United States Department of Agriculture

Prince of Wales Landscape Level 

Analysis Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service

Alaska Region

Tongass National Forest

Thorne Bay Ranger District and

Craig Ranger District R10-MB-833e October 2018
Cover Photo: Prince of Wales Island alpine meadow. Credit: Molly Simonson

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

ADCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, 

Community, and Economic Development

ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation

ADF&G Alaska Department of Fish and Game

ADLWD Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce 

Development

ADNR Alaska Department of Natural Resources

AMHTA Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

ANILCA Alaska National Interest Land Conservation 

Act

APDES Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System

APE Area of potential effects

ARD Acid rock drainage

ATM Access travel management

BMP Best management practice

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMAI culmination of mean annual increment

DBH Diameter at Breast Height

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DHC Deer habitat capability

EDRR Early detection rapid response

EFH Essential fish habitat

EIS Environmental impact statement

EMS Experimental model system

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESI Existing scenic integrity

FACTS Forest Service Activity Tracking System

FASTR Financial Analysis Spreadsheet Tool –

Residual Value

FCRPA Federal Cave Resources Protection Act

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

FMP Fisheries management plan

FPS Forest Planning and Projection System

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

GHG Greenhouse gases

GIS Geographic information system

GMU Game Management Unit

HPOG High-volume productive old growth

HQ Hazard quotient

HUC Hydrologic unit code

IDT Interdisciplinary team

IRA Inventoried roadless area

IRT Interagency review team

LSTA Logging systems and transportation analysis

LTF Log transfer facility

LUD Land Use Designation

LWD Large woody debris

MAF Marine access facility

MBF Thousand board feet

MCS Multiple chemical sensitivity

MIS Management indicator species

ML Maintenance level

MMBF Million board feet

MOU Memorandum of understanding

MRA Minimum requirements analysis

MVP Minimum viable population

MVUM Motor vehicle use map

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NOA Notice of Availability

NOI Notice of Intent

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OBML Objective Maintenance Level

OGR Old growth reserve

OHV Off-highway vehicle

OPML Operational Maintenance Level

PCT Precommercial thinning

PDF Project design feature

POG Productive old growth

POW Prince of Wales

POW LAT Prince of Wales Landscape Assessment 

Team

POW LLA Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis

RAW Reasonable assurance of windfirmness

RMA Riparian management area

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreation opportunity setting

SD67 Size-density class 6/7

SDM Size-density model

SERA Syracuse Environmental Research Associates

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SIO Scenic integrity objective

SOPA Schedule of proposed actions

STS Single-tree selection

TAA Timber analysis area

TES Threatened, endangered, sensitive (species)

TSZ Transient snow zone

TTRA Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990)

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of Interior

USGS United States Geological Survey

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VCU Value comparison unit

WAA Wildlife analysis area

This page is intentionally left blank.
PRINCE OF WALES LANDSCAPE LEVEL ANALYSIS PROJECT

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Prince of Wales Island, Alaska

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Tongass National Forest

Responsible Official: M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

Tongass National Forest

Federal Building

648 Mission Street

Ketchikan, AK 99901

For Information Contact: Delilah Brigham, Project Leader

P.O. Box 19001

Thorne Bay, AK 99919

(907) 828-3232

Abstract:

In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Prince of Wales Landscape Level 

Analysis (POW LLA) Project is a large landscape-scale analysis that will result in the decision whether or 

not to authorize integrated resource management activities on the Prince of Wales Island over the next 15 

years. The Tongass National Forest is proposing the POW LLA Project as a way to meet the following 

resource objectives: improve forest ecosystem health, support community resiliency, and support 

economic development on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. These objectives will be 

accomplished through a variety of site-specific activities and management strategies within the following 

four broad categories: Vegetation Management, Watershed Improvement and Restoration, Sustainable 

Recreation Management, and Associated Actions.

The analysis in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) allows for an adaptive process that is based on

the following: defined design criteria or conditions described in the alternatives; resource-specific

mitigation or other requirements in the Activity Cards (Appendix A); and an Implementation Plan 

(Appendix B) that outlines the process under which activities will be implemented in order to ensure all 

effects are within the scope of the analysis in the EIS. This approach provides flexibility to use sitespecific conditions on the ground to determine specific treatments or activities during implementation. 

Alternatives are used in conjunction with the Activity Cards and Implementation Plan in order to identify 

and analyze possible activities that could be implemented in the project area. Selecting the most effective 

options for moving towards the desired conditions is dependent on the potential variability in activities 

and their responses to resource conditions.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes in detail the No Action (Alternative 1)

alternative, the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) alternative, and the two other action alternatives 

(Alternative 3 and Alternative 5). The alternatives are designed to achieve, to a degree, the Purpose and 

Need for action, while simultaneously addressing the issues raised by the public. This FEIS discusses the 

effects of implementing each alternative and offers a comparison in terms of meeting management 

objectives and estimated impacts to resources.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Summary ▪ i

Summary

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential 

impacts of a variety of activities on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts on Prince of Wales

(POW) and surrounding islands, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Final Environmental Impact Statement

(FEIS) discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the 

proposed action and alternatives.

Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. All numbers in this 

document calculated from the GIS should be considered as approximate. Map products in this 

document are also reproduced from the GIS and subsequently prepared for the use of visual 

representation by the Forest Service.

1 – What action is proposed?

The Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis (POW LLA) Project is a large scale, condition-based 

analysis to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that will produce one 

decision to authorize integrated resource management actions on Prince of Wales Island. Conditionbased analysis means that while the range of treatments or activities authorized will be described and 

analyzed in this environmental impact statement (EIS), the specific locations and methods will be 

determined during implementation based on defined conditions in the alternative selected in the 

Decision and Activity Cards (Appendix A). The practice, sometimes referred to as the “toolbox” 

approach, uses the activity cards to identify and analyze a suite of possible activities that could be 

implemented in the project area. Although condition-based analysis has the flexibility to be adaptive, 

it differs from adaptive management. With this approach, treatments can vary in magnitude and 

intensity to respond to resource conditions, allowing managers to select the most effective options for 

moving towards desired conditions.

The Tongass National Forest is proposing a variety of activities – based on public input received 

during project scoping and other collaborative efforts – to implement in an integrated manner over the 

next 15 years. The proposed activities fall within the following four broad categories: Vegetation 

Management, Watershed Improvement and Restoration, Sustainable Recreation Management, and 

Associated Actions.

