Koopman. 2015. Thinning Combined with Biomass Energy 

Production may increase rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Geological Institute. Ashland, OR.
References 6

Final EIS 6-17 References

DellaSala, D.A., K.A.Engel, D.P. Voisen, and R.L. Fairbanks. 1994. Effectiveness of 

Silvicultural Modifications of Young-Growth Forest for Enhancing Wildlife 

Habitat on the Tongass National Forest. Prepared under contract for USDA 

Forest Service Region 10.

Demboski, J.R., B. K. Jacobsen, and J. A. Cook. 1998. Implications of cytochrome 

b sequence variation for biogeography and conservation of the northern 

flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) of the Alexander Archipelago, Alaska. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1771–1776.

DeMeo, T., J. Martin, and R. West. 1992. Forest Plant Association Guide Ketchikan 

Area, Tongass National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Alaska Region R10-

MB-210. December 1992.

DeVelice, R. L., and J. R. Martin. 2001. Assessing the Extent to Which Roadless 

Areas Complement the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Ecological 

Applications 11(4): 1008-1018.

DeWalle, D.R. 2010. Modeling stream shade: Riparian buffer height and density as 

important as buffer width. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association 45(2): 323–333.

Dickerman, R.W., and J. Gustafson. 1996. The Prince of Wales spruce grouse: a 

new subspecies from southeastern Alaska. Western Birds 27:41–47.

Dillman, K. 2004. Epiphytic Lichens of the Forest-Marine Ecotone of Southeastern 

Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Dillman, K.L. 2008. Conservation Assessment for the Large Round-leaved Orchid 

(Platanthera orbiculata (Pursh.) Lindl. on the Tongass National Forest, 

Alaska Region. US. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 

Dillman, K.L. 2011a. Conservation Assessment of Piperia unalascensis (Spreng.) 

Rydb. Region 10 Sensitive Species. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest. 

Dillman, K.L. 2011b. Conservation Assessment of Lobaria amplissima (Scop.) 

Forss. Region 10 Sensitive Species. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest. 

Dillman, K.L., L.H. Geiser, and G. Brener. 2007. Air Quality Bio-monitoring with 

Lichens-Tongass National Forest; USDA Forest Service. Petersburg, 

Alaska.

Douglas, G., G. Straley, D. Meidinger, and J. Pojar (eds.). 1999. Illustrated Flora of 

British Columbia, Vol. 3: Dicotyledons (Diapensiaceae through 

Onagraceae). Victoria, British Columbia: British Columbia Ministry of 

Environment, Lands and Parks and Ministry of Forests. 

Doyle, F. I. and J. N. M. Smith. 1994. Population responses of northern goshawks 

to the10-year cycle in numbers of snowshoe hares. Studies in Avian Biology

16:122-129. 

Duffy, E. 2003. Early Marine Distribution and Trophic Interactions of Juvenile 

Salmon in Puget Sound. Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, 

WA

Dugan, D., H. Griego, G. Fay, and S. Colt. 2006. Nature-Based Tourism in 

Southeast Alaska: Results from 2005. Institute of Social and Economic 

Research. University of Alaska Anchorage. Report prepared for the Alaska 

Conservation Foundation. September. 
6 References

References 6-18 Final EIS

Dugan, D., G. Fay, H. Griego, and S. Colt. 2009. Nature-Based Tourism in 

Southeast Alaska. ISER Working Paper 2009.1. March. Institute of Social 

and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage. Available online 

at: www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu 

Duncan, S. 2002. Soggy soils and sustainability: forested wetlands in southeast 

Alaska. Science Findings (41): 1-5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 

Dunlap, R. 1996. Fish/Riparian Assessment Panel Summary, Tongass National 

Forest, Juneau, Alaska. February 13, 1996.

Dunlap, R. 1997. Summary of the 1997 Fish Habitat Risk Assessment Panel, 

Tongass National Forest, Juneau, Alaska. May 7, 1997.

EcoAdapt. 2014. A Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for Aquatic 

Resources in the Tongass National Forest.

ECONorthwest. 2014. The Economic Importance of Alaska’s Wildlife in 2011. Final 

Report prepared for Alaska Department of Fish & Game. May.

EEI (Edison Electric Institute), Avian Powerline Interaction Committee, and the 

California Energy Commission. 2006. Suggested practices for avian 

protection on power lines: the state of the art in 2006. Pier final project 

report CEC-500-2006-022. Washington D.C. and Sacramento CA. Available 

online at: 

http://www.aplic.org/uploads/files/2643/SuggestedPractices2006(LR-2).pdf

EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2013. How much of U.S. carbon 

dioxide emissions are associated with electricity generation? Available 

online at http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=77&t=11

Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. 

Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, 

Vicksburg, Mississippi. Available on line at: 

http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/delineation%2087.pdf

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a. EPA’s Climate Impacts in 

Alaska website. Available online at: 

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/alaska.html

EPA. 2014b. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available online at 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html

EPA. 2014c. Maintenance areas for PM10 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/pmcs.html#ALASKA site accessed 

December 31, 2014 

EPA. 1994. Mendenhall Valley attainment plan (59 FR 13884).

Euskirchen, E.S., Q. Li. and K.A. Harper. 2006. The influence of edges on plant 

communities: research frontiers for forested landscapes. Pages 71–88 in 

Ecology of Hierarchical Landscapes: From Theory to Application. Edited by 

J. Chen, S. Saunders, K. Broskofske and T.R. Crow. Nova Science 

Publishers, Hauppauge, NY.

Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Schrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell, and C.J. 

Cederholm. 1987. Chapter 4. Fine sediment and salmonid production: A 

paradox. In: Salo, E.O., T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside Management. 

Forestry and Fishery Interactions. University of Washington, Institute of 

Forest Resources. Contribution No. 57. P. 98-142.
References 6

Final EIS 6-19 References

Everest, F.H., and G. H. Reeves. 2007. Riparian and Aquatic Habitats of the 

Pacific Northwest and Southeast Alaska: Ecology, Management History, 

and Potential Management Strategies (FNW-GTR-692). USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Fahrig, L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of 

Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515.

Fahrig, L. 1999. Forest loss and fragmentation: which has the greater effect on 

persistence of forest-dwelling animals? Pages 87–95 in J.A. Rochelle, L.A. 

Lehmann, and J. Wisniewski (eds). Forest Fragmentation: Wildlife and 

Management Implications. Brill, NY.

Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population 

extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:603–610. 

Fall, J.A. 2014. Subsistence in Alaska: A Year 2012 Update. Division of 

Subsistence, ADF&G, February.

Faris, T.L., and K.D. Vaughan. 1985. Log transfer and storage facilities in 

Southeast Alaska: A review. USDA Forest Service GTR PNW-174. 

Portland, Oregon. 24 pp., plus map. Ref. 7667.

Farmer, C.J., and M.D. Kirchhoff. 2007. Ecological classification of deer habitat in 

the Tongass National Forest, Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 88:73–84.

Farr, W.A. 1984. Site Index and Height Growth Curves for Unmanaged Even-aged 

Stands of Western Hemlock and Sitka Spruce in Southeast Alaska. Res. 

Pap. PNW-326. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 pp.

Farr, W.A. and A. S. Harris. 1971. Partial cutting of western hemlock and sitka 

spruce in Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, PNW-124. 107 pp. 

Ref. 8420.

Farr, W.A. and M.H. McClellan. 1994. Size and Age Structure of Trees in the OldGrowth Forests of Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. Unpublished, non-peer-reviewed manuscript 

on file at Juneau Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Juneau, AK. Ref. R-721.

Fay, V. 2002. Alaska Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan. Juneau, 

Alaska. October. Available online at: 

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/invasive/ak_ansmp.pdf

Fay, G., A. V. Meléndez, and C. West. 2013. Alaska Energy Statistics 1960-2011 

Final Report. Prepared by the Institute of Social and Economic Research, 

University of Alaska Anchorage for the Alaska Energy Authority. December. 

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest 

Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social 

Assessment. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1993-793-071. USDA 

Forest Service, Washington DC.

FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee). 2013. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second 

Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.

Flaherty, E.A., W.P. Smith, S. Pyare, and M. Ben-David. 2008. Experimental trials 

of the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) traversing managed 
6 References

References 6-20 Final EIS

rainforest landscapes: perceptual range and fine-scale movements. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 86:1050–1058.

Flather, C. H; Bevers, M; and J. Hof. 2002. Prescribing habitat layouts: analysis of 

optimal placement for landscape planning. Pages 428-453 in Gutzwiller,

K.J., editor. Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation. New 

York: Springer-Verlag.

Flynn, R., S.B. Lewis, L.R. Beier, G.W. Pendleton. 2007. Brown bear use of 

riparian and beach zones of northeast Chichagof Island: implications for 

streamside management in coastal Alaska. Wildlife Research Final Report. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska. 

Flynn, R., 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. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Flynn, R.W., and T. Schumacher. 2001. Ecology of martens in southeast Alaska, 1 

July 2000-30 June 2001. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal aid 

in wildlife restoration final research performance report, grants W-23-4 to W27-4. Study 7.16. Juneau, AK.

FNA (Flora of North America). 2014. eFloras: Papaver alboroseum. Available 

online at: 

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500840. 

Accessed on December 15, 2014. 

Forest Sciences Lab Juneau. 2014 unpublished: Forest Sciences Lab Juneau. 2014. 

Prince of Wales commercial thin study. Unpublished data.

Foss, J.V. 2015. Soil Quality monitoring Results from LWD collection site Unit 19, 

Soda-Nick Timber sale and photo point locations. Unpublished letter to 

Dennis Landwehr dated October 7, 2010 but updated with 2015 monitoring 

information. 

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving Biodiversity: Species, Ecosystems, or Landscapes? 

Ecological Applications 3:202-205.

Franklin, J.F., D.R. Berg, D.A. Thornburgh, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1997. Alternative 

silvicultural approaches to timber harvesting: variable retention harvest 

systems. Pages 111–140 in K.A. Kohm, J.F. Franklin (eds). Creating a 

Forestry for the 21st Century. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Franklin, J.F., T.A. Spies, R. Van Pelt, A.B. Carey, D.A. Thornburgh, D.R. Berg, D.B. 

Lindenmayer, M.E. Harmon, W.S. Keeton, D.C. Shaw, K. Bible, and J. 

Chen. 2002. Disturbances and structural development of natural forest 

ecosystems with silvicultural implications, using Douglas-fir forests as an 

example. Forest Ecology and Management 155:399-423.

Fresh, K. 2006. Juvenile Pacific Salmon in Puget Sound. Technical Report 2006-

06. Prepared in support of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership. 

Published by Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA

Furniss, M. J., S. Flanagan, and B. McFadin. 2000. Hydrologically-Connected 

Roads: An Indicator of the Influence of Roads on Chronic Sedimentation, 

Surface Water Hydrology and Exposure to Toxic Chemicals. Stream Notes, 

July 2011.
References 6

Final EIS 6-21 References

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and 

Maintenance. In: Influences of Forest Rangeland Management on 

Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat, W.R. Meehan (ed.), American Fisheries 

Society Special Publication 19:297-323, 1991.

Galginaitus, M. 2004. Subsistence Resource Report for the Couverden Forest 

Service Project. Applied Sociocultural Research. Anchorage, Alaska.

Geiser, L.H., C.C. Derr, and K.L. Dillman. 1994. Air Quality Monitoring on the 

Tongass National Forest, Methods and Baselines Using Lichens. Report 

R10-TB-46, USDA Forest Service, Petersburg, Alaska.

Gibson, J.R., Haedrich, R.L., and Wenerheim. 2005. Loss of Habitat as a 

Consequence of Inappropriately Constructed Stream. Fisheries, 30(1), 

10-16.

Gilbertson, N. 2004. Southeast Alaska. A Tale of Two Economies. Alaska 

Economic Trends. March. Available online at: 

http://www.labor.state.ak.us/trends/

Gilbertson, N. 2003. Sitka: An Economic Profile. Alaska Economic Trends. 

February. pp. 3-9.

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

National Forest, Southeast Alaska.

Godin, J. 1981. Daily Patterns of Feeding Behavior, Daily Rations, and Diets of 

Juvenile Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) in two Marine Bays of 

British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38: 

10-15.

Goldstein, M.I., A.J. Poe, E. Cooper, D. Youkey, B.A. Brown, and T.L. McDonald. 

2005. Mountain goat response to helicopter overflights in Alaska. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 33(2): 688-699.

Goldstein, M.I., D. Martin, and M.C. Stensvold. 2009. Forest Service Alaska Region 

Sensitive Species List. Assessment and Proposed Revisions to the 2002 

List. Juneau. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev2_037658.pdf. 

Accessed: December 15, 2014.

Gomi, T. R. Sidle, M. Brant, and R. Woodsmith. 2001. The Characteristics of 

Woody Debris and Sediment Distribution in Headwater Streams, 

Southeastern Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 31: 1386-1399.

Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and D.N. Swanston. 2004. Hydrogeomorphic linkages of 

sediment transport in headwater streams, Maybeso Experimental Forest, 

southeast Alaska. Hydrological Processes 18: 667-683.

Gomi, T., R.D. Moore, and A.S. Dhakal. 2006. Headwater Stream Temperature 

Response to Clear-cut Harvesting with Different Riparian Treatments, 

Coastal British Columbia, Canada. Water Resources Research 42, W08437, 

doi: 10.1029/2005WR004162

Gomi, T., R.D. Moore, and M.A. Hassan. 2005. Suspended Sediment Dynamics in 

Small Forest Streams of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association 41, 4; ProQuest Science Journals, pp. 877. 

August 2005. 
6 References

References 6-22 Final EIS

Germano, J., and D. Browning. 2005. Marine Log Transfer Facility and Wood 

Waste: When Dredging is not Your Final Answer. Germano and 

Associates, Inc. Bellevue, WA.

Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effect 

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. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76p

Grantham, T.E., D.A. Newburn, M.A. McCarthy, and A.M. Merenlender. 2012. The 

Role of Streamflow and Land Use in Limiting Oversummer Survival of 

Juvenile Steelhead in California Streams. Transactions of American 

Fisheries Society 141: 585–598. 

Gravelle, J. G. Ice, T. Link, and D. Cook. 2009. Nutrient Concentration Dynamics in 

an Inland Pacific Northwest Watershed Before and After Timber Harvest. 

Forest Ecology and Management 257(8): 1663-1675.

Gregory, S.V. and P.A. Bisson. 1997. Degradation and loss of anadromous 

salmonid habitat in the Pacific Northwest. Pages 277-314 in D.J. Stouder, 

P.A. Bisson, and R.J. Naiman, editors. Pacific Salmon and Their 

Ecosystems: Status and Future Options. Chapman and Hall, New York, 

New York.

Gregory, S.V., F.J. Swanson, W.A. Mckee, and K.W. Cummins. 1991. An 

ecosystem perspective of riparian zones: focus on links between land and 

water. BioScience 41:540-551.

Griffiths, P.A., T. Aley, K. Prussian, J. Baichtal, S. Hohensee, S.R.H. Worthington, 

C. Mayn, W.K. Jones. 2002. Karst Management Standards and 

Implementation Review: Final Report of the Karst Review Panel. USDA 

Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. 

Groom, J.D., L. Dent, L.J. Madsen, and J. Fleuret. 2011. Response of Western 

Oregon (USA) Stream Temperatures to Contemporary Forest Management. 

Forest Ecology and Management 262:1618-1629.

Groot, C., and L. Margolis (eds.). 1991. Pacific Salmon Life History. University of 

British Columbia, Vancouver BC.

Gucinski, H., Furniss, M. J., Ziemer, R. R., Brookes, M. H. 2001. Forest roads: a 

synthesis of scientific information. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR509. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 103p.

Guthrie, R.H. 2002. The effects of logging on frequency and distribution of 

landslides in three watersheds on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. 

Geomorphology 43: 273.

Hagar, J.C., W.C. McComb, and W.H. Emmingham. 1996. Bird communities in 

commercially thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 353-366.

Hagar, J., S. Howlin, and L. Ganio. 2004. Short-term response of songbirds to 

experimental thinning of young Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades. 

Forest Ecology and Management 199: 333-347.
References 6

Final EIS 6-23 References

Hagar, J. and C. Friesen. 2009. Young stand thinning and diversity study: response 

of songbird community one decade post-treatment. U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 2009-1253. 20pp. Available online at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1253/pdf/ofr20091253.pdf

Haggerty, M. 2009. Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis. Prepared for: 

The Makah Indian Tribe and NOAA Fisheries in cooperation with the Lake 

Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee.

Haines Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2015. Email correspondence between T. 

Piper of HCVB and M. Dadswell of Tetra Tech. January 7.

Haines Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2014. Visitation Totals 2007 through 2013. 

December 19.

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.

Hanley, T.A., D.E. Spalinger, K.J. Mock, O.L. Weaver, and G.M. Harris. 2012. 

Forage resource evaluation system for habitat – deer: an interactive deer 

habitat model. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR858, January 2012. 

Harding, K.A., and D.C. Ford. 1993. Impacts of Primary Deforestation upon 

Limestone Slopes in Northern Vancouver Island, British Columbia. 

Environmental Geology 21:137-143.

Hargis C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest 

fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of 

Applied Ecology 36:157-172.

Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell, and J.F. Franklin. 1990. Effects on Carbon Storage of 

Old-Growth Forests to Young Forests. Science Volume 247, February 1990. 

Harper, P., editor. 2013. Deer management report of survey-inventory activities 1 

July 2010-30 June 2012. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Species 

Management Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-201301, Juneau.

Harper, K.A., S.E. MacDonald, P.J. Burton, J. Chen, K.D. Brosofske, S.C. Saunders, 

E.S. Euskirchen, D. Roberts, M.S. Jaiteh, and P. Esseen. 2005. Edge 

influence on forest structure and composition in fragmented landscapes. 

Conservation Biology 19:768–782.

Harris, C.C. 1996. Rural Communities in the Inland Northwest—An Assessment of 

Small Communities in the Interior and Upper Columbia River Basins. Interior 

Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Walla Walla, WA.

Harr, R.D. 1986. Effects of clearcutting on rain-on-snow runoff in Western Oregon: a 

new look at old studies. Water Resources Research 22(7): 1095-1100.

Harris, A.S. 1989. Wind in the forests of southeast Alaska and guides for reducing 

damage. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-244. Portland OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 63 p.

Harris, A.S. and D.L. Johnson 1983. Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce. In: USDA 

Forest Service Agriculture Handbook No. 445, pp. 1 to 8. 
6 References

References 6-24 Final EIS

Harris, A.S. and W.A. Farr. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska: 

Forest Ecology and Timber Management. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report 

PNW-25. Ref. R-717.

Harris, A.S., Billings, R.F., Smith, R.C., Knight, C.A., and D.L. Packer. 1976.

Report on Regeneration conditions—Yakutat. Unpublished monitoring 

report. September 1, 1976. 

Hassan, M.A., M. Church, T.T. Lisle, F. Brardinoni, L. Benda, and G.E. Grant. 2005. 

Sediment Transport and Channel Morphology of Small, Forested Streams. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41, 4; ProQuest 

Science Journals, pp. 853. August 2005. 

Harvey, B., R. Nakamoto, and J. White. 2006. Reduced Streamflow Lowers Dry 

Season Growth of Rainbow Trout in a Small Streams. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 135: 998-1005. 

Haufler, J.B. 2006. Review of Conservation Science Produced Since 1997 and Its 

Relationship to the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Final Draft. Prepared for Tongass National Forest. 

Ecosystem Management Research Institute (EMRI). August 2006. 35 pp. 

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.

Hayward, G.D., and S. Jacobson. 2011. Evaluating Current Management Indicator 

Species for the Tongass National Forest: Interagency Review. Draft 

report. September 2011. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Hayward, G.D., N.M. Warren, B. Parrish, M. Williams, C. Liggett, and V. Starostka,

2004. Region 2 management indicator species selection process and 

criteria. Technical Report. Lakewood, Colorado: USDA Forest Service.

Headwater Economics. 2012. Profiles of Timber and Wood Products and Industries 

that Include Travel & Tourism. Economic Profile System-Human 

Dimensions Toolkit EPS-HDT. 

Heard, W.R. 1991. Life History of Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), pp. 

119-230. In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories., C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). 

University of British Columbia in co-operation with the Government of 

Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. British Columbia, Canada.

Heifetz, J., M.L. Murphy, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of logging on winter habitat 

of juvenile salmonids in Alaska streams. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 6:52-58.

Heimann, D.C. 1988. Recruitment trends and physical characteristics of coarse 

woody debris in Oregon Coast Range streams. M.S. thesis, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis, OR.

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

Brown creeper (Certhia americana). The birds of North America. Number 

669.

Hendee, J.C., and C.P. Dawson. 2002. Wilderness Management, Stewardship and 

Protection of Resources and Values. Third edition. Fulcrum Publishing. 

Golden, Colorado. 640 pp. 
References 6

Final EIS 6-25 References

Hennon, P.E., and M. H. McClellan. 2003. Tree mortality and forest structure in the 

temperate rain forests of southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forestry 

Resources 33: 1621-1634.

Hennon, P.E., and C.G. Shaw. 1997. The Enigma of Yellow-Cedar Decline. 

Journal of Forestry 95(12): 4-10.

Hennon, P.E., D.V. D’Amore, P.G. Schaberg, D.T. Wittwer, and C.S. Shanley. 

2012. Shifting climate, altered niche, and a dynamic conservation strategy 

for Yellow-cedar in the North Pacific coastal rainforest. Bioscience 62:147–

158. 

