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