Vegetation management activities include the following: old-growth commercial harvest, younggrowth commercial harvest, young-growth precommercial thinning treatments, timber stand 

establishment by planting tree seedlings, and wildlife habitat improvement treatments.

Watershed improvement and restoration activities include: fish habitat restoration; fish habitat 

improvements; aquatic organism passage and fish habitat connectivity by replacing or removing 

culverts; karst systems improvement by reestablishing original drainage patterns; and invasive plant 

management through manual or mechanical treatments.

Sustainable recreation management activities include the maintenance of all existing recreation 

facilities, as well as improvements to some existing facilities and the construction of new facilities. 

Proposals received through public comment included cabins and three-sided shelters; a variety of 

trails; campsites and campgrounds; access and enhancements for kayaking, canoeing, and boating; 

creating interpretive sites; creating winter recreation opportunities; creating day use sites; and further 
Summary

ii ▪ Summary Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

development of existing recreation areas. Outhouse facilities may be necessary to accompany certain 

proposed recreation sites.

Associated Actions were divided into the following two categories: infrastructure actions and noninfrastructure actions. Examples of infrastructure actions include road construction, road 

maintenance, and the development of rock pits. Examples of non-infrastructure actions include site 

preparation, hazard tree removal, and brushing.

The range of treatments or activities to be authorized are described and analyzed in this FEIS based 

on defined conditions in the alternatives along with the Activity Cards in Appendix A and the 

Implementation Plan in Appendix B. Specific activities are described in detail on the Activity Cards, 

and the manner in which they would be implemented is detailed in the Implementation Plan.

2 – Why is the project being proposed?

The POW LLA Project is proposed to respond to goals and objectives of the Tongass Land and 

Resource Management Plan (“Forest Plan”; USDA Forest Service 2016a), while moving the project 

area toward the desired conditions described in that Plan, and to meet the needs of Southeast Alaska 

communities. The Forest Plan includes both forest-wide goals and objectives and area-specific goals, 

objectives, and desired conditions. The POW LLA Project would respond to a number of Forest-wide 

Multiple-use Goals and Objectives as detailed in Chapter 1 of this FEIS.

This action is needed to contribute to the economic viability of Prince of Wales area communities by 

providing a stable level of forest products to help maintain the expertise and infrastructure of the 

timber industry. Management of young-growth forests is needed to produce future desired resource 

values, products, services, and forest health conditions that sustain the diversity and productivity of 

forested ecosystems. Restoration activities are needed in some watersheds to reestablish selfsustaining habitats that promote viable fish, wildlife, and plant populations which contribute to 

subsistence, traditional, and cultural uses by POW residents. Maintenance and expansion of recreation

opportunities on POW and surrounding islands is needed for growth in the recreation and tourism

business sector.

The purpose of and need for project action (40 CFR 1502.13) is further explained in Chapter 1 of this 

document.

3 – Alternatives: What other action would meet the same need?

The proposed action (Alternative 2), the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1), and two additional 

action alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) were developed in response to key issues, providing a 

reasonable range of alternatives, and are analyzed in detail in this FEIS. Alternative 4, as noted below, 

was not carried forward for detailed consideration in the DEIS or FEIS.

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

the POW LLA Project, to varying degrees. All action alternatives, including the proposed action, are 

consistent with the Forest Plan. All applicable Forest Plan direction has been incorporated into the 

design of the project alternatives. While all alternatives meet Forest Plan direction for all resources, 

some alternatives have been designed to provide a greater measure of protection than is required by 

the Forest Plan for some resources. Additional direction comes from applicable laws and Forest 

Service Manuals and Handbooks. The categories and the types of activities considered for each 

alternative are described in more detail in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail, as well as in 

the project Activity Cards, Appendix A.
Summary

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Summary ▪ iii

Alternative 1 is the No-Action Alternative in this FEIS. Under this alternative, none of the proposed 

activities would take place in this project. A no-action alternative is required by CEQ Regulations (40 

CFR Section 1502.14(d)) to provide a baseline to measure and compare impacts of the various action 

alternatives, and represents the existing condition in the project area. This alternative would not meet 

the purpose and need for the project.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action Alternative) is the project’s proposed action, designed to meet the 

purpose and need as stated for the project. It incorporates input from a broad collaborative effort, 

including comments received in response to the Notice of Intent to publish an EIS and during public 

meetings. The Forest Service received suggestions for a wide array of site-specific activities and 

management strategies including old- and young-growth timber harvest; precommercial thinning and 

wildlife habitat improvement; watershed improvement and restoration; recreation facilities 

maintenance, improvement, and development; and other infrastructure and non-infrastructure 

activities. A majority of the suggestions from the Prince of Wales Landscape Assessment Team (a 

local collaborative group) were included in this alternative. Manual and mechanical treatments are 

proposed for invasive plant management. Alternative 2 does not include recommendations in the 

Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program: Recommendations for Game Management Unit 2

(Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program) per se but there is overlap between 

recommendations in the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program with recommendations in 

the Forest Plan, such as thinning younger-aged young-growth stands. Alternative 2 also includes 

measures to minimize effects to or improve wildlife habitat on National Forest System (NFS) lands 

adjacent to communities to benefit subsistence users.

Alternative 3 addresses public concerns from past timber harvest and road construction and its 

effects to wildlife habitat, watershed function, and subsistence opportunities, while supporting local 

small mills and providing a limited time for larger mills to increase their utilization of young growth

or locate another source of old growth to supplement their timber supply. It incorporates measures 

beyond those required in the Forest Plan, including less old-growth harvest and other measures to

limit the effects of timber harvest, and emphasizes improvements in wildlife habitat on National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. At the north end of POW Island, in an area bounded by the National 

Forest System road 2000000 to the south, saltwater to the north, the communities of Point Baker and 

Port Protection to the west, and western shoreline of Red Bay to the east (“North of the 20 Road”), 

old-growth stands would only be harvested as part of sales of generally less than 3 million board feet 

(MMBF) in this alternative. Alternative 3 also includes herbicide treatments for invasive plant 

populations to address comments on the spread of and eradicating infestations. Alternative 3 also 

addresses concerns about the amount of stream restoration and recreation site activities in the 

proposed action by limiting the amount of these proposed activities. This alternative also implements

some of the recommendations from Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program, including a 

variety of young-growth treatments and other recommendations that may benefit both deer habitat

and wolves.

Alternative 4 is described in Chapter 2 in the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study section. It was not carried forward for detailed consideration in the DEIS or FEIS.