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 Yellow-Cedar in Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-917. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service.

Hernandez, O., R. W. Merritt, and M.S. Wipfli. 2005. Benthic Invertebrate 

Community Structure is Influenced by Forest Succession and Clearcut 

Logging in Southeast Alaska. Hydrobiologia 533: 45-59.

Hicks, B.J., et al. 1991. Long-term Changes in Streamflow Following Logging in 

Western Oregon and Associated Fisheries Implication. Water Resources 

Bulletin 27(2): 217-226.

Hetrick N.J., Brusven M.A., Meehan, W.R., and Bjornn, T.C. 1998. Changes in 

solar input, water temperature, periphyton accumulation, and allochthonous 

input and storage after canopy removal along two small salmon streams in 

southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127: 859-

875.

Heuttee T. 2015. Personal communication between Tom Heuttee (FHP Aerial 

Survey Coordinator) and Patti Krosse (Soil Scientist/Ecologist Ecology, 

Botany and Invasive spp. Program Manager for the Tongass National 

Forest) on August 2015.

Hieronymus, Mark. 2016. Personal communication with Sheila Jacobson. 

Explanation of change in Tongass 77 watersheds (VCUs) to 73 watersheds. 

Email of June 3, 2016. 

Hilderbrand, G. V., C.C. Schwartz, C. Robbins, M. E. Jacoby, T. A. Hanley, S. M. 

Arthur, and C. Servheen. 1999. Importance of meat, particularly salmon, to 

body size, population productivity, and conservation of North American 

brown bears. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:132-138.

Hillgruber, N., C. E. Zimmerman, S. E. Burril, and L. J. Haldorson. 2007. Early 

marine ecology of chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) in Kuskokwim Bay. 

North Pacific Research Board Final Report 327.

Himes-Cornell, A., K. Hoelting, C. Maguire, L. Munger-Little, J. Lee, J. Fisk, R. 

Felthoven, C. Geller, and P. Little. 2013. Community profiles for North 

Pacific fisheries – Alaska. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFSAFSC-259, Volume 11, 816 p. Available online at: 

http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/REFM/Socioeconomics/Projects/CPU.php 

Hines, A.H., G.H. Ruiz, N.G. Hitchcock, and K. deRiveria. 2004. Projecting range 

expansion of invasive European green crabs (Carcinus maenas) to Alaska: 

temperature and salinity tolerance of larvae. Research Report. Prince 

William Sound Regional Citizens’ Advisory Council.
6 References

References 6-26 Final EIS

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

2010. Northwestern Naturalist 92:7-12.

Holsten, E., E. Hennon, L. Trummer, and M. Schultz. 2001. Insects and Diseases 

of Alaskan Forests. USDA Forest Service R10-TP-87, April 2001. 

Holtsmark, B. 2012. The Outcome is in the Assumptions: Analyzing the Effects on 

Atmospheric CO2 Levels of Increased Use of Bioenergy from Forest 

Biomass. GCB Bioenergy 5: 467–473. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12015

Hoover, J.P., M.C. Brittingham, and L.J. Goodrich. 1995. Effects of forest patch 

size on nesting success of wood thrush. Auk 112:146-155.

Hoover, C and S. Stout. 2007. The Carbon Consequences of Thinning Techniques: 

Stand Structure Makes the Difference. Journal of Forestry 105(5),

July/August 2007.

House, R.A. and P.L. Boehne. 1987. The effect of stream cleaning on salmonid 

habitat and populations in a coastal Oregon drainage. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry 2:84-87.

Howe, A.L., G. Fidler, and M.J. Mills. 1995. Harvest, Catch, and Participation in 

Alaska Sport Fisheries During 1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish, Fishery Data Series No. 95-24. October.

Howell, D. 2014. Alaska Population Projections 2012 to 2042. Alaska Economic 

Trends. June. Pages 4-16. Available online at: 

http://labor.state.ak.us/trends/

Hubbart, J.A., T.E. Link, J.A. Gravelle, and W.J. Elliot. 2007. Timber harvest 

impacts on water yield in the continental/maritime hydroclimatic region of the 

United States. Forest Science 53(2): 169–180.

Hudson, R. 2001. Roberts Creek Study Forest: preliminary effects of partial 

harvesting on peak streamflow in two S6 Creeks. Forest Research 

Extension Note EN-007, Hydrology, March 2001. Vancouver Forest Region, 

Nanaimo, BC, Canada.

Huff, D.D., S.T. Lindley, B.K. Wells, and F. Chai. 2012. Green Sturgeon distribution 

in the Pacific Ocean Estimated from Modeled Oceanographic Features and 

Migration Behavior. PLOS ONE 7(9): 1–12 (e45852).

Hupp, J.W., J.I. Hodges, Jr., 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 74:274–284.

Ice, George G., George W. Brown, John A. Gravelle, C. Rhett Jackson, Jeffrey T. 

Light, Timothy E. Link, Douglas J. Martin, Dale J. McGreer, and Arne E. 

Skaugset, 2010. Discussion – ‘‘Stream Temperature Relationships to Forest 

Harvest in Western Washington’’ by Michael M. Pollock, Timothy J. Beechie, 

Martin Liermann, and Richard E. Bigley. Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association 1-5. DOI: 10.1111 ⁄ j.1752-1688.2010.00441.x 

IFA (Inter-Island Ferry Authority). 2014. Information. Available online at: 

http://www.interislandferry.com/information.html (Accessed on December 

18, 2014).

IMPROVE (Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environment). 2015. Data

Resources. Available online at: 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/data.htm
References 6

Final EIS 6-27 References

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team. 1999. Recovery of wild salmonids in 

western Oregon forests: Oregon forest practices rules and the measures in 

the Oregon plan for salmon and watersheds. Governor's Natural Resources 

Office, Salem, Oregon.

IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission). 2007. Ocean Carbon 

Sequestration: A Watching Brief of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic 

Commission of UNESCO and the Scientific Committee of Ocean Research. 

Version 2. January 2007

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2014. Climate Change 2013: 

The Physical Science Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Working Group I, Fifth Assessment Report. WMO and UNEP. Fed 2014.

IPCC. 2007. Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds). 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA.

Isaacs, F.B., R.G., Anthony, R.W. Krahmer, B.D. Callahan, J.P. Peck. 2005. 

Effects of forest management on bald eagles nesting on state and private 

land in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Bald Eagle 

Monitoring Report TR19. March 2005.

ISLES. 2013. ISLES program website http://www.msb.unm.edu/mammals/ISLES_ 

website_final_20091028/ isles_home.html. Accessed March 2013.

Iverson, C. 1996a. Northern goshawk viability assessment panel summary. 

Tongass Land Management Planning Team. Available in the planning 

record for the 1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest 

Service 1997a).

Iverson, C. 1996b. Alexander archipelago wolf viability assessment panel summary. 

Tongass Land Management Planning Team. Available in the planning 

record for the 1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest 

Service 1997a).

Iverson, C. 1996c. American marten viability assessment panel summary. Tongass 

Land Management Planning Team. Available in the planning record for the 

1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest Service 1997d)

Iverson, C. 1996d. Brown bear viability assessment panel summary. Tongass Land 

Management Planning Team. Available in the planning record for the 1997 

Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest Service 1997a).

Iverson, C. 1997a. Summary of the 1997 northern goshawk risk assessment panel. 

Tongass Land Management Planning Team. Available in the planning 

record for the 1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest 

Service 1997a).

Iverson, C. 1997b. Summary of the 1997 Alexander archipelago wolf risk

assessment panel. Tongass Land Management Planning Team. Available in 

the planning record for the 1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision 

(USDA Forest Service 1997a).

Iverson, C. 1997c. Summary of the 1997 other terrestrial mammals risk 

assessment panel. Tongass Land Management Planning Team. Available in 

the planning record for the 1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision 

(USDA Forest Service 1997a).
6 References

References 6-28 Final EIS

Iverson, C.G., G.D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R.E. Lowell, D.C. CrockerBedford, P.F. Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation Assessment for 

the Northern Goshawk in Southeast Alaska. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR387, November 1996, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

Oregon. USDA, Forest Service. 101 pp.

Iwamoto, R.N., E.O. Salo, M.A. Madej, and R.L. McComas. 1978. Sediment and 

water quality: a review of the literature including a suggested approach for 

water quality criteria. EPA/910/9-78-048. US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region Ten, Seattle, Washington

Jacobson, Sheila. 2014. Personal Communication. Transmittal of Power Point File 

containing commercial fish values from the Tongass. US Forest Service 

Fish Biologist, Tongass National Forest. December 17, 2014

Jacobson, Sheila. 2015. Personal Communication. Email containing fish passage 

survey data. US Forest Service Fish Biologist, Tongass National Forest. 

April 15, 2015.

Jacobson, Sheila. 2016. Personal Communication. Transmittal of Excel File 

containing stream crossing data. USDA Forest Service Fish Biologist, 

Tongass National Forest. April.

Jakob, M. 2000. The impacts of logging on landslide activity at Clayoquot Sound, 

British Columbia. Catena 38: 279–300.

James, R.D. 1984. Habitat management guidelines for cavity-nesting birds in 

Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum. MNR #51604.

Janetski, D. D. Chaloner, S. Tiegs, and G. Lamberti. 2009. Pacific Salmon Effects 

on Stream Ecosystems: a Quantitative Synthesis. 2009. Oecologia 159: 

583-595.

Janisch, J.E., S.M. Wondzell and W.J. Ehinger. 2012. Headwater Stream

Temperature: Interpreting Response after Logging, with and without

Riparian Buffers, Washington, USA. Forest Ecology Management.

Janisch, J.E. and M.E. Harmon. 2002. Successional changes in live and dead 

wood carbon stores: implications for net ecosystem productivity. Tree 

Physiology 22: 77-89.

Jennings, G. B., K. Sundet, and A. E. Bingham. 2011a. Estimates of participation, 

catch, and harvest in Alska sport fisheries during 2009. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Fisheris Data Series No. 11-45, Anchorage, Alaska.

Jennings, G. B., K. Sundet, and A. E. Bingham. 2011b. Estimates of participation, 

catch, and harvest in Alska sport fisheries during 2010. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Fisheris Data Series No. 11-60, Anchorage, Alaska.

Jochimsen, D.M., C.R. Peterson, K.M. Andrews, and J.W. Gibbons. 2004. A 

literature review of the effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles and the 

measures used to minimize those effects. Final Draft. Idaho Fish and Game 

Department. USDA Forest Service. 11 November 2004.

Johnson, J., and V. Litchfield. 2015. Catalog of waters important for spawning, 

rearing, or migration of anadromous fishes – Southeastern Region, Effective 

June 1, 2015, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication 

No. 15-08, Anchorage.
References 6

Final EIS 6-29 References

Johnson, A.C., D.N. Swanston, and K.E. McGee. 2000. Landslide initiation, runout, 

and deposition within clearcuts and old-growth forests of Alaska. Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association 36: 17-30.

Johnson, A.C., R.T. Edwards, and R. Erhardt. 2007. Ground-water response to 

forest harvest: Implications for hillslope stability. Journal of the American 

Water Resources Association. Vol. 43, No. 1, February. p. 134-147.

Johnson, S.W., J. Heifetz, and K.V. Koski. 1986. Effects of logging on the 

abundance and seasonal distribution of juvenile steelhead in some 

southeastern Alaska streams. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 6:532-537.

Joint Southeast Alaska Planning Team. 1981. Comprehensive Salmon Plan for 

Southeast Alaska Phase I.

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 Grant, G.E. 1996. Peak Flow Responses to Clear-cutting and 

Roads in Small and Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water 

Resources Research, Vol. 32, No. 4: 959-974.

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

European timber markets from reducing deforestation in developing 

countries. Forests 3:736-744.

Juday, G. P., R. A, Ott, D. W. Valentine, and V. A. Barber. 1998. Forests, Climate 

Stress, Insects, and Fire. In: Implications of Gobal Change in Alaska and the 

Bering Sea Region – Proceedings of a Workshop. Center for Global Change 

and Arctic System Research.

Julin, K.R. (Compiler). 1997. Assessments of Wildlife Viability, Old-growth Timber 

Volume Estimates, Forested Wetlands, Slope Stability. General Technical 

Report PNW-GTR-392. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Portland, OR. 

Julin, K.R. 1995. Other terrestrial mammals panel assessment summary. Tongass 

Land Management Planning Team. Available in the planning record for the 

1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest Service 1997d)

Julin, K. R., C.G. Shaw III, W.A. Farr, and T.M. Hinckley. 1993. The fluted western 

hemlock of Alaska. II Stand observations and synthesis. Forest Ecology and 

management 60: 133-141. 

Julin, K.R. and D.V. D’Amore. 2003. Tree Growth on Forested Wetlands of 

Southeastern Alaska Following Clearcutting. Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry 18(1).

Julin, K.R. and J.P. Caouette. 1997. Options for Defining Old-growth Timber 

Volume Strata: A Resource Assessment. In: K. R. Julin (Compiler), 

Assessments of Wildlife Viability, Old-growth Timber Volume Estimates, 

Forested Wetlands, Slope Stability. General Technical Report PNW-GTR392. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, 

OR. pp. 24-37.

Juneau Economic Development Council. 2014a. 2014 Juneau and Southeast 

Alaska Economic Indicators and Outlook. September. Available online at: 

http://www.jedc.org/economic-indicators
6 References

References 6-30 Final EIS

Juneau Economic Development Council. 2014b. Cruise Passengers 2006 and 

2007; Enplanements 2006 to 2008. Email correspondence between E. 

Bornstein and B. Hoch of JEDC and M. Dadswell of Tetra Tech. December 

19 and 23.

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

Case Studies. USDA Forest Service Technology and Development 

Program. January 1999. 

Kahklen, K. and W. Hartsog. 1999. Results of Road Erosion Studies on the 

Tongass National Forest. Unpublished report. 47 pp. On file with: USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences 

Laboratory, 2770 Sherwood Lane, Suite 200, Juneau, AK 99801.

Karwan, D.L., Gravelle, J.A., and Hubbart, J.A. 2007. Effects of Timber Harvest on 

Suspended Sediment Loads in Mica Creek, Idaho. In Press. In Special 

Issue on Headwater Forest Streams. Forest Science 53(2): 181-188.

Keller, E.A. and F.J. Swanson. 1979. Effects of large organic material on channel 

form and fluvial processes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 4:361-

380

Kelly, B.P., T. Ainsworth, D.A. Boyce Jr., E. Hood, P. Murphy, and J. Powell. 2007. 

Climate Change, Predicted Impacts on Juneau, Scientific Panel on Climate 

Change City and Borough of Juneau, Report to Mayor Bruce Botelho and 

the City and Borough of Juneau Assembly. April 2007.

Kendall, N. W. , J.R. McMillan, M.R. Sloat, T. W. Buehrens, T. P. Quinn, R. R. Pess, 

K. V. Kuzishchin, M. M. McClure, and R. W. Zabel. 2015. Anadromy and 

residency in steelhead and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): a review 

of the processes and patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Science 72: 319–342.

Keppeler, E. and J. Lewis. 2007. Understanding the Hydrologic Consequences of 

Timber-harvest and Roading: Four Decades of Streamflow and Sediment 

Results from the Caspar Creek Experimental Watersheds. in M. Furniss and 

M. McCammon, editors. Advancing the Fundamental Sciences-A 

Conference for Forest Service Physical Scientists. USDA Forest Service.

Keppeler, E.T., and R.R. Ziemer. 1990. Logging effects on streamflow: water yield 

and summer low flows at Caspar Creek in Northwestern California. Water 

Resources Research 26(7): 1669–1679.

Kirchhoff, M. D., and D. L Larsen. 1998. Dietary overlap between native Sitka 

black-tailed deer and introduced elk in Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 62:236-242.

Kissling, M.L. 2003. Effects of Forested Buffer Width on Breeding Bird 

Communities in Coastal Forests of Southeast Alaska with a Comparison of 

Avian Sampling Techniques. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, 

Idaho. 

Kissling, M.L., P.M. Lukacs, S.B. Lewis, S.M. Gende, K.J. Kuletz, N.R. Hatch, S.K. 

Schoen, and S. Oehlers. 2011. Distribution and Abundance of the Kittlitz’s 

Murrelet Brachyramphus brevirostris in Selected Areas of Southeastern 

Alaska. Marine Ornithology 39: 3–11.

Kline, J. D. 2006. Defining and Economics Research Program to Describe and 

Evaluate Ecosystem Services. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-700. December.
References 6

Final EIS 6-31 References

Knutson, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for 

Washington’s Priority Habitats: Riparian. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181 pp.

Konopacky Environmental. 1996. Water Turbidity in Streams, Related to the 

Installation of Road Culverts of Various Diameters for Timber Harvest 

Activities, on the Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska, During 1994 

and 1995. In: Exhibit A, Presentation Sypnosis, Konopacky Project No. 

002-0. February 7, 1996.

Koski, K.V. 1972. Effect of sediment on fish resources, a paper presented at 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Management Seminar, 

Lake Limerick, Washington

Kramer, M.G. 2001. Maritime Windstorm Influence on Soil Process in a Temperate 

Rainforest. PhD Dissertation. Submitted to Oregon State University, May 

04, 2001. 114 pp.

Kramer, M.G., A.J. Hansen, M.L. Taper, and E.J. Kissinger. 2001. Abiotic Controls 

on Long-Term Windthrow Disturbance and Temperate Rain Forest 

Dynamics in Southeast Alaska. Ecology 82(10): 2749-2768. 

Kramer, M.G., P Sollins, and R.S. Sletten. 2004. Soil Carbon Dynamics across a 

Windthrow Disturbance Sequence in Southeast Alaska. Ecology 85(8):

2230-2244. 

Kreiger, R., K. Wiebold, S. Whitney, and S. Dapcevich. 2015. Nonresidents 

Working in Alaska: 2013. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development. Research and Analysis Section. February. Available online 

at: http://laborstats.alaska.gov/reshire/reshire.htm

Kreiger, R., K. Wiebold, S. Whitney, and S. Dapcevich. 2014. Residency of Alaska 

Workers: 2012. Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 

Research and Analysis Section. February. Available online at: 

http://laborstats.alaska.gov/reshire/historical/NONRES12.pdf

Krosse, P.C. 2016. Biological Evaluation for Plants. Tongass National Forest. 

Ketchikan, AK.

Kruse, J., and R. Frazier. 1988. Reports to the Communities of Southeast Alaska 

(one per community). Tongass Resource Use Cooperative Survey. 

Institute of Social and Economic Research. University of Alaska Anchorage.

Kruse, J., and R. Muth. 1990. Subsistence Use of Renewable Resources by Rural 

Residents of Southeast Alaska. August. 160 pp.

Lamberti, G.A., S.V. Gregory, L.R. Ashkenas, R.C. Wildman, and K.M.S. Moore. 

1991. Stream ecosystem recovery following a catastrophic debris flow. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:196-208.

Landingham, J., M. Sturdevant, and R. Brodeur. 1998. Feeding Habits of Juvenile 

Pacific Salmon in Marine Waters of Southeastern Alaska and Northern 

British Columbia. Fishery Bulletin 96: 285-302

Landres, P., S. Boutcher, L, Merigliano, C. Barns, D. Davis, T. Hall, S. Henry, B. 

Hunter, P. Janiga, M. Laker, A. McPherson, D. Powell, M. Rowan, and S. 

Sater. 2005. Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to Wilderness 

Character: A National Framework. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-151. April.
6 References

References 6-32 Final EIS

Landwehr, D.J. 2014. Soil Quality on the Tongass National Forest. Use of groundbased Equipment on Slopes over 30 Percent Gradient. November, 2014. 

Unpublished monitoring report.

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

Best Management Practices on the Tongass National Forest. Unpublished 

report. October 2011. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J. 2009. Guidelines for root wad tree harvest. Unpublished report 

September 16, 2009. 

Landwehr, D.J. 2008a. Soil Quality Monitoring on the Tongass National Forest: The 

Tongass’ Interpretation of the Region 10 Soil Quality Standards. 

Unpublished report September, 2008.

Landwehr, D.J. 2008b. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring of Wetland 

Best Management Practices on the Tongass National Forest. Unpublished 

report. November 2008. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J. 2007. Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring of Wetland 

Best Management Practices on the Tongass National Forest. Appendix C in 

the 2007 Tongass National Forest Monitoring Report. USDA Forest Service, 

Tongass National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J. 2006. Reasonable Assurance of Windfirmness Guidelines, 

Tongass National Forest, June 13, 2006.

Landwehr, D.J. 1998. The Effectiveness of Standards and Guidelines in Preventing 

Additional Mass Movement. An 89-94 KPC FEIS Monitoring Report.

Landwehr, D.J. 1994. Inventory and Analysis of Landslides Caused by the October 

25, 26, 1993 Storm Event on the Thorne Bay Ranger District. Unpublished 

report January 10, 1994.

Landwehr, D.J. 1993. Soil disturbance monitoring transects: Thorne Bat Ranger 

District, Tongass National Forest. In: Proceedings of Watershed ‘91: Soil, 

Air, and Water Stewardship Conference, 16-17 April 1991, Juneau, Alaska. 

T. Brock, Editor. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, R10-MB-217. Page 

58.

Landwehr, D.J., J.V. Foss, and D.R. Silkworth. 2012. Soil Quality Monitoring on the 

Tongass National Forest: The Tongass’ Interpretation of the Region 10 Soil 

Quality Standards. Part 2: Summarizing 4 years of data collection. 

Unpublished report January, 2012.

Landwehr, D.J., and J.V. Foss. 2014. Soil Quality on the Tongass National Forest. 

Results of compaction studies conducted on the Kuiu Stream restoration 

access trails. November 2014. Unpublished monitoring report. .

Landwehr, D.J., and J.V. Foss. 2006. Soil Quality on the Yakutat Ranger District, 

Monitoring report summarizing soil quality data following 2004-2005 salvage 

logging operations. Unpublished report July, 2006.

Landwehr, D.J., and G. Nowacki. 1999. Statistical Review of Soil Disturbance 

Transect Data Collected on the Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest. 

Unpublished report February, 1999. 

Landwehr, D.J., and D.R. Silkworth. 2011. Soil Quality on the Tongass National 

Forest. Results of compaction studies conducted on the Experimental 

Thinnings at Naukati and Maybeso. August, 2011. Unpublished monitoring 

report.
References 6

Final EIS 6-33 References

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

Saylor. 2007. Estimating the Future Cost of Alaska Public infrastructure at 

Risk to Climate Change. Institute of Social and Economic Research.

Larsen, C.F., R.J. Motyka, J.T. Freymueller, K.A. Echelmeyer, and E.R. Ivins. 2005. 

Rapid viscoelastic uplift in southeast Alaska caused by post-Little Ice Age 

glacial retreat.

Latterell, J.J., and R.J. Naiman. 2007. Sources and Dynamics of Large Logs in a 

Temperate Floodplain River. Ecological Applications 17:1127–1141. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/06-0963

Laurent, T.H. 1974. The Forest Ecosystem of Southeast Alaska. Chapter 6. Forest 

Diseases. GTR PNW-23. Portland, OR.

Law, B. 2014. Role of Forest Ecosystems in Climate Change Mitigation. PowePoint 

presentation by Beverly Law, Professor, Global Change Biology and 

Terrestrial Systems Science, Oregon State University. February.

Leavitt, R.H., G.D. Martin, and C.V. Hildenbrand. 2008. Small Hydro Construction 

in Alaska. HydroWorld.com. Available online at: 

http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume-27/issue-7/featurearticles/small-hydro-construction-in-alaska.html 

Lee-Yaw, J.A., J.T. Irwin, and D.M. Green. 2008. Postglacial range expansion from 

northern refugia by the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. Molecular Ecology

17:867-884.

Leighty, W.W., S.P. Hamburg, and J. Caouette. 2006. Sequestration in Forest 

Biomass in Southeast Alaska. Ecosystems 9: 1051-1065.

Lemieux, J., J. Brennan, M. Farrell, C. Levings, and D. Myers (eds). 2004. 

Proceedings of the DFO/PSAT Sponsored Maine Riparian Experts 

Workshop, Tsawwassen, BC. February 17-18,2004. Chilliwack, British 

Columbia. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2680: ix + 84 p.

Lerum, L. and P.C. Krosse. 2005. Tongass National Forest Invasive Plant 

Management Plan. Tongass National Forest. Ketchikan, AK.

Lewis, S. B. 2001. Breeding season diet of northern goshawks in southeast Alaska 

with a comparison of techniques used to examine raptor diet. Thesis, Boise 

State University, Idaho, USA.

Lewis, S. B., K. Titus, and M. R. Fuller. 2006. Northern Goshawk Diet during the 

Breeding Season on Southeast Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management

70(4): 1151-1160. 

Li, Q., J. Chen, B. Song, J.J. LaCroix, M.K. Bresee, and J.A. Radmacher. 2007. 

Areas influenced by multiple edges and their implications in fragmented

landscapes. Forest Ecology and Management 242:99–107.

Lindley, S.T., M.L. Moser, D.L. Erickson, M. Belchik, D.W. Welch, E.L. Rechisky, 

J.T. Kelly, J. Heublein, and A.P. Klimley. 2008. Marine Migration of North 

American Green Sturgeon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society

137:182–194.

Lisle, T.E. 1986. Effects of woody debris on anadromous salmonid habitat, Prince 

of Wales Island, southeast Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 7:18-33.
6 References

References 6-34 Final EIS

Lloyd, D.S. 1987. Turbidity as Water Quality Standard for Salmonid Habitats in 

Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:34-45.

Lloyd, D.S., J.P. Koenings, and J.D. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of Turbidity in 

Freshwaters of Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

7:18-33.

Loeb, S.C., E.A. Winters, M.E. Glaser, M.L. Snively, K.S. Laves, J.K. Isle. 2014. 

Observations of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) habitat associations 

and activity in the Chugach National Forest, Alaska. Northwestern 

Naturalist 95:264-276.

Lowell, Eini C.; Parrent, Daniel J.; Deering, Robert C.; Bihn, Dan; Becker, Dennis R. 

2015. Community biomass handbook. Volume 2: Alaska, where woody 

biomass can work. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-920. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. September 2015. 104 p.

Luce, C.H., and T.A. Black 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western 

Oregon. Water Resources Research 35(8): 2561–2570.

Luce, C.H., and T.A. Black 2001, Effects of Traffic and Ditch Maintenance on Forest 

Road Sediment Production. In Proceedings of the Seventh Federal 

Interagency Sedimentation Conference, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, Nevada. 

pp. V67–V74.

Luce, C.H.,and Wemple, B. 2001. Introduction to the Special Issue on Hydrologic 

and Geomorphic Effects of Forest Roads. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms 26(2): 111-113.

MacDonald, L.H., R.W. Sampson, and D.M Anderson. 2001. Runoff and Road 

Erosion at the Plot and Road Segment Scales, St. John, US Virgin Islands. 

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 251-272.

MacDonald, S.O. 2003. The Amphibians and Reptiles of Alaska: a Field Handbook. 

Available online at: http://www.alaskaherps.info. Accessed September 

2006.

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

Alaska. Museum of Southwestern Biology, Special Publication No. 8. 191 

pp.

Malick, M.J., M.D. Adkison, and A.C. Wertheimer. 2009. Variable Effects of 

Biological and Environmental Processes on Coho Salmon Marine Survival in 

Southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 138: 

846–860.

Mantua, N., S. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. Wallace, and R. Francis. 1997. A Pacific 

Interdecadal Climate Oscillation with Impacts on Salmon Production. 

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Martin, D. 2006. Personal Communication. Transmittal of Excel file containing 

salmon value estimates for the Tongass 1984 - 1993. USDA Forest Service 

Fish Aquatic Ecologist, Tongass National Forest. July 14.

Martin, D.J. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest activities on fish habitat 

in streams of coastal Alaska. Project status report.

Martin, D.J. 1997. A summary of stream water quality monitoring data: South Fork 

Michael Creek, Admiralty Island, Alaska. Martin Environmental.
References 6

Final EIS 6-35 References

Martin, D.J. and L.E. Benda. 2001. Patterns of Instream Wood Recruitment and 

Transport at the Watershed Scale. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 130(5): 940–958.

Martin, D.J., and J.A. Kirtland. 1995. An assessment of fish habitat and channel 

conditions in streams affected by debris flows at Hobart Bay. Project 16-004 

report written by Pentec Environmental, Inc., Edmonds, Washington. Written 

for Goldbelt, Inc., Juneau, Alaska. 40pp. plus Appendix.

Martin, D.J., and R.A. Grotefendt. 2007. Stand mortality in buffer strips and the 

supply of woody debris to streams in Southeast Alaska. Can. J. For. Res. 

37: 36-49 (2007)

Martin, D.J., M.E. Robinson, R.A. Grotefendt. 1998. The Effectiveness of Riparian 

Buffer Zones for Protection of Salmonid Habitat in Alaska Coastal Streams. 

Prepared for Sealaska Corporation and Alaska Forest Association, May 1, 

1998.

Martin, J., S. Trull, W. Brady, R. West, and J. Downs. 1995. Forest Plant 

Associations Management Guide, Chatham Area, Tongass National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. Alaska Region. R10-TP-57. March 1995.

Martin, J.R., R.L. DeVelice, and S. Brown. 2000. Landscape Analysis and 

Biodiversity Specialist Report. USDA Forest Service. Roadless Area 

Conservation Final EIS. Available online at: 

http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/ specrep/xlandscape_spec_rpt.pdf

Matlack, G.R. 1994. Vegetation dynamics of the forest edge- trends in space and 

successional time. Journal of Ecology 82:113–123.

May, C. L. , B. Pryor, T. E. Lisle, and M. Lang. 2009. Coupling Hydrodynamic 

Modeling and Empirical Measures of Bed Mobility to Predict the Risk of 

Scour and Fish of Salmon Redds in a Large Regulated River. Water 

Resources Research 45: W05402, doi:10.1029/2007WR006498.

McClaren, E. 2004. Queen Charlotte goshawk. Accounts and Measures for 

Managing Identified Wildlife. Accounts V.

McClellan, M.H. 2005. Recent Research on the Management of Hemlock-spruce 

Forests in Southeast Alaska. Landscape and Urban Planning 72: 65–78. 

McClellan, M.H., D.N. Swanston, P.E. Hennon, R.L. Deal, T.L. De Santo, and M.S. 

Wipfli. 2000. Alternatives to clearcutting in the old-growth forests of 

Southeast Alaska: study plan and establishment report. USDA Forest 

Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-494. 

McCune, S. M. 2010. Improving Forest Road Management: An Analysis of Factors 

Influencing Road-to-Stream Connectivity in the Wall Creek Watershed, 

Umatilla National Forest, Oregon. Thesis. Whitman College, Walla Walla, 

Washington

McDade, M.H., F.J. Swanson, W.A. McKee, J.F. Franklin, and J. Van Sickle. 1990. 

Source distances for coarse woody debris entering small streams in western 

Oregon and Washington. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 20: 326–

330.

McDowell Group. 2015. Economic Impact of Alaska’s Visitor Industry 2013-2014 

Update. Prepared for the: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, 

and Economic Development, Division of Economic Development. February.
6 References

References 6-36 Final EIS

McDowell Group. 2014. Interim Visitor Volume Report Summer 2014. Prepared 

for: State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic 

Development, Division of Economic Development. December. Available 

online at: https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/ded/DEV/

TourismDevelopment/TourismResearch.aspx

McDowell Group. 2013a. The Economic Benefits of Alaska’s Mining Industry. 

Prepared for the Alaska Miners Association. January. 4 pp.

McDowell Group. 2013b. Bokan Mountain Rare Earth Element Mine Economic 

Impact Study. Prepared for Ucore Rare Metals, Inc. January. Available 

online at: http://ucore.com/McDowell.pdf

McDowell Group. 2012a. Alaska Visitor Statistics Program VI. Summer 2011. 

Prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and 

Economic Development, Division of Economic Development. March.

McDowell Group. 2012b. The Economic Impacts of Alaska’s Mining Industry. 

Prepared for the Alaska Miners Association. January. 59 pp.

McDowell Group. 2005. Juneau Cruise Visitor Profile 2005. Alaska Travelers 

Survey. Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau. December. 

Available online at: 

http://www.traveljuneau.com/downloads/ATSJuneauCruiseFinal.pdf 

McDowell Group, DataPath Systems, and Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall, Inc. 2007. 

Alaska Visitor Statistics Program. Alaska Visitor Volume and Profile. 

Summer 2006. Prepared for the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community and Economic Development. April.

McGee, K.E. 2000. Effects of Forest Roads on Surface and Subsurface Flow in 

Southeast Alaska. Master of Science Thesis. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon.

McKee, C. 2006. Exotic Plants in Alaska’s Parks. National Forest Service / 

University of Alaska. Available at: www.uaf.edu/snras/afes/pubs.

McKinley, D., M. Ryan, R. Birdsey, C. Giardina, M. Harmon, L. Heath, R. Houghton, 

R. Jackson, J. Morrison, R. Murray, D. Pataki, and K. Skog. 2011. A 

synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United 

States. Ecological Applications 21(6): 1902–1924.

McNeil, W.J. 1964. Effect of spawning bed environment on reproduction of pink 

and chum salmon. Fishery Bulletin 65:495-523.

McNeil, W.J. and D.C. Himsworth (eds.). 1980. Salmonid Ecosystems of the North 

Pacific. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

McPherson, E.G. and R.J. Simpson 1999. Carbon Dioxide Reduction Through 

Urban Forestry. GSW 171 January 1999

Meade, C. 1997. Brown bear risk assessment panel summary. Tongass Land 

Management Planning Team. Available in the planning record for the 1997 

Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest Service 1997a).

Mecklenburg, C.W., Mecklenburg, T. A., and Thorsteinson, L.K. 2002. Fishes of 

Alaska. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 192-193

Meehan, W.R. (ed). 1991. Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on 

Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. USDA Forest Service. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 
References 6

Final EIS 6-37 References

Mercer, E. 2010. Population Projections, 2010 to 2034. Alaska by Age, Sex, and 

Race. Alaska Economic Trends. December. Pages 4-11. Available online 

at: http://labor.state.ak.us/trends/

Millar. C., R. Neilson, D. Bachelet, R. Drapek, and J. Lenihan. 2006. Climate 

Change at Multiple Scales, Chapter 3 in: Forest, Carbon and Climate 

Change: A Synthesis of Science Findings. Oregon Forest Resources 

Institute. Oregon State University College of Forestry.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: 

Synthesis. Island Press. Washington DC. 

http://www.maweb.org//en/Products.Synthesis.aspx

Mills, M.J. 1991. Harvest, catch, and participation in Alaska sport fisheries during 

1994. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fishery Data Series No. 91-

58, Anchorage, Alaska.

Montgomery, David R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope 

instability. Water Resources Research 30(6): 1925–1932.

Montgomery, D.R., Collins, B.D., Buffington, J.M., and Abbe, T.B. 2003. 

Geomorphic effects of wood in rivers. In: The ecology and management of 

wood in world rivers. Pp. 21-47. Edited by S.V. Gregory, K.L. Boyer, and 

A.M. Gurnell. Symposium 37. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, 

Maryland.

Moore, R., 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. 

Moore, R.D, D.L. Spittlehouse, and A. Story. 2005. Riparian Microclimate and 

Stream Temperature Response to Forest Harvesting: A Review. Journal of 

the American Water Resources Association 41: 813–834.

Moore, R. D., S. W. Fleming, B. Menounos, R. Wheate, A. Fountain, K. Stahl, K. 

Holm and M. Jakob. 2009. Glacier Change in Western North America: 

Influences on Hydrology, Geomorphic Hazards and Water Quality. 

Hydrologic Processes 23: 42–61.

Moulton, L. 1997. Early marine Residence, Growth, and Feeding by Juvenile 

Salmon in Northern Cook Inlet. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 4(2) :154-

177.

Muir, J.A. 2006. FIA Monitoring Project: Monitoring hemlock dwarf mistletoe in 

coastal forests of British Columbia. Unpublished Report prepared for 

International Forest Products, Campbell River, BC.

Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. 

Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:58–62.

Murphy, M.L., and A.M. Milner. 1997. Alaska Timber Harvest and Fish Habitat. In: 

A.M. Milner and M.W. Oswood (Eds.), Freshwaters of Alaska, Ecological 

Syntheses. Springer.

Murphy, M.L. 1985. Die-offs of pre-spawn adult pink salmon and chum salmon in 

southeastern Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management

5:302-308.

Murphy, M.L. 1995. Forestry impacts on freshwater habitat of anadromous 

salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska-requirements for protection 
6 References

References 6-38 Final EIS

and restoration. Decision Analysis Series Number 7. NOAA Coastal Ocean 

Program, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Murphy, M.L., and K.V. Koski. 1989. Input and depletion of woody debris in Alaska 

streams and implication for streamside management. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 9:427-436.

Murphy, M.L., J. Heifetz, S.W. Johnson, K.V. Koski, and J.F. Thedinga. 1986. 

Effects of clearcut logging with and without buffer strips on juvenile 

salmonids in Alaskan streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 43: 1521–1533.

Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.E. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, L.H. MacDonald, 

M.D. O’Connor, P.L. Olson, and E.A. Steel. 1992. Fundamental elements 

of ecologically healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest coastal 

ecoregion. Pages 127-188 in R.J. Naiman, editor. Watershed 

management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. SpringerVerlag, New York, New York.

Napper, C. 2008. Soil and Water Road-Condition Index – Field Guide. USDA 

Forest Service National Technology and Development Program. December.

Naukati Bay Alaska. 2015. Community website accessed March 2015: 

http://www.naukatibay.com/index.htm

Nawrocki, T., H. Klein, M. Carlson, L. Flagstad, J. Conn, R. DeVelice, A. Grant, G. 

Graziano, B. Million, and W. Rapp. 2011. Invasiveness Ranking of 50 NonNative Plant Species for Alaska. Report prepared for the Alaska Association 

of Conservation Districts. Alaska Natural Heritage Program, University of 

Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK. 253 pp.

Neal, E.G., M. Walter, and C. Coffeen. 2002. Linking the Pacific decadal oscillation 

to seasonal stream discharge patterns in Southeast Alaska. Journal of 

Hydrology 263:188–197.

Neilson, P. 2007. Climate Change and Uncertainty and Forecasts of Global to 

Landscape Ecosystem Dynamics. Forest Ecology Lecture Series. Accessed 

on the Web at www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pep/climatechange/neilson/index.html. 

August 2007.

Niblack Project LLC. 2015. Economic Benefits. Available online at: 

http://www.niblackproject.com/s/Project_Benefits.asp?ReportID=579363

Nilon, C.H., C.N. Long, and W.C. Zipperer. 1995. Effects of wildland development 

on forest bird communities. Landscape and Urban Planning 32:81-92.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2015a. ESA Species in Alaska. 

Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species in Alaska. Update April 

2014. Web access August 2015. 

https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/ak_nmfs_species.p

df

NMFS. 2015b. Southern Distinct Population Segment of the North American Green 

Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, West Coast Region, Long Beach, CA.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013a. Endangered, threatened, and 

candidate species under NMFS authority in Alaska. Updated March 2013. 
References 6

Final EIS 6-39 References

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2013b. Endangered and threatened 

species under NMFS jurisdiction. Updated February 28, 2013. Available 

online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/esa_table.pdf 

NMFS. 2011. Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat from Non-fishing activities in 

Alaska. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Region. November 

2011. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2009a. Marine mammal fact pages. 

Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/

NMFS. 2009b. Green, Leatherback and Loggerhead sea turtle fact pages. 

Available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles 

NMFS. 2005. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Essential Fish Habitat and 

Conservation in Alaska. April.

NMFS. 1991. Recovery Plan for the Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). 

Prepared by the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. 

Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy: Protecting and 

Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press. Washington DC.

Nowacki, G. S. and M. G. Kramer. 1998. The Effects of Wind Disturbance on 

Temperate Rain Forest Structure and Dynamics of Southeast Alaska. USDA 

Forest Service. PNW GTR-421, April 1998.

Nowacki, G., M. Shephard, P. Krosse, W. Pawuk, G. Fisher, J. Baichta,; D. Brew, E. 

Kissinger, T. Block. 2001. Ecological subsections of Southeast Alaska and 

neighboring areas of Canada. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

Technical Publication No. R10-TP-75. October.

NPS (National Park Service). 2013. Southeastern Park Units. Retrieved June, 

2015, from http://www.nps.gov/akso/nature/documents/SEAK_Drivers.pdf

Office of Subsistence Management. 2016. Federal Subsistence Harvest Data. 

Microcomputer database, updated May 2016.

Olliff, T., K. Legg, and B. Kaeding, editors. 1999. Effects of winter recreation on 

wildlife of the greater Yellowstone area: a literature review and assessment. 

Report to the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee. Yellowstone 

National Park, Mammoth, Wyoming, USA.

Olsen, D.H., J.B. Leirness, P.G. Cunningham, and E.A. Steel. 2014. Riparian 

buffers and forest thinning: effects on headwater vertebrates 10 years after 

thinning. Forest Ecology and Management 321: 81-93.

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

Rivers and Streams. In: Global Climate Change and Freshwater 

Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag. New York.

Parker, D. I., J. A. Cook, and S. W. Lewis. 1996. Effects of timber harvest on bat 

activity in southeastern Alaska's temperate rainforest. Pp. 277-292, In: 

R.M.R. Barclay and R.M. Brigham (eds.). Bats and Forests Symposium, 

October 19-21, 1995, Victoria.

Parrent, D., and N. Grewe. 2014. Tongass National Forest: 2013 Sawmill Capacity 

and Production Report. Report to Forest Management. USDA Forest 

service. Alaska Region. September. 
6 References

References 6-40 Final EIS

Parson, E.A., L. Carter, P. Anderson, B. Wang, and G. Weller. 2001. Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change for Alaska, Chapter 10 in 

Climate Change Impacts on the United States, National Assessment 

Synthesis Team, 618 pp. 2001.

Patriquin, K.J., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2003. Foraging by bats in cleared, thinned and 

unharvested boreal forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:646-657.

Paustian, S.J. 2004. Development and Implementation of a Riparian Conservation 

Strategy for the Tongass National Forest. Paper Presented at: American 

Water Resources Association Conference: Riparian Ecosystems and 

Buffers: Multi-Scale Structure, Function and Management, June 28-30, 

2004, Olympic Valley, CA. Available in Logjam planning file.

Paustian, S.J. 1987. Monitoring nonpoint source discharge of sediment from timber 

harvesting activities in two southeast Alaska watersheds. In: Water Quality 

in the Great Land—Alaska’s Challenge. Proceedings: Alaska Section, 

American Water Resources Association. R.G. Huntsinger, Technical 

Chairman. Water Research Center, Institute of Northern Engineering, 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Pages: 153-168.