Alternative 5 was developed in response to public comments on the December 2017 Draft Issues and 

Alternatives. This alternative limits old-growth harvest to an average of 5 MMBF per year throughout 

the life of the project, and excludes old-growth harvest “North of the 20 Road” on the northwest end 

of the island. Alternative 5 incorporates mitigation measures beyond what is required in the Forest 

Plan, including reduced old-growth harvest and other measures to limit the effects of timber harvest, 

and minimizes or improves wildlife habitat on National Forest System lands. Fish habitat 

improvement activities considered in this alternative include lake fertilization and barrier 

modifications. Manual and mechanical treatments are proposed for invasive plant management. This 
Summary

iv ▪ Summary Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

alternative fully implements the recommendations from Interagency Wolf Habitat Management

Program, which includes recommendations for both deer habitat and wolves.

All alternatives are described in more detail in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail except for 

Alternative 4, which is described in Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.

4 – What would it mean to not meet the need for the project 

action?

Not meeting the purpose and need is represented by Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative. Under 

Alternative 1, natural disturbances and current management of the project area would continue. 

Ongoing activities such as recreation, firewood gathering, road and trail maintenance, and other 

routine forest management activities not associated with this decision would continue at current 

levels, as authorized under previous decisions.

If the need for a continuous supply of timber for forest products is not met, then local mills would 

need to obtain this timber supply elsewhere on the Tongass or from other non-NFS lands. Local mills 

that could not obtain their timber supply outside of the project area would close and the local 

community economies may be impacted. The expertise and skills of these operators would be lost and 

may delay the development of a young-growth industry.

Harvest from microsales (sales of approximately 50 MBF or less of dead or down timber) may 

continue to occur within the project area. However, harvest would contribute a minimal amount of 

wood fiber to the local economies.

Stream segments characterized as “functional at risk” generally have physical processes that are 

working but an existing water, vegetation, or soil attribute makes them susceptible to degradation.

Nonfunctional areas without adequate vegetation, landform, or large wood to dissipate stream energy 

associated with high flows and thus not reducing erosion, improving water quality, and so forth, likely 

affecting biological values, would not be restored. Those that were identified as important to local 

communities would not be improved. This would affect fish habitat and may impact subsistence

needs of the local communities.

A sustainable recreation program may be delayed, and maintenance would be focused on health and 

safety items. Local residents and visitors would be able to continue using the existing recreation sites, 

but no new sites would be developed. Local tourism may still increase, but Forest Service 

contribution to this growth or additional amenities could be constrained.

While these activities could continue to be proposed and analyzed as separate projects, they could be 

subject to longer timelines, availability of funds and personnel, and greater expense than the 

integrated approach that the POW LLA Project proposes.

5 – What are the effects of the proposed action, and alternative 

actions, in comparative format?

The Forest Service identified five potentially significant issues from public comments received during 

scoping, following publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to publish an EIS, the Corrected NOI, 

and during public meetings. See Issues Significant to the Proposed Action in Chapter 1. The POW 

LLA Project interdisciplinary team (IDT) developed the alternatives to the proposed action to address 

these issues. Chapter 2, Alternatives, presents the alternatives, describing how they respond to the 

issues, and compares their management details in Table 5, Comparison of Alternatives. Chapter 3, 

Environment and Effects, examines the existing condition and compares the potential effects of the 
Summary

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Summary ▪ v

alternatives to project area resources and the environment. These issues are alphabetized and not in 

priority order. The following summarizes these effects:

Issue 1, Invasive Plant Management: Invasive plants displace native plant communities and may 

cause long-lasting economic and ecological problems within and outside the National Forest. 

Treatment methods include manual, mechanical, and, for Alternative 3, herbicide application, with 

advantages and risks associated with each method.

The No Action (Alternative 1) and Alternatives 2 and 5 would continue small-scale manual and 

mechanical treatments for new and existing weed infestations. Cumulative effects would include 

small-scale chemical weed treatments for new and existing weed infestations on Forest Service 

administrative sites, recreation sites, and facilities (36 CFR 220.6 (d) (3) and (6)). Alternative 3 

proposes manual, mechanical, and herbicide weed treatments for any existing and new weed 

infestations on NFS and also analyzes the effects of these treatment on non-NFS lands for potential 

partnerships with non-federal entities.

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 would have a higher total cost (approximately three times) over a 15-year 

period compared to Alternative 3. Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 would have an average cost per restored 

acre of $1,148 while for Alternative 3 the average cost would be $86. Total acres restored over a 15-

year period would be 143 acres for Alternative 1, 2, and 5 and 1,200 acres for Alternative 3.

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 would have no risk to human health from exposure to herbicides. Alternative 

3 would have negligible to low risk to human health (see Table 6 in Chapter 3). Proposed herbicides 

do not bio-accumulate in people and are rapidly eliminated from the body. The Syracuse 

Environmental Research Associates, Incorporated (SERA, Inc.) risk assessments (SERA 2007, 2011a 

and 2011b (Durkin 2007 and 2011)) used for this analysis conservatively evaluated chronic exposure 

scenarios that would involve the public, including repeated drinking of contaminated water, repeated 

consumption of contaminated berries, and repeated consumption of contaminated fish (Krosse 

2018b).

All alternatives would have no to negligible effects on other resources, including soil, wildlife, 

aquatic resources, and non-target vegetation at a treatment site. Effects to Threatened and Endangered 

(T&E) Species, Alaska Region Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species (MIS) and 

migratory birds are covered in the Herbicide Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation included in 

the project record.

None of the alternatives are anticipated to result in measurable effects to any subsistence resource due 

to proposed weed management activities; therefore, no changes to abundance and distribution of any 

subsistence resource are expected.

Issue 2, Subsistence: Proposed actions, particularly timber harvest and road construction, combined 

with past and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest could affect subsistence resources and 

lifestyle.

The direct and indirect effects may result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction for 

subsistence uses of deer in some of the project area wildlife analysis areas (WAA). Deer are 

considered the “indicator” for potential subsistence resource consequences concerning the abundance 

and distribution of the resources, given their association with old-growth forest habitat and that they 

are the largest terrestrial component of subsistence food resources (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-

426).

The direct and indirect effects from all alternatives associated with the project, while they may have 

an effect on a resource, do not present a significant possibility of a significant restriction of 
Summary

vi ▪ Summary Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

subsistence uses of fish and marine invertebrates, food plants, personal use timber, upland game birds 

and waterfowl, furbearers, or marine mammals.