Paustian, S., C. Gundy, D. Landwehr, C. SeitzWarmuth, J. McDonell, and J. 

Thompson. 2006. Evaluation of Concern 04-25, Class Stream 

Management. March 10, 2006.

Paustian, S.J. (ed.), K. Anderson, D. Blanchet, S. Brady, M. Cropley, J. Edgington, 

J. Fryxell, G. Johnejack, D. Kelliher, M. Kuehn, S. Maki, R. Olson, J. Seesz, 

and M. Wolanek. 1992, amended 2010. A Channel Type Users Guide

Revision, October 2010, for the Tongass National Forest, Southeast Alaska, 

USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5413799.pdf

Pawuk, W.H. and E.J. Kissinger. 1989. Preliminary Forest Plant Associations of the 

Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest. USDA-Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, R1O-TP-72.

Peacock, E., M.M. Peacock, and K. Titus. 2007. Black bears in southeast Alaska: 

the fate of two ancient lineages in the face of contemporary movement. 

Journal of Zoology 271:445–45.

Pearce, D. E., S. A. Hayes, M.H. Bond, C. V. Hanson, E. C. Anderson, R. B. 

Macfarlane, and J. C. Garza. 2009. Over the Fall? Rapid Evolution of 

Ecotypic Differentiation in Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss). Journal of Heredity 100(5): 515–525. 

Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1991. Methods for testing effectiveness of Washington 

Forest Practices Rules and Regulations with regard to sediment production 

and transport to streams. TFW-WQ8-91-008, prepared for TFW CMER 

Water Quality Steering Committee and Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia, Washington.

Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1996. Fish habitat and channel conditions for streams 

on forested lands of coastal Alaska: an assessment of cumulative effects, 

1995 assessment. Prepared for the Sealaska Corporation, Juneau, AK and 

Alaska Forest Association, Ketchikan, AK.

Perez-Garcia, J., B. Lippke, J. Comnick, and C. Manriquez. 2005. An Assessment of 

Carbon Pools, Storage, and Wood Products Market Substitution Using LifeCycle Analysis Results. College of Forest Resources, University of 

Washington. Seattle
References 6

Final EIS 6-41 References

Person, D. 2010. Estimating wolf populations in southeast Alaska using 

noninvasive DNA sampling. Federal aid annual progress report, State 

wildlife grant number W-33-8. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK.

Person, D.K., and B.D. Logan. 2012. A spatial analysis of wolf harvest and harvest 

risk on Prince of Wales and associated islands, southeast Alaska. Final 

Wildlife Research Report, ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2011-1. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK.

Person, D. 2001. Alexander Archipelago wolves: ecology and population viability in 

a disturbed, insula landscape. Doctoral dissertation, University of Alaska 

Fairbanks, AK.

Person, D.K., and B.D. Logan. 2012. A spatial analysis of wolf harvest and harvest 

risk on Prince of Wales and associated islands, southeast Alaska. Final 

Wildlife Research Report, ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2011-1. Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Juneau, AK. 

Person, D.K., and A.L. Russell. 2009. Reproduction and den site selection by 

wolves in a disturbed landscape. Northwest Science 83:211–224.

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

population. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1540–1549.

Piccolo, J.J., and M.S. Wipfli. 2002. Does red alder (Alnus rubra) in upland riparian 

forests elevate macroinvertebrate and detritus export from headwater 

streams to downstream habitats in southeastern Alaska? Canadian Journal 

of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 503-513.

Pimm, S.L., H.L. Jones, and J.M. Diamond. 1988. On the risk of extinction. Am. 

Nat. 132:757-85.

Poiani, K.A., B.D. Richter, M.G. Anderson, and H.E. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity 

Conservation at Multiple Scales: Functional Sites, Landscapes, and 

Networks. Bioscience 50(2): 133-146.

Pollock, M.M, T.J. Beechie, M. Lierman and R. E. Bigley. 2009. Stream 

Temperature Relationships to Forest Harvest in Western Washington. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). 45(1): 

141-156.

Poole, G., J. Risley, and M. Hicks. 2001. Issue Paper 3 – Spatial and Temporal 

patterns of Stream Temperature (Revised). Prepared as part of EPA Region 

10 temperature water quality criteria guidance development project. EPA910-D-01-003, Oct 2001. USEPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington.

Porter, B. 2010. Unit 1A mountain goat management report. Pages 1-5 in P. Harper, 

editor. Mountain goat report of survey and inventory activities 1 July 2007 –

30 June 2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Project 12.0. Juneau, 

AK.

Potts, D.F., and B.K.M. Anderson. 1990. Organic debris and the management of 

small stream channels. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 5:25-28.
6 References

References 6-42 Final EIS

Powers, R.F., Alban, D.H., Miller, R.E., Tiarks, A.E., Wells, C.G., Avers, P.E., Cline, 

R.G., Fitzgerald, R.O., Loftus Jr., N.S., 1990. Sustaining site productivity in 

North American forests: problems and prospects. In: Gessel, S.P., Lacate, 

D.S., Weetman, G.F.,Powers, R.F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh 

North American Forest Soils Conference on Sustained Productivity of Forest 

Soils. Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, 

pp. 49–79. 

Pritchard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J. Fogg, K, Geghardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. 

Mitchell, and J. Staats. 1998. Riparian area management: a user guide to 

assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic 

areas. Technical Reference 1737-15. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, 

National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado

Prussian, K. 2010. Throughfall Monitoring – Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. 

Tongass National Forest. Unpublished Paper. Accessed at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/2010_monitoring_report/1021

PrussianThroughfall.pdf

Pyare, S. and W.P. Smith. 2005. Functional Connectivity of Tongass Old-Growth 

Reserves: An Assessment Based on Flying-Squirrel Movement Capability. 

Progress report for Tongass monitoring grants, April 30, 2005.

Pyare, S., W.P. Smith, and C.S. Shanley. 2010. Den use and selection by northern 

flying squirrels in fragmented landscapes. Journal of Mammalogy 91:886–

896.

Quinn, T.P., and N.P. Peterson. 1996. The influence of habitat complexity and fish 

size on over-winter survival and growth of individually marked juvenile coho 

salmon (Oncorynchus kisutch) in Big Beef Creek, Washington. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 1555–1564

Quinn, J.M., and A.E. Wright-Stow. 2008. Stream size influences stream 

temperature impacts and recovery rates after clearfell logging. Forest 

Ecology and Management 256, 2101–2109. doi:10.1016/J.FORECO.2008. 

07.0418

Rabe, D. 2009. Population status of Prince of Wales spruce grouse in Southeast 

Alaska. Final performance report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Juneau. September. 8 pp.

Ralph, S.C., G.C. Poole, L.L. Conquest, and R.J. Naiman. 1994. Stream channel 

morphology and woody debris in logged and unlogged basins of western 

Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:37-51.

Raphael, M. G., K. V. Rosenberg, and B. G. Marcot. 1988. Large-scale changes in 

bird populations of Douglas-fir forests, northwestern California. Bird 

Conservation 3:63-83.

Rashin, E. B., C. J. Clishe, A. T. Loch, and J. M. Bell. 2006. Effectiveness of 

Timber Harvest Practices for Controlling Sediment Related Water Quality 

Impacts. Journal of American Water Resources Association 42(5): 1307-

1327.

Rashin, E. B., C. J. Clishe, A. T. Loch, and J. M. Bell. 1999. Effectiveness of 

Timber Harvest Practices for Controlling Sediment Related Water Quality 

Impacts. Timber Fish and Wildlife. Report TFW-WQ6-99-001. Publication 

No. 99-317. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. 166 

Pages.
References 6

Final EIS 6-43 References

Reeves, J. 2016. Subsistence Fisheries Biologist. Personal communication: inperson. USDA Forest Service, Craig Ranger District. Craig, AK.

Reeves, G.H., L.E. Benda, K.M. Burnett, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1995. A 

Disturbance-based Ecosystem Approach to Maintaining and Restoring 

Freshwater Habitats of Evolutionarily Significant Units of Anadromous 

salmonids in the Pacific Northwest. American Fisheries Society Symposium 

17:334-349.

Reeves, G.H., K.M. Burnett, and E.V. McGarry. 2003. Sources of large wood in the 

main stem of a fourth-order watershed in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research 33:1363-1370.

Reeves, M.K., P. Jensen, C.L. Dolph, M. Hoyloak, K.A. Trust. 2010. Multiple 

stressors and the cause of amphibian abnormalities. Ecological Monographs

80(3): 423-440.

Reeves, G., B. Pickard, and K. Johnson. 2016. An Initial Evaluation of Potential 

Options for Managing Riparian Reserves of the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan. General Technical Report PNWGTR-937. Pacific Northwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 

Corvallis, Oregon.

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. 

Water Resources Research, WRERAC 20(11) 1753-1761. November 1984.

Reid, W.V., and K.R. Miller. 1989. Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific Basis for 

Conserving Biodiversity. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Rennert, K.J., G. Roe, J. Putkonen, and C.M. Bitz. 2009. Soil Thermal and 

Ecological Impacts of Rain on Snow Events in the Circumpolar Arctic. 

Journal of Climate 22(9): 2302-2315. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, and D. A. Boyce Jr. 2006. An Ecosystem-based 

Conservation Strategy for the Northern Goshawk. Pp 299-311 in M. L. 

Morrison, editor. The Northern Goshawk: a Technical Assessment of its 

Status, Ecology, and Management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31, 

Cooper Ornithological Society.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. 

Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management 

recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United 

States. General Technical Report RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. 

Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. 

Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. 

M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American 

Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 

Partners in Flight website. http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ 

(VERSION: March 2005).

Richardson, J.S. 1992. Coarse particulate detritus dynamics in small, montane 

streams of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Sciences 49:337-346.

Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M Olson, C.J. Loucks, and W. Eichbaum. 1999. 

Terrestial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. 

Island Press. Washington DC.
6 References

References 6-44 Final EIS

Rice, C. 2006. Effects of Shoreline Modifications on a Northern Puget Sound Beach: 

Microclimate and Embryo Mortality in Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus). 

Estuaries and Coasts 29(1): 63-71

Rissien, A. 2011. Policy Primer: Watershed Condition Framework Synposis and 

Review. The Road-RIPorter, Summer Solstice 2011.

Robinson, G. E., K.A. Mills, J. Paul, L. Dent, and A. Skaugset. 1999. Storm impacts 

and landslides of 1996: final report. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, 

OR, p. 145.

Robinson, S.K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a 

fragmented Illinois landscape. pp 408-418 in J.M. Hagan and D.W. Johnson, 

editors, Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds. 

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. 609 pp.

Robinson, S.K., F.R. Thompson III, T.M. Donovan, D.R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 

1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory 

birds. Science 267:1987–1990.

Romanuk, T.N., and C.D. Levings. 2005. Stable isotope analysis of trophic position 

and terrestrial vs. marine carbon sources for juvenile Pacific salmonids in 

nearshore marine habitats. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12[2]:113–

121.

Root, H., McCune, B., and S. Jovan. 2014. Lichen communities and species 

indicate climate thresholds in southeast and south-central Alaska, USA. The 

Bryologist 117(3): 241-252. 2014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1639/0007-2745-

117.3.241

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

anadromous streams in southeastern Alaska: Relating local and catchment 

factors to aquatic habitat. MS Thesis. Michigan State University, Ann Arbor 

MI. 155 pages.

Rossell, L. and P. Dinnel. 2007. Temperature and Shading Effects on Surf Smelt, 

Hypomesus pretiosus, Egg Survival. Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia 

Basin Puget Sound Resource Conference. March 26-29, 2007. 

http://depts.washington.edu/uwconf/2007psgb/2007proceedings/papers/p6_

rosse.pdf)

Rüegg, J., S. D. Tiegs, D. T. Chaloner, P. S. Levi, J. L. Tank, and G. A. Lamberti. 

2011. Salmon subsidies alleviate nutrient limitation of benthic biofilms in 

southeast Alaska streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 68:277–287, doi:doi:10.1139/F10-145.

Rudzitis, G. and R. Johnson. 2000. The impact of wilderness and other wildlands 

on local economies and regional development trends. In: S.F.McCool, D.N. 

Cole, W.T. Borrie, J. O’Loughlin, comps. 2000. Wilderness science in a time 

of change conference—Volume 2: Wilderness within the context of larger 

systems; 1999 May 23–27; Missoula, MT. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. p. 14-26 

Ruth, R. H. and A. S. Harris. 1979. Management of Western Hemlock-Sitka Spruce 

for USDA Forest Service, Forest Production. GTR PNW-88.

Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, B.R. Noon, and J.A. Wiens. 2007. Reproductive 

responses of northern goshawks to variable prey populations. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 71: 2274-2283.
References 6

Final EIS 6-45 References

Salafsky, S.R., R.T. Reynolds, and B.R. Noon. 2005. Patterns of temporal variation 

in goshawk reproduction and prey resources. Journal of Raptor Research

39: 237-246.

Salo, E.O. 1991. Life History of Chum Salmon. (Oncorhynchus keta). pp. 231-

310. In: Pacific Salmon Life Histories. C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.). 

University of British Columbia in co-operation with the Government of 

Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. British Columbia, Canada.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, J.E. Fallon, K.L. Pardieck, D.J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W.A. 

Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966 - 2013. Version 01.30.2015 USGS Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, MD

Schaberg, P.G., D.V. D’Amore, P.E. Hennon, J.M. Halman, and G.J. Hawley. 2011. 

Do Limited Cold Tolerance and Shallow Depth of Roots Contribute to 

Yellow-Cedar Decline? Forest Ecology and Management 262: 2142-2150.

Scheibe, J.S., W.P. Smith, J. Bassham, and D. Magness. 2006. Locomotor 

performance and cost of transport in the northern flying squirrel Glaucomys 

sabrinus. Acta Theriologica 51: 169–178.

Schirokauer, D., L. Geiser, A. Bytnerowicz, M. Fenn, and K. Dillman. 2014. 

Monitoring Air Quality in Southeast Alaska’s National Parks and Forests 

Linking Atmospheric Pollutants with Ecological Effects Natural Resource 

Technical Report NPS/SEAN/NRTR—2014/839

Schmidt, K.M., J.J Roering, J.D.Stock, W.E. Dietrich, D.R. Montgomery, and T. 

Schaub. 2001. The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow 

landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range. Canadian Geotechnical 

Journal 38: 995-1024.

Schmiege, D.C., A.E. Helmers, and D.M. Bishop. 1974. The forest ecosystem of 

Southeast Alaska. 8. Water. PNW-28. 26 pp. Ref. 22300.

Schoen, J., and L. Beier. 1990. Brown bear habitat preferences and brown bear 

logging and mining relationships in southeast Alaska. Brown bear habitat 

preferences and brown bear logging and mining relationships in Southeast 

Alaska. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Final report. Grant W-22. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, AK.

Schrader, B. and P. Hennon. 2005. Assessment of Invasive Species in Alaska and 

its National Forests. Complied by Schrader and Hennon with contributing 

authors from USDA Forest Service Alaska Regional Offices. August 30, 

2005. 26 pp.

Schroeder, P. 1991. Can Intensive Management Increase Carbon Storage in 

Forests. Environmental Management 15(4): 475 – 481.

Schroeder, R. and R. Mazza. 2005. A Synthesis of Recent Subsistence Research 

in Southeast Alaska. Available on request. 

Schroeder, R., L. Cerveny, and G. Robertson. 2005. Tourism Growth in Southeast 

Alaska: Trends, Projections, and Issues. In R. Mazza and L.E. Kruger (eds) 

Social Conditions and Trends in Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report. PNW-GTR653. August. 

SEAPA (Southeast Alaska Power Agency). 2011. Application for Preliminary 

Permit for the Sunrise Lake Hydroelectric Project before the Federal Energy 
6 References

References 6-46 Final EIS

Regulatory Commission. Southeast Alaska Power Agency. Wrangell, 

Alaska.

SEAPA (Southeast Alaska Power Agency). 2014. Tyee Lake Hydro Facility. 

Available online at: http://www.seapahydro.org/Tyee-Hydro-Facility.php

SEDA (Sitka Economic Development Association). 2015. Cruise Ship Passenger 

Information. Personal communication with M. Fusselman, USDA Forest 

Service. August.

Sedell, J. R., F. N. Leone, and W. S. Duval. 1991. Water Transportation and 

Storage of Logs, pp. 325-368. In: W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest 

and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Semlitsch, R.D., B.D. Todd, S.M. Blomquist, A.J.K. Calhoun, J.W. Gibbons, J.P. 

Gibbs, G.J. Graeter, E.B. Harper, D.J. Hocking. M.L. Hunter Jr., D.A. 

Patrick, T.A.G. Rittenhouse, and B.B. Rothermel. 2009. Effects of timber 

harvest on amphibian populations: Understanding mechanisms from forest 

experiments. BioScience 59(10) 853-862.

Shanley, C.S, S. Pyare, M. Goldstien, P. Alaback, D. Albert, C. Beier, T. Brinkman, 

R. Edwards, E. Hood, A. MacKinnon, M. McPhee, T. Patterson, L. Suring, 

D. Tallmon, and M. Wipfli. 2015. Climate Change Implications in the 

Northern Coastal Temperate Rainforest of North America. Climate Change

1355-9.

Shanley, C.S., and D.M. Albert. 2014. Climate Change Sensitivity Index for Pacific 

Salmon Habitat in Southeast Alaska. The Nature Conservancy. August 

2014 Volume 9 Issue 8.

Shaul, L. K. Crabtree, E. Jones, S. McCurdy and B. Elliott. 2011. Coho Salmon 

Stock Status and Escapement Goals in Southeast Alaska. Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game. Special Publication No. 11-23. Anchorage, 

Alaska.

Shaul, L. K. E. Jones, Crabtree, T. Tydingco, S. McCurdy and B. Elliott. 2008.

Coho Salmon Stock Status and Escapement Goals in Southeast Alaska. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Special Publication No. 08-20. 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Shaw, D.C., M. Huso, and H. Bruner. 2008. Basal Area Growth Impacts of Dwarf 

Mistletoe on Western Hemlock in an Old-Growth Forest. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research 38: 576-583. 

Shaw, C.G. III; and P.E. Hennon. 1991. Spread, intensification, and upward 

advance of dwarf mistletoe in thinned, young stands of western hemlock in 

southeast Alaska. Plant Disease 75: 363-367

Sheinberg Associates. 2014. The Inter-Island Ferry Authority by the Numbers. 

Available online at: 

http://www.interislandferry.com/IFA_by_the_Numbers_2014_final.pdf

Sheldon, D., T. Hruby, P. Johnson, K. Harper, A. McMillan, T. Granger, S. Stanley, 

and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State - Volume 1. March.

Shephard, M. 1995. Plant Community Ecology and Classification of the Yakutat 

Foreland, Alaska. USDA Forest Service, R10-TP-56. 215 pp.
References 6

Final EIS 6-47 References

Shrader, B. and P. Hennon. 2005. Assessment of Invasive Species in Alaska and its 

National Forests, 2005. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, R10.

Sidle, R.C. 1991. A Conceptual-Model of Changes in Root Cohesion in Response 

to Vegetation Management. Journal of Environmental Quality 20(1): 43-52.

Sidle, R.C. 1992. A theoretical model of the effects of timber harvesting on slope 

stability. Water Resources Research 28(7): 1897-1910.

Skagway Convention and Visitors Bureau. 2014. Skagway Incoming Visitors by 

Category 1983-2014. Data provided via email correspondence between W. 

Anderson of SCVB and M. Dadswell of Tetra Tech. December 19.

Slaughter, C., and T. Gasborro (eds). 1988. Proceedings of the Alaska Forest Soil 

Productivity Workshop. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station and School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management, 

University of Alaska Fairbanks. Anchorage, Alaska, April 28-30, 1987. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-219.

Sloat, M., and G. Reeves. 2014. Individual Conditions, Standard Metabolic Rate, 

and Rearing Temperature Influence Steelhead and Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) Life History. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science 71: 1–11.

Sloat, M., G. Reeves, and K. Christiansen. In Press. Predicting the response of 

salmon spawning habitat to changing hydrologic regimes in the salmon 

forests of southeast Alaska. 

Smith, W. 1996. Marbled murrelet panel – panel assessment summary notes. 

Tongass Land Management Planning Team. Available in the planning 

record for the 1997 Tongass National Forest plan revision (USDA Forest 

Service 1997a).

Story, A., R.D. Moore, and J.S. Macdonald. 2003. Stream Temperature in Two 

Shaded Reaches Below Cutblocks and Logging Roads: Downstream 

Cooling Linked to Subsurface Hydrology. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research 33: 1383–1396.

Smith, W. 2013. Spatially explicit analysis of contributions of a regional 

conservation strategy toward sustaining northern goshawk habitat. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 37: 1–10.

Smith, J.E., L.S. Heath, and P.B. Woodbury. 2004a. How to Estimate Forest 

Carbon for Large areas from Inventory Data. Journal of Forestry, 

July/August 2004. 

Smith, W.P., S, Gende, and J.V. Nichols. 2004. Ecological correlates of flying 

squirrel microhabitat use and density in temperate rainforests of 

southeastern Alaska. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 540–551.

Smith, N, R. Deal, J. Kline, D. Blahna, T. Patterson, T.A. Spies, and K. Bennett. 

2011. Ecosystem Services as a Framework for Forest Stewardship: 

Deschutes National Forest Overview. Pacific Northwest Research Station 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-852. August.

SNAP (Scenarios Network for Alaska & Artic Planning). 2013. Community Charts: 

Juneau, Alaska. 

Sobocinski, K., J. Cordell, and C. Simenstad. 2010. Effects of Shoreline 

Modifications on Supratidal Macroinvertebrate Fauna on Puget Sound, 

Washington Beaches. Estuaries and Coasts 33: 699–711.
6 References

References 6-48 Final EIS

Southeast Conference. 2014. Southeast Alaska by the Numbers 2014. Available 

online at: http://www.seconference.org/southeast-alaska-numbers

Southeast Conference. 2015. Information accessed online at: 

http://www.seconference.org/saxman

Soule, M.E. 1983. What do we really know about extinction? As Cited in Dawson, 

N.G., S.O. MacDonald, and J.A. Cook. 2007. Endemic mammals of the 

Alexander Archipelago. Chapter 6.7, Pages 1–11 in J. Schoen and E. 

Dovichin (eds). The Coastal Forests and Mountains Ecoregion of 

Southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest: a conservation 

assessment and resource synthesis. Audubon and Nature Conservancy, 

Special Publication.

Soule M.E. and M.A. Sanjayan. 1998. Conservation targets: Do they help? 

Science 279: 2060–2061.

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitizki. 1996. An 

ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. Report prepared by 

Management Technology. Sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Sperry, D.M. 2006. Avian Nest Survival in Post-logging Coastal Buffer Strips on 

Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, 

Arcata, California. 

Spies, T.A. 2004. Ecological concepts and diversity of old-growth forests. Journal 

of Forestry April/May:14–20.

Spies, T.A. and J.F. Franklin. 1991. The Structure of Natural Young, Mature, and 

Old-growth Douglas-fir Forest in Oregon and Washington; in Wildlife and 

Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests, General Technical Report 

PNW-285.

Stathers, R. J.; T.P. Rollerson and S.J. Mitchell. 1994. Windthrow Handbook for 

British Columbia forests. B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C. Working Paper 9401.

Steedman, R.J. 1988. Modification and Assessment of an Index of Biotic Integrity 

to Quantify Stream Quality in Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:492–501.

Steel, E. A., A. Fullerton, Y. Caras, M. Sheer, P. Olson, D. Jensen, J. Burke, M. 

Maher, D. Miller, P. McElhany. 2007. Lewis River Case Final Report. A 

Decision-Support Tool for Assessing Watershed-Scale Habitat Recovery 

Strategies for ESA-Listed Salmonids. Appendix E: Surface Sediment, 

Erosion, and Runoff. Available online at: 

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/wpg/documents/lrcs/Lewis

RiverCaseStudyFinalReport.pdf

Stenhouse, I., and S. Senner. 2005. Alaska WatchList—2005. Audubon Alaska. 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Stephens, F. R., C. R. Gass, and R. F. Billings. 1969. Seedbed history affects tree 

growth in southeast Alaska. Forest Science 15:296-298. 
References 6

Final EIS 6-49 References

Stephenson, N, A. Das, R. Condit, S. Russo, P. Baker, N. Beckman, D. Coomes, E. 

Lines, W. Morris, N. Ruger, E. Alvarez, C. Blundo, S. Bunyavejchewin, G. 

Chuyong, S. David, A. Duque, C. Ewango, O. Flores, J. Franklin, H. Grau, 

Z. Hao, M. Harmon, S. Hubbell, D. Kenfrack, Y. Lin, J. Makana, A. Malizia, 

R. Pabst, N. Pongpattananurak, S. Su, I. Sun, S. Tan, D. Thomas, P. 

Mantgem, X. Wang, S. Wiser, and M. Zavala. 2014. Rate of Tree Carbon 

Accumulation Increases Continuously with Tree Size. Nature: International 

Weekly Journal of Science 507(7490). Available online at: 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/nature12914.html

Stewart, A. and A. Lance. 1991. Effects of Moor-Draining on the Hydrology and 

Vegetation of Northern Pennine Blanket Bog. The Journal of Applied 

Ecology 28(3): 1105–1117.

Stewart, G., J. Dieu, J. Phillips, M. O’Connor, and C. Veldhuisen. 2013. The Mass 

Wasting Effectiveness Monitoring Project: An examination of the landslide 

response to the December 2007 storm in Southwestern Washington. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cooperative Monitoring, 

Evaluation and Research Report CMER 08-802, Olympia, WA.

Stillwater Sciences. 2012. Forest management and coho salmon population

dynamics in Southeast Alaska’s Staney Creek Watershed. Prepared by 

Stillwater Sciences, Portland, Oregon for The Wilderness Society, 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Stone, K.D., and J.A. Cook. 2000. Phylogeography of black bears (Ursus 

americanus) of the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:

1218–1223.

Strong, D. 2014. Seafood Processors. Large Segment of a Massive Industry. 

Alaska Economic Trends. November. Volume 34, Number 11, pp. 9-11.

Sturtevant, B.R., J.A. Bissonette, and J.N. Long. 1996. Temporal and spatial 

dynamics of boreal forest structure in western Newfoundland: silvicultural 

implications for marten habitat management. Forest Ecology and 

Management 87: 13–25.

Sullivan, K., T.E. Lisle, C.A. Dolloff, G.E. Grant, and L.M. Reid. 1987. Stream 

channels: the link between forests and fishes. Pages 39-97 in E.O. Salo and 

T.W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: forestry and fishery 

Interactions. Institute of Forest Resources Contribution Number 57. 

University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, 

Washington.

Suring, L.H., S.D. Farley, G.V. Hildebrand, M.I. Goldstein, S. Howlin, and W.P. 

Erickson. 2006. Patterns of landscape use by female brown bears on the 

Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1580-1587.

Swanson, F.J., L.E. Benda, S.H. Duncan, G.E. Grant, W.F. Magahan, L.M. Reid, 

and R.R. Ziemer. 1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment 

production in Pacific Northwest forest landscapes. Pages 9-38 in E.O. Salo 

and T.W. Cundy editors. Streamside management: forestry and fishery 

Interactions. Institute of Forest Resources Contribution Number 57. 

University of Washington, College of Forest Resources, Seattle, 

Washington.

Swanson, F.J., G.W. Lienkaemper, and J.R. Sedell. 1976. History, physical effects, 

and management implications of large organic debris in western Oregon 

streams. General Technical Report PNW-56. USDA Forest Service, 

Portland, Oregon.
6 References

References 6-50 Final EIS

Swanson, F.J., and G. W. Lienkaemper. 1978. Physical consequences of large 

organic debris in Pacific Northwest streams. General Technical Report 

PNW-69. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon

Swanston, D.N. 1969. Mass wasting in coastal Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper PNW-83. 

15pp.

Swanston, D.N. 1974. Slope stability problems associated with timber harvesting in 

mountainous regions of the western United States. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical 

Report PNW-21. 14pp.

Swanston, D.N. 1997. Controlling stability characteristics of steep terrain with 

discussion of needed standardization for mass movement hazard Indexing: 

a resource assessment. In: Julin K.R. (Ed.), Assessments of wildlife 

viability, old-growth timber volume estimates, forested wetlands, and slope 

stability. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-392. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, pp. 58.

Swanston, D.N. and D.A. Marion. 1991. Landslide Response to Timber Harvest in 

Southeast Alaska. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Interagency Sedimentation 

Conference, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

10pp. 

Sweeney, B.W., and J.D. Newbold. 2014. Streamside Forest Buffer Width Needed 

To Protect Stream Water Quality, Habitat, and Organisms: A Literature 

Review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 50[3]:560–

584.

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.

Taylor, B.L. 1993. The Influence of Wetland and Watershed Morphological 

Characteristics on Wetland Hydrology and Relationships to Wetland 

Vegetation Communities. M.S. Thesis. Seattle, WA: University of 

Washington.

Taylor, P.D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein, and G. Merriam. 1993. Connectivity is a Vital 

Element of Landscape Structure. Oikos 68: 571–573.

Taylor, R.F. 1934. Yield of Second Growth Western Hemlock-Sitks Spruce Stands in 

Southeast Alaska.

Tessler, D.F, M.L. Snively, and T.A. Gotthardt. 2014. New insights on the 

distribution, ecology and overwintering behavior of the little brown myotis 

(Myotis lucifugus) in Alaska. Northwestern Naturalist 95: 251-263.

Tessler, D.F., J.A. Johnson, B.A. Andres, S. Thomas, and R.B. Lanctot. 2007. 

Black oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani) conservation action plan. 

International Black Oystercatcher Working Group, Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Anchorage, AK; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, 

AK; and Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.

Tetra Tech. 2016. Energy Resource Report. Revised Final. Tongass National 

Forest, Forest Plan Amendment. Prepared for Tongass National Forest. 

June. 
References 6

Final EIS 6-51 References

The Tongass 77. Undated. The Tongass 77 Priority Salmon Watersheds. 

Memorandum. Available at: http://www.americansalmonforest.org

Thedinga, J.F., M.L. Murphy, J. Heifetz, K.V. Koski, and S.W. Johnson. 1989. 

Effects of logging on size and age composition of juvenile coho salmon and 

density of presmolts in southeast Alaska streams. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1383-1391.

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

and models for habitat management. Pages 355-367 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. 

Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, editors. Martens, sables, and 

fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Thompson, J., and E. Tucker. 2005. Preliminary Turbidity Monitoring Results, Road 

2050000 – Upper Shaheen creek, prince of Wales Island, Tongass National 

Forest. Unpublished report.

Thompson, J.E. and E. Tucker. 2007. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices 

for Water Quality, Forest Plan Monitoring – Aquatic Synthesis, Tongass

National Forest, Progress Report – July 2007.

Thysell, D. R. and A. B. Carry. 2000. Effects of Forest Management on Understory 

and Overstory Vegetation: A Retrospective Study. USDA Forest Service. 

PNW-GTR-488. March 2000. 

Tiegs, S.D., D.T. Chaloner, P. Levi, J. Ruegg, J.L. Tank and G.G. Lamberti. 2008. 

Timber harvest Transforms Ecological Roles of Salmon in Southeast Alaska 

Rain Forest Streams. Ecological Society of America 18(1): 4-8. 

Tiegs, S. D., E. Y. Campbell, P. S. Levi, J. R ̈uegg, M. E. Benbow, D. T. Chaloner, 

R. W. Merritt, J. L. Tank, and G. A. Lamberti. 2009. Separating physical 

disturbance and nutrient enrichment caused by Pacific salmon in stream 

ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 54:1864-1875.

Titus, K. and L. Beier. 1999. Suitability of stream buffers and riparian habitats for 

brown bears. Ursus 11:149-156 (abstract only).

Tonina, D., Luce, C. H., Rieman, B., Buffington, J. M., Goodwin, P., Clayton, S. R., 

Ali, S. M., Barry, J. J., and Berenbrock, C. 2008. Hydrological response to 

timber harvest in northern Idaho: Implications for channel scour and 

persistence of salmonids. Hydrological Processes. Vol. 22. 3223-3235.

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on 

terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14(1):18-30.

Trout Unlimited. Undated. The Tongass 77: A Closer Look. Trout Unlimited, 

Alaska Program. 

Trudel, M., D.W. Welsh., J.F.T. Morris, M.E. Thiess, R. Candy, and T.D. Beacham. 

2004. Using genetic markers to understand the coastal migration of juvenile 

coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha). North 

Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Technical Report 5.

Trudel, M., J. Fisher, J. Orsi, J. Morris, M. Thiess, R. Sweeting, S. Hinton, E. 

Fergusson, and D. Welch. 2009. Distribution and migration of Juvenile 

Chinook Salmon Derived from Coded Wire Tag Recoveries along the 

Continental Shelf of Western North America. Transactions of the American

Fisheries Society 138: 1369–1391.
6 References

References 6-52 Final EIS

Trummer, L.T., P.E. Hennon, E.M. Hansen, P. Muir. 1998. Modeling the Incidence 

and Severity of Hemlock Dwarf Mistletoe in 110-year Old Wind-disturbed 

Forests of Southeast Alaska. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 28: 

1501-1508.

Tucker, E. 2011. Fubar Creek Turbidity/Suspended Sediment Stud. Document 

submitted to ADEC Sept. 1, 2011. US Forest Service, Tongass National 

Foreste Alaska.

Tucker, E. and J. Caouette. 2008. Statistical Analyses of Aquatic Habitat Variables 

in the Tongass Nation Forest. Draft 4.5 November 4,2008. USDA Forest 

Service, Tongass National Forest Petersburg, AK.

Tucker, E., and J. Thompson. 2010. Effectiveness of Best Management Practices 

for Water Quality Forest Plan Monitoring - Tongass National Forest. July 6, 

2010. Available on Forest Service FTP site: 

ftp://ftp2.fs.fed.us/incoming/chugtong_r10/watershed/SWCA/TongassBMPEf

fectiveness/TuckerThompson2010.pdf

Tucker, E., M. Becker, and S. Paustian. 2009. Nakwasina River Water Quality and 

Aquatic Habitat Restoration Assessment. EPA/ ADED 303d category 4b, 

Demo Project Final Report March 31, 2009 Amended Jun 26, 2009. USDA 

Forest Service, Tongass Nation Forest, AK.

Tucker, S., M. Trudel, D.W. Welch, J.R. Candy, J.F.T. Morris, M.E. Thiess, C. 

Wallace, and T.D. Beacham. 2011. Life history and seasonal stock-specific 

ocean migration of juvenile Chinook salmon. Transaction of the American 

Fisheries Society 140: 1101–1191.

Turner, R. L. 2010. Nonforeted Plant Associations of the Stikine-Taku River Valleys 

and Stikine River Delta Ecological Subsections in Southeastern Alaska. 

U.S.D. A. Forest Service, Alaska Region Publication, R10-PR-023, Juneau, 

Alaska, 115 p. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2015. Labor Force Statistics from the Current 

Population Survey. Not Seasonally Adjusted. 2005 to 2015. Available 

online at: http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014a. CA04 Personal income and 

employment summary. Last updated: May 30, 2014-- revised estimates for 

1969-2000. Available online at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014b. CA34 Wage and salary summary. Last 

updated: May 30, 2014-- revised estimates for 1969-2000. Available online 

at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014c. CA25N Total full-time and part-time 

employment by NAICS industry. Last updated: November 20, 2014 -- new 

estimates for 2013; revised estimates for 2001-2012. Available online at: 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014d. CA25N Total full-time and part-time 

employment by NAICS industry. Last updated: November 20, 2014 -- new 

estimates for 2013; revised estimates for 2001-2012. Available online at: 

http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm 

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014e. CA04 Personal income and 

employment summary. Last updated: November 20, 2014. Available online 

at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm 
References 6

Final EIS 6-53 References

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014a. Annual average unemployment rate, 

civilian labor force 16 years and over (percent) for the U.S. 

http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. State and County QuickFacts. Available online at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html# 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. American Community Survey 2009-2013 5-year 

Estimates. Available online at http://factfinder.census.gov/. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014c. 2013 Poverty and Median Household Income 

Estimates - Counties, States, and National. Small Area Income and Poverty 

Estimates (SAIPE) Program. December.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. P2: Hispanic or Latino, and Not Hispanic or Latino by 

Race. 2010 Census. Revised August 2, 2013. Available online at 

http://factfinder.census.gov/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Profile of General Population and Housing 

Characteristics: 2010. 2010 Census Demographic Profile Data. Available 

online at http://factfinder.census.gov/.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. State & County QuickFacts. 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

U.S. NABCI (U.S. National Bird Conservation Initiative Committee). 2000. Bird 

conservation region descriptions: a supplement to the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative Bird Conservation Regions Map. Available online at: 

http://www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/bcrdescrip.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme. 1991. Fourth Revised Draft Convention on 

Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme.

URS Corporation. 2006. Mineral Potential Report, Ring of Fire Planning Area, 

Alaska. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage Field Office. 

Anchorage, Alaska. July 2006.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2007. Regional Supplement to the Corps 

of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Alaska Region (Version 2.0), ed. 

J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-07-24. 

Vicksburg, Missouri. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development 

Center.

USACE. 2004. Juneau Field Regulatory Office. Letter signed by John C. Leeds III, 

February 10, 2004. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013. Addressing Sustainable Forestry in 

Southeast Alaska. Memorandum 1044-009. July 2. 

USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS): Current 

Invasive Plants Inventory. NRIS Invasive Plants Product Page. Available 

online at: 

http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetParent=InvasiveSpec

ies. Accessed on: January 12, 2016.

USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Timber Volume Under Contract as of April 2016. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r10/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?c

id=fsbdev2_038785
6 References

References 6-54 Final EIS

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Estimates of Carbon Stocks in Forests and 

Harvested Wood Products for National Forest System Units; Alaska Region. 

35 pp. Whitepaper.

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2014: A Forest 

Health Protection Report. R10-PR-32. 100 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015c. Science Consultation on Tongass Forest Plan 

Amendment. Young-growth Management in Riparian Teleconference. July 

30, 2015.

USDA Forest Service. 2015d. Tongass Salmon Factsheet. USDA Forest Service, 

Region 10 publication R10-PR-37. June.

USDA Forest Service. 2015e. Species Evaluations for 16 Plants and 3 Lichens on 

the Tongass National Forest: An Evaluation for Species of Conservation 

Concern. Unpublished, internal document. 170 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015f. National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. (Regional) 

Annual Visitation Use Estimate. Annual Visitation Use Estimate by Forest. 

Round 3. Tongass NF-Juneau and Admiralty National Monument, Tongass

NF-Sitka and Hoonah, Tongass NF-Yakutat, Petersburg, and Wrangell. 

Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/ 

Downloaded on February 13, 2015.

USDA Forest Service. 2015g. Juneau Icefield 2006-2014 Visitor Numbers. Data 

provided via email correspondence between R. Havens, Special Use Permit 

Administrator, Juneau Ranger District/Admiralty Island National Monument 

and M. Dadswell of Tetra Tech. February 4.

USDA Forest Service. 2015h. Mendenhall Glacier Visitors Center 2006-2014 

Visitor Numbers. Data provided via email correspondence between J. 

Schalkowski, Special Use Permit Administrator, Juneau Ranger 

District/Admiralty Island National Monument and M. Dadswell of Tetra Tech. 

February 17.

USDA Forest Service. 2015i. Helicopter Tour Locations by Client and Group, 2014. 

Data provided via email correspondence between L. Fluharty, Natural 

Resource Specialist – Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers, Recreation Special 

Uses and Fees and M. Dadswell of Tetra Tech. February 20.

USDA Forest Service. 2015j. Outfitter/Guide Use by Location Report, 01-01-2013 

to 12-31-2013. Data provided via email correspondence between L. 

Fluharty, Natural Resource Specialist – Wilderness, Wild & Scenic Rivers, 

Recreation Special Uses and Fees and M. Dadswell of Tetra Tech. 

February 17.

USDA Forest Service. 2015k. Alaska’s Energy Anxiety. Science Update. Issue 22. 

Fall 2015. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 16 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2015l. Tongass Harvest and Employment, 2012 to 2014 

Update. Data on file with Nicole Grewe, Ph.D. Regional Economist, USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2015m. Annual Review and Update of R10 Limited Export 

Policy. Memorandum from Beth Pendleton, Regional Forester, Alaska 

Region to the Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest. April 21.
References 6

Final EIS 6-55 References

USDA Forest Service. 2015n. Personal email communication between Donald 

English, NVUM Program Leader, Forest Service and Rachael Katz, Tetra 

Tech. September 15, 2015.

USDA Forest Service. 2015o. Fish-Stream Identification and Stream Classification 

on the Tongass National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. 2013 Annual Tongass National Forest Monitoring 

and Evaluation Report. 14a Stream and Fish Habitat: Fish Passage. 

Available on line 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tongass/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelpr

db5368225 [November 2014]

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. 2013 ATV Game Retrieval Monitoring Yakutat 

Ranger District Fish and Wildlife Program. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014c. Tongass National Forest Energy Program Proposed 

Project List 2012-2017. June 19. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014d. Tongass Young Growth Management Strategy 2014. 

http://www.merid.org/TongassAdvisoryCommittee/~/media/Files/Projects/ton

gass/Ecological/USFS%20Tongass%20Young%20Growth%20Strategy%20

2014.pdf. Accessed 03 29 2015.

USDA Forest Service. 2014e. Natural Resource Manager (NRM): Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Plants (TESP) Inventory. 

USDA Forest Service. 2014f. Saddle Lakes Timber Sale Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement. Tongass National Forest. Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger 

District. R10-MB-740. September.

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Announcement of intent to modify the Tongass 

National Forest Management Plan. October 1, 2013. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tongass/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelpr

db5437919

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Climate Change on the Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2013c. 2012 Tongass Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 

Tongass National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013d. Big Thorne Project Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest. R10-MB736c. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013e. Forest Service National Strategic Framework for 

Invasive Species FS-1017. Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2013f. Economic Impacts of National Forest Recreation in 

Alaska. Issue Paper. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013g. Woody Biomass Energy in Alaska. Issue Paper. 

April.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. 2011 Tongass Monitoring and Evaluation Report. 

Tongass National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. National Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. FS-990a. April 

2012. Available online at http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/BMP.html.
6 References

References 6-56 Final EIS

USDA Forest Service. 2012c. Bell Island Geothermal Leases Final Supplemental 

EIS and Record of Decision. Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest. R10-MB-750b. December 2012.