The potential cumulative effects of implementing this project, which includes the project No Action 

and action alternatives, do not present a significant possibility of a significant restriction to 

subsistence uses fish and marine invertebrates, food plants, personal use timber, upland game birds 

and waterfowl, furbearers, or marine mammals; however, a significant possibility of a significant 

restriction may exist for subsistence use of deer (USDA Forest Service 2016b, p. 43).

Issue 3, Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics: The proposed quantity and quality of oldgrowth and young-growth timber volume offered by the Forest Service and the logging costs 

associated with the logging systems and management objectives affect local operators’ abilities to 

contribute to the local economy. Flexibility in the development of timber offers over the life of the 

project would provide for optimizing volume and net return on timber harvest, and the ability to offer 

economical timber sales across fluctuating market conditions. Operators need economical timber to 

stay in business and loss of those operators would have an adverse impact on local economies.

Alternative 2 would offer the most timber volume available and the most old-growth volume,

followed by Alternatives 3 and 5, respectively. Alternative 2 would also offer the most flexibility for 

the Forest Service in the development of timber offers to provide variety in the range of timber 

products made available, followed by Alternatives 3 and 5, respectively. Alternative 2 offers the best 

opportunity for the Forest Service to tailor the products made available and design the size of 

potential timber offers that could help meet industry demands, market conditions, and local needs 

identified through public involvement. The increased old-growth volume associated with Alternative 

2 would also support the most local manufacturing, milling job opportunities, and direct income when 

compared to Alternative 3 and Alternative 5. Alternative 5 provides the least old-growth volume 

which may cause some local mills to close if they cannot get their supply from non-NFS lands, which 

in turn may cause adverse effects to some communities.

More old-growth volume would allow current local manufacturing, milling, and logging operations 

the most time and revenue to move their operations towards young-growth processing and 

manufacturing. Alternatives 3 and 5 offer more young-growth volume than Alternative 2. Alternative 

2 would also give industry the most time under current practices to develop infrastructure and markets 

for the project area’s extensive young growth. More young growth under Alternative 2 is analyzed to 

potentially be harvested later in the project, allowing young-growth stands additional time to grow 

and add volume as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5.

Assuming the full design criteria volume of each action alternative is harvested, the alternatives with 

more volume would have the greatest potential to support timber industry employment and income in 

local economies. Local manufacturing jobs are most dependent on the old-growth volume offered 

since little local manufacturing of young-growth is currently occurring in Southeast Alaska; thus,

Alternative 2 with the most old-growth volume could be the most beneficial for local manufacturing. 

Total estimated timber industry employment supported by old-growth harvest ranges from 339 to 405 

total jobs under Alternative 5 (comparing the current limited export policy versus 100 percent 

domestic processing of Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western redcedar) to 1,061 to 1,269 total 

jobs under Alternative 2. Total estimated employment supported from young-growth harvest ranges 

from 2,005 total jobs for Alternatives 3 and 5 to 1,596 for Alternative 2. It is assumed that no local 

manufacturing jobs would be supported by the young-growth harvest since little local manufacturing 

of young-growth currently occurs. Export does support a variety of other jobs such as stevedoring,

increasing the diversity of the workforce.
Summary

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Summary ▪ vii

Under Alternative 1 (No Action), no timber would be offered through this project. This may affect the 

amount of timber available for purchasers involved in timber industry within the project area and 

other parts of Southeast Alaska. These effects in turn may indirectly affect those communities where 

residents rely on timber. If their livelihood decreases, this may result in less expenditures on

community goods and resources. Potential purchasers would have to rely on timber from other 

landowners or from other Forest Service projects.

Issue 4, Watershed Function: Proposed logging and road building activities in watersheds that have 

been impacted by past management may have adverse effects to water quality and fish habitat, and 

could reverse progress made by previous restoration efforts.

Detectable increases to peak streamflow rates were estimated based on the work of Grant et al.

(2008). Peak flow rates may be affected by past and proposed road building and timber harvest. 

Analysis was based on timber harvest that occurred within the past 30 years, existing roads, and any 

possible road construction and timber harvest identified in the project Logging System and 

Transportation Analysis (LSTA).

Alternative 2 could result in peak flow rate increases in 36 of the 136 project area watersheds.

Increased peak flow rates could result in adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms; adverse effects could include channel and stream bank erosion, sediment transport, and 

the scouring of salmon redds. Of the 36 watersheds that could see channel altering peak flow rates, 

four contain previous restoration or watershed improvements and an additional four have recognized 

drinking water systems. Alternative 2 presents the greatest risk of adverse effects compared to other 

alternatives. During the implementation process, careful consideration of watershed-specific activities 

and characteristics will ensure that Forest Plan components and direction for fish habitat and water 

quality will be met. Alternatives 3 and 5 both require timing timber harvest to lessen the possibility of

peak flow rate increases in all project area watersheds. Alternative 1 would not have peak flow rate

changes as a result of POW LLA Project activities.

Issue 5, Wildlife Habitat: Concern was expressed that proposed activities, particularly old-growth 

timber harvest and road construction, combined with past and reasonably foreseeable future timber 

harvest would affect the amount of remaining productive old-growth (POG) wildlife habitat, and 

connectivity.

Connectivity between large and medium old growth reserves (OGRs) was reviewed by an Interagency 

Old Growth Reserve Panel as required by the Forest Plan. These discussions by the panel are located 

within the project record. The panel’s discussion outlined connectivity between OGRs that could be 

addressed or fixed, or acknowledged that a situation existed but could not be rectified given the 

situation on the landscape, usually land in other ownership. Effects to connectivity between large and 

medium OGRs are the same for all action alternatives, and those that are required to be addressed will 

be implemented.

Wildlife travel corridors, or travelways, should be designated and designed as needed on a stand-bystand basis by an interdisciplinary team. Wildlife travel corridors are areas that could be left 

untreated. Within non-development LUDs, such as OGRs, or in areas functioning as wildlife 

travelways, the wildlife biologist may recommend or require that untreated areas be up to 660 feet 

wide. Within development LUDs, the travelways should be at least 100 feet wide. The wildlife 

biologist may require slash treatments and/or trees felled away from and not into the corridor.