USDA Forest Service. 2012d. Timber Supply and Demand: 2011. Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act, Section 706(a) Report to Congress. Draft. 

Report Number 27. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. Draft. 

November 16.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Watershed Condition Framework: A Framework for 

Assessing and Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. FS-977. May. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/media/types/publication/field_pdf/Wate

rshed_Condition_Framework.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Existing Vegetation Classification and Mapping 

Technical Guide, Version 1.1. Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff. 

General Technical Report WO-67. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/documents/protocols/vegClassMapInv/EV_Tec

hGuideV1-1-2.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2014. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Timber Supply and Demand: 2010. Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act Section 706(a) Report to Congress. USDA 

Forest Service, Alaska Region. Draft. October 12.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Alaska Region Energy Program. Program Overview. 

May 7. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. 2009 Summary of Cruise Ship Visual Emissions 

Monitoring by USFS Rangers in Tracy and Endicott Arms.

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Forest Service Alaska Region Sensitive Species List, 

Assessment and Proposed Revisions to the 2002 List. Tongass National 

Forest, Alaska.

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Record of Decision: Establishment of the Héen 

Latinee Experimental Forest and Disestablishment of the Young Bay 

Experimental Forest. Tongass National Forest within the City and Borough 

of Juneau, Alaska. June. Available online at: 

https://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5367452.pdf

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

National Forest. R10-MB-603b. January.

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

Final Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment. R10-MB-603c. 

January. 

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

Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment Record of Decision. 

R10-MB-603a. January.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Tongass National Forest, 2006 Annual Monitoring and 

Evaluation Report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest. R10-

MB-609.

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

Service Handbook 2509.22, Region 10 Amendment, July 2006. 
References 6

Final EIS 6-57 References

USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Parcels Acquired Since TLMP 1997. Unpublished 

spreadsheet. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National 

Forest, Lands Staff. June 2006. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006c. Email correspondence/Personal communication 

between Mike Driscoll of the USDA Forest Service, Recreation and Lands 

Special Uses and Shaun Brooks, Tetra Tech EC regarding Juneau Icefield 

Tour passengers. July 26. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006d. Email correspondence/Personal communication 

between Mike Driscoll of the USDA Forest Service, Recreation and Lands 

Special Uses and Shaun Brooks, Tetra Tech EC. August 30.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Alaska Region Invasive Plant Strategy. Alaska 

Region. Juneau, AK. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Tongass National Forest: 2004 Annual Monitoring 

and Evaluation Report: Fish Habitat and Soil and Water. Available online 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/tongass/projects/tlmp/monitoring/monitoring.shtml

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for 

Invasive Species Management. FS-805. Washington DC. October 2004.

USDA Forest Service. 2004c. Shoreline Outfitter/Guide Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Tongass National Forest, Alaska Region. 

USDA Forest Service. 2003a. Tongass land and resource management plan: final 

supplemental environmental impact statement. R10-MB-481f. Ketchikan, 

Alaska.

USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision. 

Roadless Area Evaluation for Wilderness Recommendations. Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, 

Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. Forest Service R10-MB-481a. 

February. 

USDA Forest Service. 2001. USDA Forest Service Handbook, FSH 2090.21 –

Aquatic Habitat Management Handbook. USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, Juneau, Alaska. Amendment No. 2090.21-2001-1. November. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

Final EIS. USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. November. Available 

online at: http://roadless.fs.fed.us/documents/feis/

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Unidentified USDA Forest Service Document on 

Rescinding wild and Scenic Recommendation for Niblack Lakes and 

Streams. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National 

Forest, R10-MB-338dd (Record of Decision, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement—Part 1 and Part 2, Map Packet, Appendix—Volume 1, Volume 

2, Volume 3, Volume 4, and Errata). Alaska Region, Juneau, Alaska. 

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

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Plan Amendment, Record of 

Decision. Forest Service R10-MB-603a. January. 

USDA Forest Service. 1997c. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. R10-MB-338dd. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. 

1997.
6 References

References 6-58 Final EIS

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Report to Congress, Anadromous Fish Habitat Habitat 

Assessment. Pacific Northwest Research Station and Region 10. R10-MB279. 

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Status of the Tongass National Forest 1991 Report. 

R10-MB-238. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region. July 1993. 

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Title 2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat 

Management. Forest Service Manual 2600. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Silvics of North America, Volume 1, Conifers. 

Agricultural Handbook 654. 

USDA Forest Service. 1983. Silvicultural Systems for the Major Forest Types of the 

United States. Agriculture Handbook 445. 

USDA Forest Service and ADNR. 2015. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska-2014, 

A Forest Health Protection Report. Edited by T. Huette and G. Duboise 

R10-PR-032. February 2015. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3834154.pdf

USDA Forest Service and ADNR. 2014. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska-2013, 

A Forest Health Protection Report. Edited by E. Graham and T. Huette. 

R10-PR-035. February 2014. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3797075.pdf 

USDA Forest Service and ADNR. 2011. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska-2012, 

A Forest Health Protection Report. Edited by R. Mulvey and M. Lamb. R10-

PR-25. February 2012. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5414306.pdf 

USDA Forest Service and ADNR. 2007. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska – 2007, 

A Forest Health Protection Report. Compiled by C. Snyder, Edited by J. 

Lundquest. R10-PR-11. April 2007.

USDA Forest Service and ADNR. 2002. Forest Health Protection Report. Forest 

Insects and Disease Conditions in Alaska – 2001. Compiled by D. Wittwer 

R10-TP-102. January 2002.

USDA Forest Service and ADNR. 2000. Forest Health Protection Report. Forest 

Insects and Disease Conditions in Alaska – 1999. Compiled by D. Wittwer 

R10-TP-82. February 2000.

USDA Forest Service and Sitka Tribe of Alaska. 2003. Katlian Watershed 

Assessment. Cooperatively produced by the Sitka Ranger District, Tongass 

National Forest, and Sitka Tribe of Alaska. October. Available online at: 

http://www.seakecology.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/sta_usfs_2003_katlian_assessment.pdf

USDI (U.S. Department of the Interior). 2013. 12-month finding on a petition to list 

Kittlitz’s murrelet as an endangered or threatened species. 78 FR 61764 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-

24172.pdf

USDI. 1994. The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands: A Report to Congress 

by the Secretary of the Interior, Volume II. Chapter 13: Southeast Alaska. 

Washington, D.C. March. Available online at: 

http://www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/wetlands2/v2ch13.cfm (Accessed March 17, 

2015).
References 6

Final EIS 6-59 References

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012a. The short-tailed albatross. 

Available online at: http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm

USFWS. 2012c. The Steller’s eider. Available online at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm

USFWS. 2012b. The spectacled eider. Available online at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/endangered/listing.htm

USFWS. 2012d. Aleutian tern counts from seabird colonies and nearshore marine 

bird surveys in the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska 1975-2012. Unpublished 

Refuge Report 01-12. Prepared by R.M. Corcoran. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge, Kodiak, AK. 

USFWS. 2007. Queen Charlotte Goshawk status review. Alaska Region, Juneau 

Field Office.

USFWS. 2006a. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Available online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ 

USFWS. 2006b. Available online at: 

http://alaska.fws.gov/mbsp/mbm/seabirds/pdf/stal.pdf

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Correspondence to Mr. Steve Paustian by 

Ed Neal, Hydrologist. July 28, 2000. Available in the Logjam Timber Sale 

planning record.

USGS. 2010. Correspondence to Mr. Steve Paustian by Ed Neal, Hydrologist Neal.

Vaagen, M. 2015. Personal communication between Vaagen Brothers mill and 

Tetra Tech. October 14.

van Hees, W. W. S. 2001. Summary estimates of forest resources on unreserved 

lands of the Chatham inventory unit, Tongass National Forest, southeast 

Alaska, 1998 Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-234. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 12 p..

van Vliet, G. 1993. Status concerns for the "Global" population of Kittlitz's Murrelet: 

Is the "Glacier Murrelet" receding? Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin 20(1):15-

16.

Vercessi, L. 2014. Alaska Salmon Fisheries Enhancement Program 2013 Annual 

Report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries Management 

Report 14-12, Anchorage, AK.

Vershuyl, J., S. Riffell, D. Miller, T.B. Wigley. 2011. Biodiversity response to 

intensive biomass production from forest thinning in North American Forests 

– A meta-analysis. Forest Ecoloby and Management 261: 221-232.

Vose, J.M., D.L. Peterson, and T. Patel-Weynand. 2012. Effects of Climatic 

Variability and Change on Forest Ecosystems: A Comprehensive Science 

Synthesis for the U.S. Forest Sector. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-870. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 265 p.

Wagner, M.A. 2011. Habitat selection by red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus 

ruber) in Southeast Alaska old-growth forest. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt 

State University.
6 References

References 6-60 Final EIS

Wake, D.B., and V.T, Vredenburg. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass 

extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Volume 105, supplement 1: 11466-

11473.

Walker, R.J., C Lones, K. Sundet, A.L. Howe, and A.E. Bingham. 2003. 

Participation, catch, and harvest in Alaska sport fisheries during 2000. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fisheries Data Series No. 03-05, 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Walters, D. and B. Prefontaine. 2005. Stream Temperature Monitoring Report 

1997-2002, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Alaska USDA Forest Service, 

Tongass National Forest, Thorne Bay Ranger District. March 2005.

Walton, K., T. Gotthardt, and T. Fields. 2013a. Little brown myotis. Alaska Species 

Ranking System Summary Report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 

University of Anchorage. Anchorage, AK. 99501.

Walton, K., T. Gotthardt, and T. Fields. 2013b. Silver-haired bat. Alaska Species 

Ranking System Summary Report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 

University of Anchorage. Anchorage, AK. 99501.

Walton, K., T. Gotthardt, and T. Fields. 2013c. Keen’s myotis. Alaska Species 

Ranking System Summary Report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 

University of Anchorage. Anchorage, AK. 99501.

Walton, K., T. Gotthardt, and T. Fields. 2013d. California myotis. Alaska Species 

Ranking System Summary Report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 

University of Anchorage. Anchorage, AK. 99501.

Walton, K., T. Gotthardt, and T. Fields. 2013e. Long-legged myotis. Alaska Species 

Ranking System Summary Report. Alaska Natural Heritage Program. 

University of Anchorage. Anchorage, AK. 99501.

Warren, J. 2014. Seafood Harvesting Jobs in 2013. Fishing Employment Up. 

Alaska Economic Trends. November. Volume 34, Number 11, pp. 4-8.

Webster, J., S. Golladay, E. Benfield, J. Meyer, W. Swank, and J. Wallace. 1992. 

Catchment Disturbance and stream Response: An Overview of Stream 

Research at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory. Pages 231-253 In: P. Boon 

and G. Petts(eds). River Conservation and Management. John Wiley and 

Son, Ltd.

Weckworth, B., S. Talbot, G. Sage, D. Person, and J. Cook. 2005. A signal for 

independent coastal and continental histories for North American wolves. 

Molecular Ecology 14, 917–931.

Weckworth, B.V., S.L. Talbot, and J.A. Cook. 2010. Phylogeography of wolves 

(Canis lupus) in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy 91: 363–375.

Weckworth, B.V., N.G. Dawson, S.L. Talbot, M.J. Flamme, and J.A. Cook. 2011. 

Going coastal: shared evolutionary history between coastal British Columbia 

and southeast Alaska wolves (Canis lupus). PLoS ONE 6(5): 1–8.

Welch, E.B., J.M. Jacoby, and C.W. May. 1998. Stream Quality. In River Ecology 

and Management, edited by R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby. New York: 

Springer. pp. 69–94.

Wemple, B.C. and J. A. Jones. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, 

mountain catchment. Water Resources Research 39(8): 1220. doi: 

10.1029/2002WR001744
References 6

Final EIS 6-61 References

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel Network Extension by 

Logging Roads in Two Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water 

Resources Bulletin 32(6):1195–1207. 

Wertheimer, A. C., J.A. Orsi, E. A. Fergusson, and M. V. Sturdevant. 2013. 

Forecasting Pink Salmon Harvest in Southeast Alaska from Juvenile 

Salmon Abundance and Associated Biophysical Parameters: 2012 Returns 

and 2013 Forecast. NPAFC doc. 1486. (Available at http://www.npafc.org).

White, E., and D. Stynes. 2010. Characterization of Resident and Non-resident 

Visitors to Alaska National Forests. Joint Venture Agreement between the 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station and Oregon 

State University. Joint Venture Agreement # 10-JV-11261955-018. 

August.

Wielgus, R.B., and F.L. Bunnell. 1995. Tests of hypotheses for sexual segregation 

in grizzly bears. Journal of Wildlife Management 59: 552–560.

Wiggins, D.A. 2005. Brown Creeper (Certhia americana): a Technical Conservation 

Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Region, Species Conservation Project. January. Available online at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/browncreeper.pdf. 

Wilcove, D.S. 1987. From fragmentation to extinction. Natural Areas Journal 7: 

23–29.

Wilcove, D.S., C.H. McLelloan and A.P. Dobson. 1986. Habitat Fragmentation in 

the Temperate Zone in: Soulé, ed. Conservation Biology. The Science of 

Scarcity and Diversity, p. 237 256. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, 

MA.

Wilcove, D., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying 

threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48:607-615.

Wilderness.net. 2014. Wilderness Statistics Reports. Acreage by State, Acreage 

by State Compared to State Land Area, and Acreage by Agency. Available 

online at: http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/chartResults. Downloaded 

December 11.

Williamson, S.J., D. Keppie, R. Davison, D. Bureau, S. Carriere, D. Rabe, and M. 

Schroeder. 2008. Spruce grouse conservation plan. Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies. Washington, D.C. 73 pp.

Wing, M.G. 2000. Landslide and Debris Flow Influences on Aquatic Habitat 

Conditions. 4th International Conference on Integrating GIS and 

Environmental Modeling (GIS/EM4): Problems, Prospects, and Research 

Needs. Banff, Alberta, Canada. No. 35. September.

Wipfli, M.S. 1997. Terrestrial Invertebrates as Salmonid Prey and Nitrogen Sources 

in Streams: Contrasting Old-Growth and Young-Growth Riparian Forests in

Southeastern Alaska, USA. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 54:1259-1269.

Wipfli, M.S. and D.P. Gregovich. 2002. Export of invertebrates and detritus from 

fishless headwater streams in southeastern Alaska: implications for 

downstream salmonid production. Freshwater Biology 47:957-967.
6 References

References 6-62 Final EIS

Wipfli, M.S., J. Hudson, and J. Caouette. 1998. Influence of Salmon Carcasses on 

Stream Productivity: Response of Biofilm and Benthic Macroinvertebrates 

in Southeastern Alaska, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 55: 1503–1511.

Wipfli, M.S, J. S. Richardson, and R.J. Naiman. 2007. Ecological Linkages 

Between Headwaters and Downstream Ecosystems: Transport of Organic 

Matter, Invertebrates, and Wood Down Headwater Channels. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 43(1): 72-85.

With, K.A. 1999. Is landscape connectivity necessary and sufficient for wildlife 

management? Pages 97-115 in J.A. Rochelle, L.A. Lehman, and J. 

Wisniewski, eds. Forest fragmentation: Wildlife and management 

implications. Leiden, The Netherlands.

Wolfe, R.J. 2004. Local Traditions and Subsistence: A Synopsis from Twenty-Five 

Years of Research by the State of Alaska. Technical Paper No. 284. 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, Juneau, 

Alaska. July. Available online at: http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/

Wolken, J.M., T.N. Hollingsworth, T.S. Rupp, F.S. Chapin, S.F. Trainor, T.M. Barrett, 

P.F. Sullivan, A.D. McGuire, E.S. Euskirchen, P.E. Hennon, E.A. Beever, 

J.S. Conn, L.K. Crone, D.V. D’Amore, N. Fresco, T.A. Hanley, K. Kielland, 

J.J. Kruse, T. Patterson, E.A. Schuur, D.L. Verbyla, and J. Yarie. 2011. 

Evidence and Implications of Recent and Projected Climate Change in 

Alaska’s Forest Ecosystem. Ecosphere. November 2011 Volume 2(11) 

Article 124.

Woodsmith, R.D., J.R. Noel, and M.L. Dilger. 2005. An approach to effectiveness 

monitoring of floodplain channel aquatic habitat: channel condition 

assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning 72: 177–204.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future, 

Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. 

Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427. Available 

online at: http://www.un-documenst.net/wccd-ocf.htm.

WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2008. Climate of Alaska. [Internet] 

Available online at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/alaska/

Zaborski, R.R., M.H. McClellan, and T.A. Handley. 2002. Understory vegetation 

development following commercial thinning in southeast Alaska: preliminary 

results from the Second-growth management Area Demonstration Project. 

In Beyond 2001: a silvicultural odyssey to sustaining terrestrial and aquatic 

ecosystems – proceedings of the national Silviculture workshop, May 6-10, 

Hood River OR. USDA Forest Service, PNW Portland, OR. pp 74-82.

Zaborski, R.R., M.H. McClellan, J. Barbour, T.L. Laufenberg, and C.G. Shaw III. 

2000. The Southeast Alaska Timber Resource and Industry: What Might the 

Future Hold? in Proceedings: Linking Healthy Forests and Communities 

Through Alaska Value-Added Forest Products. USDA Forest Service PNWGTR-500.

Ziemer, R.R. 1981. Roots and the Stability of Forested Slopes. In: Davies, T. R. 

H., and Pearce, A. J., eds., Erosion and Sediment Transport in Pacific Rim 

Steeplands, International Association of Hydrological Sciences, p. 343-361. 

Zwieniecki, M.A., and M. Newton. 1999. Influence of streamside cover and stream 

features on temperature trends in forested streams of western Oregon. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry 14(2):106–113.
CHAPTER 7

GLOSSARY
Glossary 7

Final EIS 7-1 Glossary

Chapter 7

Glossary

The Glossary for the Final EIS is located in Chapter 7 of the Land and Resource Management Plan 

volume.
CHAPTER 8

INDEX
Index 8

Final EIS 8-1 Index

Chapter 8

Index

Action Alternative, 1-2, 2-9, 2-10, 3-6, 3-20, 

3-23, 3-24, 3-96, 3-99, 3-294, 3-295, 3-

296, 3-324, 3-325, 3-326

Adaptive Management, 2-7, 2-12, 2-18, 2-

24, 2-30, 2-36, 2-44

Air, 1-18, 3-11, 3-16, 3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-22, 

3-39, 3-51, 3-102, 3-171, 3-173, 3-180, 3-

290, 3-370, 3-385, 3-442

air quality, 3-16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-22, 3-23, 3-

24, 3-523

Alexander Archipelago Wolf, 3-237, 3-273, 

3-294

Alternative Development Process, 2-1

Alternatives, 1-2, 1-21, 2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 2-

8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-33, 2-39, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-43, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 3-6, 3-19, 3-20, 3-