The effects of the proposed activities are based on the effects to habitat and some species associated 

with these habitats such as black bears, Alexander Archipelago wolves, Queen Charlotte goshawk, the 

endemic Prince of Wales flying squirrel and grouse. The habitat types analyzed here include POG, 
Summary

viii ▪ Summary Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

high-volume POG (HPOG) and large tree POG (SD67). POG is as being capable of producing at least 

20 cubic feet of wood fiber per acre per year, or having greater than 8,000 board feet per acre. POG 

and HPOG are important for wildlife species because they provide the light needed for forage plants, 

tree size and spacing, and denning and nesting habitat. HPOG and SD67 also provide specific habitat 

requires for some wildlife species because the larger trees are more mature and have more decay 

associated with them. It also includes analysis on specific locations on the landscape such as average 

snow habitat (POG below 1,500 feet in elevation) and deep snow habitat (HPOG on south-facing 

stands below 800 feet in elevation). For analysis purposes, the entire LSTA are assumed to be 

harvested and harvest method is assumed to be clearcut or even-aged harvest.

All action alternatives would result in a similar reduction in habitats at the project area scale on NFS

lands, because for analysis purposes, it was assumed that all proposed acres by alternative would be 

harvested. The analysis at the WAA scale assumes all LSTA stands are harvested using even-aged

management prescriptions.

POG: five WAAs (16 percent of project area WAAs) drop to less than 50 percent due to the activities 

proposed in the POW LLA. Two WAAs (6 percent of project area WAAs) drop to 30 percent or less.

The rest of the WAAs in the project area are expected to retain more than 50 percent POG habitat.

Non-winter: one WAA drops (3 percent of project area WAAs) drops to less than 50 percent due to the 

activities proposed in the POW LLA, the rest of the WAAs in the project area are expected to retain 

more than 50 percent non-winter habitat.

Average snow habitat: Overall there are seven WAAs that are estimated to retain less than 50 percent 

habitat or 22 percent of the total WAAs in the project area; two of these seven WAAs are expected to 

drop to less than 30 percent average winter habitat remaining, or about 6 percent of the total WAAs in 

the project area. The rest of the WAAs in the project area are expected to retain more than 50 percent 

average snow habitat.

HPOG: 17 WAAs or 53 percent of the WAAs in the project area are expected to retain at least 70 

percent HPOG habitat. Post activities nine WAAs are projected to retain 50 percent or less of the 

estimated original HPOG habitat; this is about 28 percent of the total WAAs in the project area. About 

34 percent of the project area WAAs retain between 30 and 50 percent HPOG habitat. As a result of 

the proposed activities one WAA is estimated to have between 20 and 30 percent of the original 

HPOG habitat remaining; about 3 percent of the WAAs in the project area. WAAs with less than 15 

percent HPOG habitat remaining include two WAAs or about 6 percent of the WAAs in the project 

area.

Deep snow habitat: three WAAs (10 percent of project area WAAs) would retain between 50 and 70 

percent of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat; five WAAs (16 percent of project area WAAs) with 

between 30 and 50 percent; and three WAAs (10 percent of project area WAAs) with less than 30

percent of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat. The rest of the WAAs in the project area are 

expected to retain more than 70 percent deep snow habitat.

WAAs with less than literature-recommended habitat thresholds would be at greater risk for not being 

able to support species that depend on that habitat, relative to WAAs with more habitat remaining.

Past practices indicate that implementing uneven-aged prescriptions in old-growth stands on the 

Tongass maintains old-growth structure and habitat in the stands post-harvest. Trees retained in 

implementing uneven-aged management prescriptions maintain approximately the same ratio of 

species of the original stand composition (see response to comment “Silviculture: Uneven-aged 

management” in Appendix D).
Summary

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Summary ▪ ix

All alternatives would likely have a reduction in the current habitats’ ability to support deer at both 

the project area and biogeographic province scale. This is based on the reductions to productive old 

growth and/or from the increase of young-growth acres to the stem exclusion stage as recently 

harvested stands grow and the canopy closes. All action alternatives would result in young-growth 

stands that are currently in the stem exclusion stage and providing limited habitat for deer either being 

moved back into the stand initiation stage and thereby providing more forage (reduced quality) for 

deer at least in the summer and mild winters, or stands being treated so the develop more old-growth 

like characteristics sooner than if left untreated.

The proposed activities could result in an indirect effect to wolves through the effects to deer habitat 

as well as increased access to wolves for hunters and trappers due to increased road densities. 

Alternatives 3 and 5 focus on minimizing effects to or maintaining the deep snow deer winter habitat, 

POG below 800 feet in south-facing stands, which should help to mitigate the effects to wolves.

Alternative 3 allows for old-growth harvest in these areas by STS selection only, and Alternative 5 

allows no old-growth harvest in these areas. Alternative 2 includes harvest by uneven-aged

prescription only within 5 miles of communities.

6 – What factors will be used when making the decision among 

alternatives?

Factors that will influence the decision among alternatives include how the activities integrate to meet 

multiple resource objectives that will improve forest ecosystem health, support community resiliency, 

and support economic development on Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. Additional factors 

include how they address issues related to:

• invasive plant management effectiveness,

• risk of exposure to herbicides,

• subsistence resources and lifestyle,

• the local timber industry and contributions to local economies,

• water quality and fish habitat especially in watersheds that have been impacted by past logging,

and

• wildlife habitat.

In addition, the decision will be influenced by submitted public comments and how the alternatives 

respond to the Forest Plan’s multiple-use direction and how they move the project area toward desired 

conditions in the Plan.

7 – Are there ways to mitigate adverse effects?

All action alternatives are consistent with Forest Plan direction, LUDs, and Best Management 

Practices (BMP) designed for the protection and management of forest resources, as well as other 

relevant federal and state laws and regulations, and Forest Service Manual and Handbook direction. 

Possible adverse impacts may occur from implementing the actions proposed under each alternative. 

Measures have been formulated to mitigate or reduce these impacts, guided by direction in the Forest 

Plan. Activity Cards prepared for the project (Appendix A) describe concerns related to resources for 

each considered activity, and how these concerns would be mitigated or avoided in the design of each 

activity, as well as BMPs and resource-specific guidelines.
Summary

x ▪ Summary Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Resource concerns and mitigation measures may be refined further by specialists during final project 

design when specific activity locations and details are identified, and documented on Implementation 

Plan resource checklists, unit cards, road cards, or other activity cards, as applicable (Appendix B).

8 – What monitoring is necessary?

Tongass National Forest staff annually conducts a review of water quality BMPs implementation and 

effectiveness using a national protocol. The results of this and other monitoring are summarized in a 

Tongass National Forest Biennial Monitoring and Evaluation Report. This report provides a summary 

of relevant changes and measures progress toward meeting Forest Plan desired conditions and 

objectives, which allows the Responsible Official to determine if a change in Forest Plan direction or 

content may be needed or if changes using adaptive management should be considered.

Alternative 5 also includes incorporating the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program 

treatments for deer habitat and wolf habitat protections. This plan includes monitoring and research 

needs that may be conducted when funding becomes available.

Resource specialists, such as but not limited to fisheries biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists, 

foresters and engineers, would provide technical advice during project implementation. Monitoring 

requirements are identified by resource on the Activity Cards for this project, in Appendix A, such as, 

but not limited to:

• Heron, marbled murrelet, and raptor nests will monitored for activity and buffers will be applied 

according to Forest Plan direction.

• All management activities will be monitored during and after implementation for potential spread 

or establishment of invasive species in aquatic and terrestrial areas within the project area.

• Monitoring thinning and slash activities to ensure that thinned material would be bucked small 

enough to allow the largest wood pieces to touch the ground to aid in faster wood fungi 

colonialization and decomposition rates. This recommendation is multi-purpose for enhancing the 

creation of wildlife travel ways and conditions that allow more light to penetrate to the forest 

floor that encourages vascular plant growth.

• Monitor good cone crop years and schedule cone collection for seed procurement when 

necessary.

• Monitor Log Transfer Facilities according to Log Transfer Facility Guidelines, Appendix G, of 

the Forest Plan.

• Monitor road density and acres of timber harvest for each watershed to avoid adversely affecting 

water quality.

• For lake fertilization and egg/fry stocking activities, regular long-term monitoring is required to 

identify and address any water quality concerns, as well as status of algae and zooplankton 

communities.
Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Table of Contents ▪ i

Table of Contents

Summary .................................................................................................................................................i

Introduction .....................................................................................................................................i

1 – What action is proposed?...........................................................................................................i

2 – Why is the project being proposed? .........................................................................................ii

3 – Alternatives: What other action would meet the same need?...................................................ii

4 – What would it mean to not meet the need for the project action? ...........................................iv

5 – What are the effects of the proposed action, and alternative actions, in comparative format?iv

6 – What factors will be used when making the decision among alternatives?.............................ix

7 – Are there ways to mitigate adverse effects? ............................................................................ix

8 – What monitoring is necessary?.................................................................................................x

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................i

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

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

Project Area....................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Need for Action .........................................................................................................4

Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................6

Decisions to be Made .....................................................................................................................7

Relationship to the Forest Plan.......................................................................................................7

Public, Agency, and Tribal Involvement......................................................................................10

Issues Significant to the Proposed Action ....................................................................................13

Federal and State Permits and Authorizations..............................................................................16

Availability of the Project Record................................................................................................17

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action......................................................................19

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................19

Changes between Draft and Final EIS..........................................................................................19

Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................................................21

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .....................................................34

Comparison of Alternatives by Issue............................................................................................37

Comparison of Action Alternatives by Activity...........................................................................43

Chapter 3. Environment and Effects ....................................................................................................55

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

Analyzing Effects.........................................................................................................................56

Resources Not Discussed in Detail...............................................................................................62

Environment and Effects by Significant Issue .................................................................................68

Issue 1: Invasive Plant Management................................................................................................69

Affected Environment ..................................................................................................................71

Environmental Effects..................................................................................................................72

Issue 2: Subsistence .........................................................................................................................82

Affected Environment for Subsistence Species other than Aquatic Resources and Deer............83

Environmental Effects..................................................................................................................84

Affected Environment for Aquatic Subsistence Resources (salmon, other fin fish, seaweed, and 

marine invertebrates)....................................................................................................................87

Environmental Effects..................................................................................................................87

Affected Environment for Sitka Black-tailed Deer......................................................................91

Environmental Effects..................................................................................................................93

Subsistence Findings..................................................................................................................100

Issue 3: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics....................................................................102

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................107

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................109
Table of Contents

ii ▪ Table of Contents Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Issue 4: Watershed Function.......................................................................................................... 126

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 131

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 140

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment............................................................................................. 166

Issue 5: Wildlife Habitat................................................................................................................ 170

Old Growth Reserves and Connectivity..................................................................................... 174

Wildlife Habitat ......................................................................................................................... 175

Young Growth ........................................................................................................................... 218

Alexander Archipelago Wolf..................................................................................................... 223

Migratory Birds.......................................................................................................................... 236

Environment and Effects for Other Resources.............................................................................. 238

Botany............................................................................................................................................ 238

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 238

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 240

Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................... 243

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 245

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 246

Invasive Plants............................................................................................................................... 248

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 248

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 250

Karst and Cave Resources............................................................................................................. 253

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 255

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 257

Recreation...................................................................................................................................... 263

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 263

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 271

Wilderness..................................................................................................................................... 279

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 279

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 280

Scenery .......................................................................................................................................... 286

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 286

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 287

Socioeconomics............................................................................................................................. 290

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 292

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 305

Soils............................................................................................................................................... 316

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 317

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 320

Transportation................................................................................................................................ 328

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 328

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 331

Forest Vegetation........................................................................................................................... 336

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 337

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 345

Wetlands........................................................................................................................................ 363

Affected Environment................................................................................................................ 363

Environmental Effects................................................................................................................ 365

Chapter 4. References and Lists......................................................................................................... 369

Preparers and Contributors......................................................................................................... 369

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement ................................................................ 374

Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... 375
Table of Contents

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Table of Contents ▪ iii

References..................................................................................................................................379

Index...........................................................................................................................................398

List of Tables

Table 1. Land use designation (LUD) acreages in the POW LLA project area .....................................8

Table 2. Potential harvest volume acres and associated miles of road construction by alternative. ....23

Table 3. Forest Service watershed restoration priorities according to WCATT scores and correlation 

to public input...............................................................................................................................26

Table 4. Effects Comparison of Alternatives by Issue using Units of Measure Identified for each Issue

......................................................................................................................................................37

Table 5. Comparison of Action Alternatives........................................................................................43

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by resource and/or issue measures (citations are for specific 

resource reports which provide detailed analysis of each resource or issue measure).................72

Table 7. Cost and effectiveness comparisons of treating the known weed populations by alternative 76

Table 8. Estimated percent harvest of estimated DHC by year and WAA by Federally-qualified 

subsistence users...........................................................................................................................92

Table 9. Decrease in DHC from current by WAA for Alternative 1....................................................93

Table 10. Number of years harvest in WAA was between 10 to 20 percent or exceeded 20 percent* of 

DHC from 2007 through 2016 .....................................................................................................97