22, 3-24, 3-34, 3-35, 3-42, 3-43, 3-45, 3-

47, 3-49, 3-68, 3-70, 3-71, 3-72, 3-74, 3-

75, 3-76, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 3-84, 3-86, 3-

92, 3-96, 3-97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-124, 3-125, 

3-126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-130, 3-131, 3-135, 

3-136, 3-137, 3-154, 3-156, 3-157, 3-160, 

3-161, 3-162, 3-163, 3-164, 3-165, 3-166, 

3-167, 3-168, 3-169, 3-172, 3-179, 3-180, 

3-181, 3-183, 3-200, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 

3-206, 3-207, 3-216, 3-252, 3-254, 3-255, 

3-256, 3-258, 3-259, 3-260, 3-261, 3-263, 

3-266, 3-267, 3-268, 3-270, 3-271, 3-272, 

3-273, 3-274, 3-276, 3-277, 3-278, 3-279, 

3-280, 3-281, 3-282, 3-283, 3-284, 3-285, 

3-286, 3-287, 3-289, 3-293, 3-294, 3-295, 

3-296, 3-311, 3-312, 3-313, 3-325, 3-326, 

3-328, 3-344, 3-345, 3-349, 3-355, 3-374, 

3-375, 3-377, 3-378, 3-379, 3-381, 3-382, 

3-383, 3-390, 3-391, 3-394, 3-395, 3-397, 

3-398, 3-404, 3-405, 3-406, 3-407, 3-408, 

3-409, 3-410, 3-411, 3-412, 3-413, 3-414, 

3-415, 3-426, 3-427, 3-429, 3-431, 3-436, 

3-437, 3-445, 3-446, 3-447, 3-448, 3-509, 

3-510, 3-511, 3-512, 3-513, 3-514, 3-515, 

3-516, 3-521, 3-545, 3-548, 3-550, 3-553, 

3-558, 3-561, 3-563, 3-568, 3-572, 3-580, 

3-582, 3-584, 3-587, 3-592, 3-596, 3-600, 

3-601, 3-604, 3-614, 3-618, 3-623, 3-627, 

3-630, 3-640, 3-645, 3-653, 3-657, 3-663, 

3-670, 3-675, 3-677, 3-680, 3-685, 3-690

Alternatives Considered in Detail, 2-8

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study, 

2-4, 2-5

Angoon, 3-4, 3-101, 3-102, 3-171, 3-298, 3-

303, 3-307, 3-315, 3-318, 3-320, 3-321, 

3-322, 3-323, 3-324, 3-325, 3-384, 3-416, 

3-420, 3-422, 3-423, 3-447, 3-478, 3-503, 

3-523, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 3-546, 

3-547, 3-548, 3-549, 3-550, 3-551, 3-567, 

3-571, 3-575, 3-587, 3-634, 3-670, 3-693, 

3-694

ASQ (Allowable Sale Quantity), 2-9, 3-341, 

3-430

bald eagle, 1-15, 3-9, 3-230, 3-239, 3-240, 

3-255, 3-277, 3-278, 3-289, 3-362, 3-575

beach fringe, 2-36, 2-44, 3-8, 3-65, 3-68, 3-

76, 3-81, 3-97, 3-122, 3-124, 3-125, 3-

126, 3-133, 3-135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-143, 

3-144, 3-147, 3-160, 3-176, 3-193, 3-198, 

3-206, 3-235, 3-236, 3-243, 3-253, 3-254, 

3-257, 3-260, 3-262, 3-293, 3-378, 3-397, 

3-398, 3-405, 3-406, 3-407, 3-408, 3-409, 

3-410, 3-411, 3-412, 3-413, 3-414, 3-427, 

3-428, 3-431, 3-436

biodiversity, 3-7, 3-9, 3-100, 3-143, 3-144, 

3-145, 3-154, 3-157, 3-170, 3-175, 3-183, 

3-189, 3-193, 3-195, 3-197, 3-199, 3-200, 

3-202, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-206, 3-208, 

3-213, 3-214, 3-215, 3-216, 3-217, 3-222, 

3-226, 3-253, 3-256, 3-258, 3-259, 3-266, 

3-267, 3-268, 3-270, 3-272, 3-276, 3-278, 

3-281, 3-284, 3-287, 3-332, 3-385, 3-431,

3-442

biogeographic provinces, 3-3, 3-7, 3-183, 3-

185, 3-186, 3-191, 3-195, 3-197, 3-200, 

3-208, 3-213, 3-214, 3-215, 3-218, 3-219, 

3-220, 3-231, 3-233, 3-258, 3-274, 3-289, 

3-294

biomass, 3-13, 3-14, 3-16, 3-20, 3-37, 3-47, 

3-82, 3-180, 3-231, 3-232, 3-233, 3-263, 

3-322, 3-494, 3-497, 3-498, 3-519

Biomass, 3-322, 3-498
8 Index

Index 8-2 Final EIS

Black bear, 2-46, 3-9, 3-30, 3-230, 3-234, 3-

248, 3-255, 3-267, 3-268, 3-270, 3-271, 

3-272, 3-273, 3-279, 3-289, 3-315, 3-316, 

3-245

Brown bear, 1-15, 2-46, 3-30, 3-230, 3-236, 

3-237, 3-249, 3-255, 3-272, 3-273, 3-289, 

3-291, 3-296, 3-362, 3-372, 3-418, 3-425

Brown creeper, 3-240, 3-241, 3-243, 3-278, 

3-279, 3-287

Cave, 1-21, 2-10, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-30, 3-

31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-36, 3-433, 3-681

clearcutting, 2-12, 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 2-21, 2-