Table 11. Estimated percent harvest of Deer Habitat Capability by all user groups for Cumulative 

effects ...........................................................................................................................................98

Table 12. Project Level Old-growth (OG) Acreage and Volume Estimated for each TAA for 

Alternative 2...............................................................................................................................111

Table 13. Project Level Old-growth Acreage and Volume estimated for Alternative 3 and Alternative 

5 including the reductions for the Alternative Design criteria ...................................................111

Table 14. Project Level Young-growth Acreage and Volume Available by Alternative – Alternative 2

....................................................................................................................................................112

Table 15. Project Level Young-growth Acreage and Volume Available by Alternative – Alternatives 

3 and 5 ........................................................................................................................................113

Table 16. Transportation infrastructure costs per MBF .....................................................................114

Table 17. Logging Costs per MBF for all Alternatives......................................................................115

Table 18. Timber value from current Residual Value Update Bulletin..............................................116

Table 19. Annualized Timber Industry and Associated Jobs Supported by Alternative for Old growth

....................................................................................................................................................118

Table 20. Annualized Timber Industry and Associated Jobs Supported by Alternative for Young 

Growth........................................................................................................................................119

Table 21. Watersheds with past or ongoing restoration or improvement projects.............................131

Table 22. Location and type of drinking water system (ADEC)........................................................132

Table 23. Impaired waterbodies.........................................................................................................133

Table 24. Fish species found in the freshwaters of Prince of Wales Island .......................................135

Table 25. Fish passes in the project area ............................................................................................138

Table 26. Miles of streams and acres of lakes by value class within the entire project area..............139

Table 27. Locations of potential young-growth harvest within Tongass 77 and TNC/Audubon 

conservation areas ......................................................................................................................140

Table 28. Estimated acres of proposed timber harvest by Alternative...............................................142

Table 29. Total existing and potential road miles by Alternative.......................................................142

Table 30. Total number of existing and potential fish stream crossings on roads by Alternative......143

Table 31. Miles of existing and proposed trails (including motorized) by Alternative......................143

Table 32. Total number proposed fish stream crossings on trails by Alternative ..............................143
Table of Contents

iv ▪ Table of Contents Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 33. Percent of watershed basin area in roads for the 24 watersheds where roaded area would 

exceed 2 percent with the maximum proposed project road building based on LSTA.............. 143

Table 34. The percent of watershed area that can be in timber harvest openings younger than 30 years 

before peak flow rate changes could be observed, by percentage of watershed area in roads (see 

Table 33) and precipitation zone................................................................................................ 152

Table 35. LSTA acres (all timber stands considered for cumulative effects).................................... 152

Table 36. Watersheds with potential Peak Flow Rate increases from cumulative harvest and road 

building activities....................................................................................................................... 153

Table 37. Watersheds with prior improvements or restoration that could be impacted by POW LLA 

Project activities......................................................................................................................... 160

Table 38. Overall Comparison of actual proposed Harvest by Alternative ....................................... 176

Table 39. VCUs that currently have had more than 33 percent POG harvest.................................... 189

Table 40. Estimated effects to HPOG on NFS lands by for all Alternatives by WAA*.................... 196

Table 41. Percent HPOG habitat remaining by WAA on NFS lands Current and Post project All 

Alternatives................................................................................................................................ 198

Table 42. Percent of Deep Snow habitat remaining by WAA – NFS Land All Alternatives............ 205

Table 43. Comparison of effects to deep snow habitat post project between NFS and all lands all 

alternatives................................................................................................................................. 207

Table 44. Categories of SD67 habitat remaining by WAA – NFS Land All Alternatives ................ 213

Table 45. Comparison of effects to deep snow habitat post project between NFS and all lands all 

alternatives................................................................................................................................. 215

Table 46. Percent of the 1954 habitat type remaining by WAA NFS lands only – post project ....... 217

Table 47. Overall percent of the 1954 habitat type remaining by WAA Lands in all ownerships – post 

project ........................................................................................................................................ 218

Table 48. Deer Habitat Capability by Biogeographic Province – 2016 Forest Plan.......................... 225

Table 49. Reported Legal and Estimated Illegal Wolf Take in GMU 2 WAAs* .............................. 230

Table 50. Wolf Mortality Risk 1985 to 2009 and Road densities by WAA ...................................... 231

Table 51. Ranking of WAAs by Concern as Defined in Person and Logan 2012............................. 233

Table 52. 2009 Alaska Region Sensitive Plants Known or Suspected to Occur Within the Project 

Area1 .......................................................................................................................................... 239

Table 53. Summary of the relative impacts of the alternatives and determinations for sensitive plant 

species in the project area. ......................................................................................................... 242

Table 54. Comparison of activities, site types, level of risk and recommended Weed Best 

Management Practices (WBMP). .............................................................................................. 251

Table 55. Existing Karst Resource Condition in the POW LLA project area ................................... 256

Table 56. Past Harvest and Possible Proposed harvest within select Karst Watersheds.................... 258

Table 57. Potential Acres of Harvest and Miles of Road Construction on Karst by Alternative and 

percent change from existing. .................................................................................................... 259

Table 58. ROS Acreages within the Project Area and on NFS Lands............................................... 265

Table 59. Distribution of Forest Service Recreation Sites across ROS Settings ............................... 268

Table 60. Forest Service Cabins on POW.......................................................................................... 268

Table 61. Number of suggested sites per land use designation (trails may cross multiple LUDs).... 275

Table 62. Number of suggested sites per recreation opportunity spectrum inventory. Combinations of 

ROS are indicative of trails or winter recreation areas. ............................................................. 275

Table 63. Modes of access to existing and suggested recreation sites (discrete and linear).............. 276

Table 64. Land types where existing recreation sites (discrete and linear) are located and suggested.