22, 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-36, 2-42, 2-43, 3-

42, 3-45, 3-68, 3-93, 3-113, 3-180, 3-255, 

3-283, 3-335, 3-336, 3-338, 3-344, 3-398, 

3-405, 3-406, 3-407, 3-408, 3-409, 3-410, 

3-411, 3-413, 3-414

Clearcutting, 2-12, 2-18, 2-24, 2-30, 2-44

Coffman Cove, 3-32, 3-316, 3-320, 3-322, 

3-371, 3-422, 3-423, 3-489, 3-498, 3-537, 

3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 3-551, 3-552, 3-553, 

3-554, 3-555, 3-556, 3-558, 3-582, 3-592, 

3-609, 3-618, 3-675

communities, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-

11, 1-13, 1-14, 1-17, 2-40, 2-41, 3-8, 3-9, 

3-10, 3-23, 3-24, 3-26, 3-29, 3-39, 3-63, 

3-64, 3-65, 3-90, 3-95, 3-143, 3-144, 3-

145, 3-180, 3-183, 3-184, 3-197, 3-199, 

3-204, 3-207, 3-208, 3-247, 3-267, 3-292, 

3-298, 3-301, 3-307, 3-308, 3-309, 3-310, 

3-314, 3-315, 3-316, 3-318, 3-319, 3-320, 

3-321, 3-322, 3-358, 3-359, 3-363, 3-365, 

3-366, 3-367, 3-368, 3-369, 3-371, 3-375, 

3-377, 3-387, 3-417, 3-419, 3-420, 3-421, 

3-422, 3-424, 3-425, 3-427, 3-428, 3-429, 

3-430, 3-431, 3-442, 3-477, 3-478, 3-480, 

3-481, 3-499, 3-503, 3-504, 3-505, 3-506, 

3-521, 3-538, 3-539, 3-541, 3-542, 3-543, 

3-544, 3-545, 3-546, 3-551, 3-553, 3-556, 

3-557, 3-558, 3-561, 3-565, 3-566, 3-570, 

3-574, 3-575, 3-580, 3-581, 3-582, 3-584, 

3-585, 3-589, 3-590, 3-592, 3-594, 3-595, 

3-598, 3-606, 3-607, 3-609, 3-611, 3-612, 

3-617, 3-618, 3-621, 3-626, 3-632, 3-633, 

3-637, 3-638, 3-640, 3-643, 3-647, 3-651, 

3-655, 3-661, 3-664, 3-668, 3-672, 3-675, 

3-677, 3-678, 3-679, 3-682, 3-683, 3-687, 

3-692, 3-693, 3-694

Communities, 3-24, 3-143, 3-299, 3-421, 3-

425, 3-426, 3-477, 3-478, 3-521, 3-537, 

3-541

Comparison of Alternatives, 2-2, 2-45, 2-46, 

3-275

Craig, 1-11, 3-27, 3-30, 3-54, 3-65, 3-82, 3-

147, 3-151, 3-316, 3-322, 3-373, 3-420, 

3-423, 3-488, 3-489, 3-498, 3-537, 3-540, 

3-542, 3-544, 3-551, 3-553, 3-556, 3-557, 

3-558, 3-559, 3-560, 3-561, 3-581, 3-582, 

3-590, 3-592, 3-609, 3-617, 3-618, 3-620, 

3-675, 3-679

cumulative effects, 1-4, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-

22, 3-23, 3-24, 3-30, 3-36, 3-48, 3-49, 3-

51, 3-65, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-87, 3-88, 3-

99, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-131, 3-137, 3-

138, 3-141, 3-169, 3-170, 3-171, 3-172, 

3-173, 3-181, 3-216, 3-217, 3-274, 3-286, 

3-287, 3-289, 3-290, 3-304, 3-311, 3-314, 

3-326, 3-356, 3-374, 3-384, 3-390, 3-416, 

3-431, 3-438, 3-439, 3-441, 3-447, 3-448, 

3-524

Cumulative Effects, 3-3, 3-5, 3-11, 3-22, 3-

27, 3-35, 3-37, 3-48, 3-51, 3-83, 3-89, 3-

99, 3-103, 3-137, 3-141, 3-143, 3-169, 3-

175, 3-180, 3-183, 3-216, 3-221, 3-286, 

3-297, 3-304, 3-307, 3-314, 3-315, 3-326, 

3-327, 3-349, 3-351, 3-356, 3-357, 3-384, 

3-387, 3-415, 3-417, 3-430, 3-433, 3-438, 

3-441, 3-445, 3-447, 3-477, 3-523

Economic and Social Environment, 2-8, 3-

10, 3-106, 3-327, 3-330, 3-340, 3-342, 3-

477

ecosystem services, 3-12, 3-522, 3-523

Ecosystem Services, 1-17

Edna Bay, 3-320, 3-420, 3-423, 3-489, 3-

537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 3-561, 3-562, 

3-563, 3-564, 3-565, 3-584

EFH, 3-120, 3-136

Elfin Cove, 3-320, 3-321, 3-323, 3-366, 3-

423, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 3-566, 

3-567, 3-568, 3-569, 3-570

Employment and Income, 3-519

endemism, 3-247, 3-248

Endemism, 3-221, 3-247, 3-283

environmental justice, 3-693

Environmental Justice, 3-537, 3-693

essential fish habitat, 3-120

Essential Fish Habitat, 3-103, 3-120, 3-136

experimental forests, 1-21

Experimental Forests, 1-21

Fire, 3-27, 3-178, 3-352

fish, 1-18, 1-19, 2-3, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-25, 

3-30, 3-37, 3-43, 3-44, 3-48, 3-51, 3-52, 

3-55, 3-56, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-64, 
Index 8

Final EIS 8-3 Index

3-65, 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 3-85, 

3-89, 3-96, 3-99, 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-

106, 3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 

3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 

3-118, 3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3-123, 

3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-129, 

3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 

3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-141, 

3-149, 3-202, 3-223, 3-229, 3-237, 3-258, 

3-302, 3-311, 3-314, 3-316, 3-322, 3-349, 

3-357, 3-417, 3-418, 3-420, 3-422, 3-424, 

3-425, 3-426, 3-427, 3-429, 3-434, 3-477, 

3-481, 3-483, 3-501, 3-502, 3-522, 3-550, 

3-555, 3-556, 3-557, 3-560, 3-561, 3-564, 

3-565, 3-566, 3-567, 3-573, 3-575, 3-579, 

3-580, 3-584, 3-585, 3-588, 3-590, 3-593,

3-594, 3-597, 3-598, 3-599, 3-602, 3-606, 

3-607, 3-612, 3-613, 3-616, 3-620, 3-621, 

3-622, 3-626, 3-628, 3-629, 3-631, 3-632, 

3-634, 3-638, 3-639, 3-641, 3-643, 3-645, 

3-647, 3-651, 3-654, 3-655, 3-658, 3-659, 

3-660, 3-663, 3-664, 3-673, 3-676, 3-678, 

3-682, 3-683, 3-684, 3-686, 3-688, 3-689, 

3-691, 3-693

Fish, 1-12, 1-18, 2-10, 3-7, 3-43, 3-51, 3-52, 

3-55, 3-61, 3-62, 3-64, 3-65, 3-69, 3-76, 

3-77, 3-81, 3-82, 3-89, 3-103, 3-104, 3-

105, 3-107, 3-108, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 

3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118, 3-120, 3-122, 

3-123, 3-128, 3-146, 3-200, 3-223, 3-230, 

3-291, 3-312, 3-358, 3-422, 3-425, 3-442, 

3-481, 3-501, 3-502, 3-538, 3-546, 3-556, 

3-562, 3-566, 3-575, 3-585, 3-586, 3-590, 

3-598, 3-599, 3-633, 3-638, 3-648, 3-655, 

3-665, 3-669, 3-683, 3-688

Fish habitat, 3-11, 3-37, 3-43, 3-44, 3-48, 3-

51, 3-52, 3-62, 3-65, 3-77, 3-89, 3-99, 3-

103, 3-104, 3-108, 3-110, 3-112, 3-113, 

3-114, 3-115, 3-117, 3-123, 3-124, 3-127, 

3-128, 3-136, 3-137, 3-311, 3-349, 3-426

Flying squirrel, 3-198, 3-241, 3-248, 3-249, 

3-254, 3-255, 3-284, 3-289, 3-291, 3-295

Forest Health, 2-10, 3-12, 3-25, 3-26, 3-175, 

3-181, 3-339

fragmentation, 3-155, 3-183, 3-198, 3-199, 

3-200, 3-205, 3-208, 3-213, 3-214, 3-215, 

3-216, 3-221, 3-222, 3-235, 3-240, 3-243, 

3-246, 3-249, 3-250, 3-256, 3-270, 3-272, 

3-278, 3-280, 3-281, 3-282, 3-283, 3-284, 

3-285, 3-286, 3-287, 3-289, 3-290

Geology, 3-27, 3-28, 3-32, 3-33, 3-114, 3-

189, 3-190, 3-354, 3-355

Gustavus, 3-185, 3-307, 3-316, 3-423, 3-

489, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 3-570, 

3-571, 3-572, 3-573, 3-574, 3-575, 3-585

Haines, 1-11, 3-3, 3-107, 3-147, 3-176, 3-

216, 3-262, 3-299, 3-308, 3-309, 3-316, 

3-320, 3-321, 3-358, 3-369, 3-370, 3-420, 

3-423, 3-438, 3-478, 3-483, 3-502, 3-503, 

3-537, 3-538, 3-540, 3-541, 3-542, 3-543, 

3-544, 3-575, 3-576, 3-577, 3-578, 3-579, 

3-580, 3-666, 3-693, 3-694

hairy woodpecker, 3-240, 3-241, 3-278, 3-

279, 3-287

Hairy Woodpecker, 3-240, 3-278

Heritage Resources and Sacred Sites, 3-

433, 3-442

Hollis, 3-301, 3-316, 3-371, 3-423, 3-537, 3-

540, 3-542, 3-544, 3-553, 3-558, 3-581, 

3-582, 3-583, 3-584, 3-585, 3-590, 3-592, 

3-609, 3-618, 3-673, 3-675

Hoonah, 1-11, 1-13, 3-54, 3-151, 3-316, 3-

320, 3-321, 3-323, 3-358, 3-366, 3-373, 

3-422, 3-423, 3-433, 3-444, 3-478, 3-488, 

3-489, 3-503, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 

3-547, 3-566, 3-567, 3-571, 3-575, 3-585, 

3-586, 3-587, 3-588, 3-589, 3-590, 3-633, 

3-634, 3-670, 3-693, 3-694

Hydaburg, 3-65, 3-82, 3-316, 3-420, 3-422, 

3-423, 3-445, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 

3-553, 3-558, 3-582, 3-590, 3-591, 3-592, 

3-593, 3-594, 3-609, 3-618, 3-675, 3-693

Hyder, 1-11, 3-143, 3-308, 3-354, 3-358, 3-

396, 3-397, 3-401, 3-408, 3-423, 3-445, 

3-478, 3-503, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-552, 

3-558, 3-582, 3-591, 3-595, 3-596, 3-597, 

3-598, 3-604, 3-608, 3-617, 3-623, 3-629, 

3-644, 3-649, 3-651, 3-652, 3-674, 3-693, 

3-694

Invasive Species, 3-103, 3-118, 3-121, 3-

134, 3-149, 3-202, 3-207, 3-221, 3-250, 

3-285

IRA (Inventoried Roadless Area), 3-323, 3-

325, 3-382, 3-442, 3-443, 3-446, 3-447, 

3-448

Issues, 1-11, 1-13, 1-14, 2-4, 3-33

Juneau, 1-6, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 3-4, 3-9, 3-

10, 3-11, 3-18, 3-32, 3-54, 3-65, 3-82, 3-

101, 3-148, 3-151, 3-167, 3-171, 3-232, 

3-248, 3-251, 3-262, 3-299, 3-301, 3-307, 

3-308, 3-309, 3-314, 3-316, 3-320, 3-321, 

3-322, 3-323, 3-354, 3-358, 3-366, 3-367, 

3-368, 3-369, 3-371, 3-372, 3-373, 3-384, 

3-385, 3-416, 3-420, 3-428, 3-429, 3-430, 
8 Index

Index 8-4 Final EIS

3-443, 3-444, 3-447, 3-478, 3-480, 3-482, 

3-489, 3-499, 3-500, 3-503, 3-523, 3-524, 

3-537, 3-539, 3-540, 3-541, 3-542, 3-543, 

3-544, 3-551, 3-556, 3-561, 3-565, 3-566, 

3-570, 3-571, 3-574, 3-580, 3-584, 3-585, 

3-589, 3-594, 3-598, 3-599, 3-600, 3-601, 

3-602, 3-606, 3-611, 3-612, 3-621, 3-626, 

3-632, 3-633, 3-637, 3-643, 3-647, 3-651, 

3-655, 3-659, 3-664, 3-668, 3-672, 3-677, 

3-682, 3-687, 3-688, 3-692, 3-693, 3-694

Kake, 1-4, 1-5, 1-13, 3-4, 3-47, 3-65, 3-82, 

3-83, 3-101, 3-171, 3-298, 3-300, 3-307, 

3-308, 3-316, 3-320, 3-321, 3-358, 3-422, 

3-423, 3-448, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 

3-602, 3-603, 3-604, 3-605, 3-606, 3-607, 

3-638, 3-693

Karst, 1-21, 2-10, 2-44, 3-27, 3-28, 3-29, 3-

30, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-

185, 3-442

Kasaan, 3-316, 3-422, 3-423, 3-445, 3-537, 

3-540, 3-541, 3-542, 3-544, 3-553, 3-558, 

3-582, 3-592, 3-607, 3-608, 3-609, 3-610, 

3-611, 3-612, 3-618, 3-675

Ketchikan, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-22, 3-4, 3-9, 

3-10, 3-12, 3-27, 3-31, 3-54, 3-55, 3-65, 

3-82, 3-102, 3-144, 3-147, 3-148, 3-151, 

3-161, 3-166, 3-177, 3-216, 3-299, 3-301, 

3-307, 3-316, 3-320, 3-321, 3-322, 3-323, 

3-331, 3-341, 3-358, 3-366, 3-367, 3-369, 

3-371, 3-373, 3-384, 3-416, 3-420, 3-429, 

3-447, 3-477, 3-478, 3-485, 3-489, 3-490, 

3-498, 3-499, 3-500, 3-502, 3-503, 3-523, 

3-537, 3-539, 3-540, 3-541, 3-542, 3-543, 

3-544, 3-551, 3-556, 3-561, 3-562, 3-565, 

3-570, 3-574, 3-580, 3-581, 3-583, 3-584, 

3-589, 3-590, 3-594, 3-595, 3-604, 3-606, 

3-611, 3-612, 3-613, 3-614, 3-615, 3-616, 

3-621, 3-626, 3-632, 3-637, 3-640, 3-643, 

3-647, 3-651, 3-655, 3-656, 3-657, 3-664, 

3-668, 3-672, 3-673, 3-677, 3-678, 3-679, 

3-682, 3-685, 3-687, 3-692, 3-694

Klawock, 1-13, 3-65, 3-82, 3-316, 3-341, 3-

422, 3-423, 3-489, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 

3-544, 3-553, 3-558, 3-582, 3-590, 3-592, 

3-609, 3-616, 3-617, 3-618, 3-619, 3-620, 

3-621, 3-675, 3-693

Kupreanof, 3-176, 3-184, 3-185, 3-188, 3-

191, 3-194, 3-195, 3-196, 3-197, 3-208, 

3-209, 3-210, 3-211, 3-212, 3-214, 3-215, 

3-217, 3-218, 3-219, 3-231, 3-233, 3-239, 

3-251, 3-258, 3-264, 3-265, 3-274, 3-275, 

3-288, 3-289, 3-332, 3-359, 3-407, 3-408, 

3-411, 3-430, 3-443, 3-537, 3-538, 3-542, 

3-543, 3-602, 3-605, 3-606, 3-637, 3-639, 

3-640, 3-642, 3-645

Land Divisions, 3-6

Lands, 1-2, 1-18, 1-19, 2-10, 2-39, 2-46, 3-

35, 3-44, 3-49, 3-53, 3-62, 3-65, 3-70, 3-

84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-101, 3-104, 3-115, 

3-170, 3-171, 3-183, 3-188, 3-191, 3-192, 

3-193, 3-194, 3-195, 3-196, 3-201, 3-203, 

3-205, 3-217, 3-218, 3-219, 3-220, 3-231, 

3-232, 3-233, 3-236, 3-239, 3-253, 3-264, 

3-265, 3-269, 3-275, 3-277, 3-288, 3-297, 

3-298, 3-304, 3-311, 3-313, 3-317, 3-323, 

3-324, 3-325, 3-328, 3-333, 3-340, 3-343, 

3-345, 3-383, 3-389, 3-390, 3-415, 3-418, 

3-430, 3-446, 3-545, 3-549, 3-551, 3-554, 

3-556, 3-560, 3-561, 3-565, 3-570, 3-573, 

3-574, 3-578, 3-580, 3-583, 3-584, 3-589, 

3-593, 3-594, 3-597, 3-601, 3-605, 3-606, 

3-610, 3-611, 3-615, 3-619, 3-621, 3-624, 

3-626, 3-628, 3-631, 3-632, 3-636, 3-637, 

3-641, 3-643, 3-646, 3-647, 3-651, 3-654, 

3-655, 3-658, 3-663, 3-664, 3-667, 3-668, 

3-671, 3-672, 3-676, 3-677, 3-681, 3-682, 

3-686, 3-687, 3-692

Leasable Minerals, 3-351, 3-352, 3-355

Locatable Minerals, 3-351, 3-355

Log Transfer Facilities, 3-128, 3-307, 3-310, 

3-312

LTF, 3-55, 3-128, 3-129, 3-130, 3-134, 3-

156, 3-257, 3-261, 3-290, 3-312

LUD (Land Use Designation), 1-2, 1-8, 1-11, 

1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-6, 2-9, 

2-10, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-18, 

2-19, 2-21, 2-22, 2-24, 2-25, 2-27, 2-28, 

2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 

2-39, 2-42, 2-44, 2-46, 3-6, 3-7, 3-22, 3-

31, 3-36, 3-62, 3-65, 3-78, 3-82, 3-134, 3-

148, 3-157, 3-160, 3-161, 3-162, 3-166, 

3-167, 3-168, 3-193, 3-200, 3-206, 3-207, 

3-213, 3-215, 3-221, 3-222, 3-254, 3-266, 

3-273, 3-293, 3-294, 3-295, 3-297, 3-299, 

3-304, 3-310, 3-313, 3-317, 3-318, 3-323, 

3-324, 3-325, 3-329, 3-330, 3-344, 3-349, 

3-352, 3-354, 3-361, 3-362, 3-375, 3-376, 

3-377, 3-378, 3-379, 3-380, 3-388, 3-389, 

3-390, 3-391, 3-392, 3-393, 3-394, 3-395, 

3-396, 3-408, 3-411, 3-412, 3-413, 3-441, 

3-442, 3-521, 3-568, 3-601, 3-636, 3-657, 

3-690, 3-693

LUD II, 1-11, 2-2, 2-9, 2-13, 2-19, 2-25, 2-

31, 2-37, 3-6, 3-7, 3-31, 3-62, 3-200, 3-
Index 8

Final EIS 8-5 Index

221, 3-299, 3-313, 3-318, 3-329, 3-330, 

3-349, 3-352, 3-354, 3-361, 3-362, 3-408, 

3-411, 3-412, 3-413, 3-636, 3-693

Mammals, 2-46

Marbled murrelet, 3-246, 3-280, 3-281, 3-

282, 3-287, 3-291, 3-296

Marten, 1-15, 2-46, 3-9, 3-230, 3-235, 3-

236, 3-240, 3-248, 3-250, 3-254, 3-255, 

3-256, 3-270, 3-271, 3-272, 3-287, 3-290, 

3-291, 3-294, 3-295, 3-296

Metlakatla, 3-321, 3-368, 3-420, 3-423, 3-

537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-544, 3-621, 3-622, 

3-623, 3-624, 3-625, 3-626, 3-693

Meyers Chuck, 3-301, 3-320, 3-423, 3-537, 

3-538, 3-540, 3-543, 3-544, 3-626, 3-627, 

3-628, 3-683

migratory bird, 3-185, 3-221, 3-242, 3-243, 

3-255, 3-257, 3-280, 3-281, 3-290

Minerals, 1-17, 2-1, 2-13, 2-19, 2-25, 2-31, 

2-37, 3-6, 3-33, 3-313, 3-317, 3-324, 3-

351, 3-352, 3-353, 3-354, 3-355

MIS (Management Indicator Species), 3-

118, 3-221, 3-222, 3-230, 3-257

Mountain Goat, 3-234, 3-266, 3-267

Naukati Bay, 3-320, 3-423, 3-537, 3-540, 3-

544, 3-628, 3-629, 3-630, 3-631, 3-632

OGR (old-growth reserve), 3-157, 3-200, 3-

206, 3-221, 3-242, 3-256, 3-268, 3-286

Old-Growth Forest, 3-189, 3-191, 3-192, 3-

203, 3-332, 3-443, 3-444

Pelican, 3-316, 3-321, 3-423, 3-537, 3-540, 

3-542, 3-543, 3-544, 3-566, 3-633, 3-634, 

3-635, 3-636, 3-637, 3-670

Petersburg, 1-11, 1-13, 3-4, 3-10, 3-17, 3-

47, 3-54, 3-65, 3-82, 3-83, 3-101, 3-151, 

3-171, 3-251, 3-299, 3-301, 3-307, 3-308, 

3-316, 3-320, 3-321, 3-358, 3-368, 3-371, 

3-373, 3-420, 3-422, 3-423, 3-448, 3-478, 

3-488, 3-489, 3-500, 3-503, 3-537, 3-538, 

3-540, 3-542, 3-543, 3-544, 3-551, 3-602, 

3-604, 3-614, 3-637, 3-638, 3-639, 3-640, 

3-641, 3-642, 3-643, 3-685, 3-694

Plants, 1-18, 3-143, 3-144, 3-146, 3-147, 3-

148, 3-149, 3-151, 3-152, 3-153, 3-154, 

3-158, 3-166, 3-168, 3-169, 3-172, 3-202, 

3-207, 3-442

Point Baker, 3-320, 3-420, 3-423, 3-537, 3-

540, 3-541, 3-543, 3-544, 3-643, 3-644, 

3-645, 3-646, 3-647

Port Alexander, 3-320, 3-423, 3-444, 3-537, 

3-540, 3-542, 3-543, 3-544, 3-648, 3-649, 

3-650, 3-651

Port Protection, 3-320, 3-422, 3-423, 3-537, 

3-540, 3-542, 3-543, 3-544, 3-644, 3-651, 

3-652, 3-653, 3-654, 3-655

Preferred Alternative, 1-22, 2-17, 2-23, 2-

29, 2-33

PTSQ, 1-8, 2-9, 2-15, 2-21, 2-27, 2-33, 2-

39, 3-68, 3-70, 3-86, 3-87, 3-253, 3-312, 

3-337, 3-341, 3-342, 3-343, 3-345, 3-346, 

3-347, 3-348

Purpose and Need, 1-1, 1-8, 1-17, 1-19, 1-

21, 2-4, 2-9

Queen Charlotte Goshawk, 3-226, 3-258

Recreation and Tourism, 1-18, 2-10, 3-357, 

3-361, 3-362, 3-363, 3-442, 3-499, 3-500, 

3-521, 3-522, 3-537, 3-545

Recreation Places, 3-362, 3-363, 3-364, 3-

375, 3-377, 3-378, 3-379, 3-380

Red squirrel, 3-226, 3-240, 3-278, 3-279, 3-

287

Red-breasted Sapsucker, 3-240, 3-278

Research Natural Areas, 3-7, 3-310, 3-313, 

3-352

Riparian Management Area, 1-20, 2-5, 2-42, 

2-44, 2-45, 3-61, 3-62, 3-68, 3-71, 3-80, 

3-127, 3-157, 3-193, 3-222, 3-436

River Otter, 3-234, 3-270

RMA (Riparian Management Area), 3-62, 3-

63, 3-64, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-75, 3-

77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-97, 3-124, 3-

127, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-137, 3-157, 

3-207, 3-254

Roadless Area, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-14, 2-

10, 2-12, 2-15, 2-21, 2-24, 2-27, 2-33, 2-

39, 2-41, 2-45, 3-126, 3-157, 3-204, 3-

207, 3-256, 3-318, 3-321, 3-323, 3-326, 

3-381, 3-429, 3-441, 3-442, 3-443, 3-444, 

3-446, 3-568, 3-601, 3-657

Roadless Areas, 1-4, 1-14, 2-12, 2-15, 2-21, 

2-24, 2-27, 2-33, 2-39, 2-41, 2-45

ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum), 1-

21, 3-357, 3-359, 3-360, 3-361, 3-362, 3-

363, 3-374, 3-375, 3-378, 3-384, 3-385, 

3-521, 3-545

Sacred Sites, 3-433, 3-435

Salable Minerals, 3-351, 3-353, 3-355

Salmon Harvesting, 3-522

Saxman, 3-298, 3-323, 3-423, 3-537, 3-540, 

3-543, 3-544, 3-655, 3-656, 3-657, 3-658, 

3-659, 3-693

Scenery, 1-18, 2-10, 2-12, 2-16, 2-18, 2-21, 

2-24, 2-34, 2-44, 3-254, 3-255, 3-277, 3-

382, 3-387, 3-392, 3-393, 3-394, 3-442
8 Index

Index 8-6 Final EIS

Sensitive Species, 3-120, 3-136, 3-146, 3-

221, 3-224, 3-225, 3-226, 3-227, 3-229, 

3-258

Silvicultural Systems and Practices, 3-327, 

3-343

Sitka, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-15, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 

3-14, 3-15, 3-25, 3-54, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 

3-82, 3-143, 3-144, 3-145, 3-147, 3-148, 

3-151, 3-163, 3-166, 3-168, 3-176, 3-177, 

3-179, 3-184, 3-195, 3-228, 3-230, 3-245, 

3-248, 3-249, 3-251, 3-262, 3-299, 3-300, 

3-301, 3-307, 3-308, 3-316, 3-320, 3-321, 

3-322, 3-323, 3-327, 3-330, 3-334, 3-335, 

3-336, 3-337, 3-338, 3-339, 3-348, 3-358, 

3-369, 3-373, 3-385, 3-409, 3-416, 3-420, 

3-423, 3-426, 3-433, 3-444, 3-478, 3-485, 

3-489, 3-496, 3-497, 3-498, 3-500, 3-503, 

3-516, 3-519, 3-537, 3-539, 3-540, 3-541, 

3-543, 3-544, 3-598, 3-633, 3-648, 3-659, 

3-660, 3-661, 3-662, 3-663, 3-664, 3-668, 

3-694

Skagway, 1-11, 3-3, 3-11, 3-216, 3-308, 3-

309, 3-316, 3-320, 3-321, 3-358, 3-366, 

3-367, 3-369, 3-373, 3-422, 3-423, 3-426, 

3-438, 3-443, 3-444, 3-478, 3-482, 3-483, 

3-499, 3-502, 3-503, 3-537, 3-540, 3-543, 

3-544, 3-577, 3-664, 3-665, 3-666, 3-667, 

3-668, 3-693, 3-694

Soils, 3-31, 3-37, 3-57, 3-74, 3-82, 3-125, 3-

442

Special Interest Areas, 1-21, 3-31, 3-34, 3-

35, 3-352

Spruce grouse, 3-226, 3-248, 3-249, 3-250, 

3-256, 3-285, 3-289, 3-290

Subsistence, 1-13, 1-18, 3-7, 3-104, 3-105, 

3-107, 3-108, 3-115, 3-221, 3-238, 3-263, 

3-273, 3-417, 3-418, 3-419, 3-420, 3-421, 

3-422, 3-423, 3-424, 3-427, 3-428, 3-429, 

3-431, 3-537, 3-538, 3-539, 3-540, 3-545,

3-550, 3-555, 3-560, 3-563, 3-569, 3-573, 

3-578, 3-583, 3-584, 3-588, 3-593, 3-594, 

3-597, 3-598, 3-602, 3-603, 3-606, 3-610, 

3-611, 3-616, 3-620, 3-624, 3-628, 3-631, 

3-636, 3-638, 3-639, 3-641, 3-645, 3-649, 

3-650, 3-654, 3-658, 3-663, 3-667, 3-672, 

3-676, 3-679, 3-682, 3-686, 3-691, 3-693

Suitable Timber Lands, 3-327, 3-342

Tenakee Springs, 3-4, 3-303, 3-315, 3-318, 

3-320, 3-321, 3-323, 3-324, 3-403, 3-412, 

3-422, 3-423, 3-426, 3-489, 3-537, 3-540, 

3-542, 3-543, 3-544, 3-668, 3-669, 3-670, 

3-671, 3-672, 3-673

Thorne Bay, 1-11, 3-30, 3-32, 3-54, 3-55, 3-

147, 3-148, 3-151, 3-167, 3-316, 3-322, 

3-373, 3-423, 3-488, 3-489, 3-498, 3-537, 

3-540, 3-543, 3-544, 3-553, 3-558, 3-581, 

3-582, 3-592, 3-609, 3-618, 3-673, 3-674, 

3-675, 3-676, 3-677, 3-678

Threatened and Endangered Species, 3-

134, 3-143, 3-224, 3-225

Timber, 1-2, 1-5, 1-7, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 

1-18, 1-19, 1-20, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, 

2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-17, 2-18, 2-19, 

2-21, 2-23, 2-24, 2-25, 2-27, 2-29, 2-30, 

2-31, 2-33, 2-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-39, 2-41, 

2-44, 2-46, 3-6, 3-21, 3-24, 3-31, 3-42, 3-

55, 3-57, 3-61, 3-67, 3-74, 3-77, 3-81, 3-

84, 3-91, 3-92, 3-96, 3-97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-

124, 3-125, 3-127, 3-128, 3-148, 3-156, 

3-160, 3-161, 3-162, 3-165, 3-166, 3-167, 

3-169, 3-172, 3-187, 3-193, 3-195, 3-201, 

3-203, 3-205, 3-216, 3-222, 3-227, 3-229, 

3-234, 3-241, 3-242, 3-243, 3-246, 3-250, 

3-253, 3-256, 3-267, 3-277, 3-283, 3-286, 

3-311, 3-318, 3-327, 3-329, 3-330, 3-331, 

3-340, 3-341, 3-343, 3-345, 3-346, 3-347, 

3-348, 3-350, 3-352, 3-361, 3-362, 3-374, 

3-375, 3-376, 3-391, 3-392, 3-393, 3-394, 

3-395, 3-430, 3-431, 3-445, 3-481, 3-485, 

3-486, 3-487, 3-491, 3-492, 3-493, 3-494, 

3-495, 3-497, 3-508, 3-509, 3-510, 3-519, 

3-545, 3-555, 3-620

Timber Employment, 3-485

Timber Industry, 3-485, 3-486, 3-519

Timber Management, 3-345

Timber Sale Program, 2-7, 2-12, 2-18, 2-24, 

2-30, 2-36, 2-44, 3-327, 3-340, 3-347

Tourism, 1-18, 2-10, 3-10, 3-364, 3-366, 3-

379, 3-380, 3-382, 3-389, 3-499, 3-547, 

3-552, 3-568, 3-599, 3-613, 3-634, 3-670, 

3-684

Transportation and Utilities, 3-548, 3-553, 3-

558, 3-563, 3-567, 3-571, 3-576, 3-582, 

3-587, 3-591, 3-596, 3-600, 3-604, 3-608, 

3-614, 3-618, 3-623, 3-630, 3-635, 3-640, 

3-645, 3-649, 3-652, 3-657, 3-661, 3-666, 

3-670, 3-675, 3-680, 3-684, 3-690

Vancouver Canada Goose, 3-242, 3-279

Viewsheds, 3-387, 3-396, 3-397, 3-399, 3-

400, 3-401, 3-402, 3-403, 3-404

Visual Management System, 3-387

water, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-25, 3-28, 3-29, 3-

30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-43, 3-

44, 3-48, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 3-54, 3-55, 3-
Index 8

Final EIS 8-7 Index

56, 3-57, 3-58, 3-59, 3-60, 3-61, 3-64, 3-

65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 3-69, 3-72, 3-73, 3-

74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-81, 3-

82, 3-83, 3-84, 3-85, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-

90, 3-92, 3-93, 3-95, 3-99, 3-100, 3-102, 

3-103, 3-104, 3-108, 3-109, 3-113, 3-114, 

3-117, 3-121, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128, 

3-129, 3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-136, 3-137, 

3-138, 3-139, 3-140, 3-148, 3-149, 3-153, 

3-163, 3-165, 3-171, 3-183, 3-208, 3-224, 

3-229, 3-237, 3-240, 3-244, 3-247, 3-257, 

3-260, 3-261, 3-262, 3-270, 3-282, 3-283, 

3-290, 3-307, 3-310, 3-311, 3-314, 3-315, 

3-322, 3-324, 3-340, 3-343, 3-385, 3-388, 

3-431, 3-434, 3-442, 3-499, 3-519, 3-522, 

3-550, 3-562, 3-575, 3-639, 3-651

Water, 1-18, 1-19, 2-10, 3-7, 3-38, 3-43, 3-

49, 3-51, 3-54, 3-64, 3-65, 3-71, 3-73, 3-

76, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 3-89, 3-104, 3-108, 

3-109, 3-113, 3-114, 3-116, 3-122, 3-123, 

3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-130, 3-132, 3-138, 

3-170, 3-290, 3-301, 3-312, 3-315, 3-442, 

3-588

Water quality, 3-33, 3-43, 3-44, 3-48, 3-49, 

3-51, 3-52, 3-54, 3-56, 3-59, 3-60, 3-65, 

3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-81, 3-82, 

3-83, 3-85, 3-89, 3-92, 3-99, 3-113, 3-

114, 3-125, 3-127, 3-129, 3-130, 3-136, 

3-137, 3-138, 3-224, 3-229, 3-237, 3-240, 

3-257, 3-260, 3-261, 3-262, 3-282, 3-290, 

3-311, 3-314, 3-523

Water quantity, 3-51, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 

3-69, 3-75, 3-76, 3-79, 3-81, 3-83, 3-84, 

3-85, 3-87, 3-88

Watershed, 1-17, 1-20, 2-13, 2-19, 2-25, 2-

31, 2-37, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-51, 3-55, 3-

60, 3-65, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-73, 3-76, 3-

82, 3-83, 3-116, 3-313, 3-318, 3-361, 3-

362, 3-390

Wetlands, 3-51, 3-89, 3-91, 3-98, 3-100, 3-

144, 3-193, 3-242, 3-279

Whale Pass, 3-32, 3-308, 3-320, 3-420, 3-

423, 3-537, 3-540, 3-542, 3-543, 3-544, 

3-678, 3-679, 3-680, 3-681, 3-682, 3-683

Wild and Scenic Rivers, 3-7

Wilderness, 1-2, 1-3, 1-17, 2-2, 2-4, 2-13, 2-

14, 2-15, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21, 2-25, 2-26, 2-

27, 2-31, 2-32, 2-33, 2-37, 2-38, 2-39, 3-

6, 3-7, 3-17, 3-18, 3-38, 3-62, 3-126, 3-

148, 3-166, 3-200, 3-203, 3-205, 3-221, 

3-300, 3-301, 3-310, 3-313, 3-315, 3-318, 

3-323, 3-324, 3-325, 3-329, 3-330, 3-349, 

3-352, 3-354, 3-355, 3-358, 3-361, 3-362, 

3-380, 3-389, 3-405, 3-408, 3-411, 3-441, 

3-442, 3-443, 3-446, 3-568, 3-636, 3-666, 

3-685, 3-688, 3-693

Wildlife, 1-12, 1-15, 1-18, 2-10, 2-41, 2-42, 

2-45, 3-3, 3-7, 3-89, 3-93, 3-118, 3-146, 

3-191, 3-199, 3-200, 3-201, 3-202, 3-204, 

3-206, 3-221, 3-222, 3-223, 3-226, 3-229, 

3-239, 3-248, 3-249, 3-251, 3-262, 3-291, 

3-331, 3-334, 3-358, 3-367, 3-368, 3-425, 

3-427, 3-442, 3-539

Wildlife Habitat, 1-15, 2-41, 2-45

Wildlife Viability, 3-291

Windthrow, 3-124, 3-178, 3-336

Wrangell, 1-11, 1-13, 3-33, 3-54, 3-65, 3-82, 

3-147, 3-151, 3-160, 3-162, 3-236, 3-248, 

3-299, 3-301, 3-302, 3-307, 3-316, 3-319, 

3-320, 3-321, 3-332, 3-354, 3-358, 3-365, 

3-371, 3-373, 3-381, 3-404, 3-406, 3-413, 

3-414, 3-419, 3-420, 3-422, 3-423, 3-443, 

3-444, 3-478, 3-489, 3-500, 3-503, 3-537, 

3-538, 3-540, 3-541, 3-543, 3-544, 3-551, 

3-604, 3-614, 3-626, 3-637, 3-639, 3-640, 

3-683, 3-684, 3-685, 3-686, 3-687, 3-688, 

3-694

Yakutat, 1-9, 1-11, 1-13, 3-3, 3-47, 3-54, 3-

105, 3-107, 3-108, 3-121, 3-136, 3-144, 

3-147, 3-151, 3-160, 3-161, 3-176, 3-184, 

3-188, 3-191, 3-194, 3-196, 3-197, 3-202, 

3-209, 3-210, 3-211, 3-212, 3-216, 3-217, 

3-218, 3-219, 3-227, 3-228, 3-231, 3-233, 

3-239, 3-244, 3-249, 3-260, 3-261, 3-264, 

3-265, 3-275, 3-288, 3-298, 3-303, 3-307, 

3-315, 3-320, 3-322, 3-323, 3-324, 3-329, 

3-332, 3-352, 3-353, 3-373, 3-419, 3-422, 

3-423, 3-424, 3-433, 3-444, 3-477, 3-478, 

3-503, 3-537, 3-540, 3-543, 3-544, 3-688, 

3-689, 3-690, 3-691, 3-692, 3-693, 3-694

Young-Growth Forest, 3-192

young-growth harvest, 1-14, 1-18, 2-3, 2-6, 

2-7, 2-11, 2-18, 2-21, 2-24, 2-27, 2-30, 2-

33, 2-40, 2-42, 2-44, 3-21, 3-34, 3-38, 3-

41, 3-45, 3-46, 3-58, 3-68, 3-74, 3-80, 3-

97, 3-124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-132, 3-157, 3-

158, 3-160, 3-161, 3-163, 3-164, 3-166, 

3-167, 3-168, 3-169, 3-183, 3-193, 3-201, 

3-204, 3-205, 3-206, 3-208, 3-212, 3-213, 

3-214, 3-215, 3-216, 3-217, 3-240, 3-242, 

3-252, 3-253, 3-254, 3-255, 3-256, 3-258, 

3-259, 3-260, 3-261, 3-263, 3-267, 3-268, 

3-270, 3-271, 3-272, 3-273, 3-276, 3-277, 

3-279, 3-280, 3-281, 3-283, 3-286, 3-287, 
8 Index

Index 8-8 Final EIS

3-289, 3-290, 3-292, 3-293, 3-294, 3-295, 

3-296, 3-345, 3-374, 3-375, 3-377, 3-378, 

3-379, 3-390, 3-391, 3-395, 3-396, 3-397, 

3-398, 3-405, 3-406, 3-407, 3-408, 3-409, 

3-410, 3-411, 3-412, 3-413, 3-414, 3-427, 

3-428, 3-445, 3-446, 3-507, 3-508, 3-509, 

3-512, 3-516