................................................................................................................................................... 276

Table 65. Scenic Integrity Objectives for all NFS land within the analysis area............................... 286

Table 66. Existing Scenic Integrity by percent of project area .......................................................... 287

Table 67. Comparison of ESI and SIO by percent of analysis area................................................... 287

Table 68. Comparison of ESI and SIO by percent of young growth and old growth in LSTA......... 288
Table of Contents

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Table of Contents ▪ v

Table 69. Methodology Overview: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects..........291

Table 70. Community Population Change, 1990 – 2015 ...................................................................293

Table 71. Community School Enrollments, K – 12 ...........................................................................294

Table 72. Community Economic Characteristics, 2016.....................................................................294

Table 73. Selected Industry Employment, 2016.................................................................................301

Table 74. Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002 – 2014......................................303

Table 75. Environmental Justice Indicators .......................................................................................305

Table 76. Environmental Effects Overview, Socioeconomic Comparison by Alternative ................306

Table 77. Alternative 2, Proposed Action: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects

....................................................................................................................................................309

Table 78. Alternative 3, Habitat Focused: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects311

Table 79. Alternative 5, Comment Response: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects

....................................................................................................................................................313

Table 80. Estimates of detrimental soil conditions for proposed activities that must meet soil quality 

standards (based on Landwehr 2018a). ......................................................................................320

Table 81. Suggested landslide frequency rates for harvested lands, unharvested lands, non-forested 

and low productivity areas, and roads and rock pits on the large landscape assessment areas. .322

Table 82. Road Miles by Operational Maintenance Level.................................................................329

Table 83. Road Miles by Objective Maintenance Level ....................................................................329

Table 84. Road miles by OBML and ATM designation ....................................................................330

Table 85. Miles of new road construction to access all potential LSTA acres...................................332

Table 86. Miles of estimated new construction to meet alternative design volume...........................332

Table 87. Road maintenance (ML-1 roads)........................................................................................332

Table 88. Number of potential Quarry Development Sites................................................................333

Table 89. Project area log transfer facilities: status and required work..............................................333

Table 90. Estimated road development costs under each alternative .................................................334

Table 91. Project Area Species Composition on Lands Proposed for Harvest (Percent Trees per Acre)

....................................................................................................................................................338

Table 92. All old-growth forest acres across all LUDs by volume strata and Timber Analysis Area on 

NFS lands in the POW LLA Project Area..................................................................................338

Table 93. Potential old-growth harvest acres by Timber Analysis Area and volume strata and also as a 

percent of total existing volume strata acres. .............................................................................339

Table 94. Young-growth acres with or without precommercial thinning (PCT)................................344

Table 95. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Species Composition and Regeneration...............350

Table 96. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Forest Health and Productivity ............................353

Table 97. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Stand Structure.....................................................357

Table 98. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Windthrow Risk...................................................360

Table 99. Wetland Acres and Existing Wetland Disturbances in the POW LLA Project Area .........364
Table of Contents

vi ▪ Table of Contents Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map ........................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Project area land use designations.......................................................................................... 9

Figure 3. Timber Analysis Areas....................................................................................................... 105

Figure 4. Tongass National Forest timber harvest volume and proportion of harvest exported in log 

form, 2011-2017. ....................................................................................................................... 117

Figure 5. Deep Snow Habitat............................................................................................................. 203

Figure 6. Large Tree Habitat.............................................................................................................. 211

Figure 7. Wolf Mortality and Road Density with LSTA displayed................................................... 227

Figure 8. Wolf Mortality and Roads.................................................................................................. 232

Figure 9. ROS Settings and Resources on NFS Lands...................................................................... 266
Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential 

impacts of a variety of activities on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts on Prince of Wales 

and surrounding islands, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 

other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This Final EIS (FEIS) discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that could result from the proposed action and 

alternatives.

The Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis (POW LLA) Project is a large landscape-scale NEPA 

analysis that will result in a decision whether or not to authorize integrated resource management 

activities on Prince of Wales Island over the next 15 years. This approach provides flexibility for 

achieving desired conditions at a landscape scale, while also taking the required hard look. The action 

alternatives describe the conditions being targeted for treatments and what conditions cannot be 

exceeded in an area, or place limits on the intensity of specific activities such as timber harvest. The 

range of treatments or activities considered is described and analyzed in this FEIS. The site-specific 

locations and methods will be determined during implementation based on defined conditions in the 

alternative selected in the Record of Decision (ROD) in conjunction with the Activity Cards in 

Appendix A and Implementation Plan in Appendix B, which will accompany the Record of Decision.

The Activity Cards are used to identify and analyze a suite of possible activities that could be 

implemented in the project area. With this approach, activities can vary in magnitude and intensity to 

respond to resource conditions, selecting the most effective options for moving towards desired 

conditions.

The effects analysis for each resource is contingent on adhering to the requirements within the 

Activity Cards and following the processes described in the Implementation Plan. The 

Implementation Plan was developed to ensure the site-specific resource information and public 

involvement needed to design activities is within the scope of the decision for this project. The 

Activity Cards and Implementation Plan are an integral part of this landscape-level project for 

accountability, tracking, decision-making, and documentation purposes. The Responsible Official will 

have the responsibility to ensure that activities are implemented within the bounds of the analysis and 

the decision made.

Document Organization for the FEIS and ROD

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

proposed action, decisions to be made, relationship to the Forest Plan, public involvement activities 

conducted to date, key issues identified by the IDT and through public, agency, and tribal 

involvement, and federal and state permits, licenses and certifications, and applicable laws and 

executive orders.

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This chapter describes the proposed action

and alternatives to the proposed action, explains how alternatives were developed, compares 

alternatives by issues and effects, and explains alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed 

consideration.
1 – Purpose and Need

2 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects: This chapter discloses the potential environmental direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives on various resources and the 

existing condition.

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

references, glossary, and index.

Appendix A – Activity Cards: Appendix A describes all activities considered within the project area. 

Information about each activity includes what it usually accomplishes, how it is typically 

implemented, what constraints and resource-specific guidelines apply, and when it would be 

implemented. Appendix A was published as an appendix to the DEIS, as well to this FEIS. Appendix 

A will also be released with the draft ROD as Appendix 1.

Appendix B – Implementation Plan: Appendix B outlines the process by which each activity would

be implemented to ensure that all effects were analyzed in the FEIS, it is allowed under the Selected 

Alternative in the ROD, and all resource-specific guidelines and protection measures are 

incorporated. Appendix B was published as an appendix to the DEIS, as well as to this FEIS.

Appendix B will also be released with the draft ROD as Appendix 2.

Appendix C – Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities in the POW LLA Project Area: 

Appendix C lists other activities on all ownerships that are present and reasonably foreseeable in the 

project area, which were considered during the analysis for this project. Appendix C was published as 

an appendix to the DEIS as well as to this FEIS.

Appendix D – Response to Comments: Appendix D is a new appendix to the FEIS containing the 

Forest Service’s responses to comments received on the DEIS.

Draft ROD: The draft ROD with Appendix 1 (Activity Cards), Appendix 2 (Implementation Plan) and 

Appendix 3 (Road Management) will be released at the same time as the FEIS.

All documents are available online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla.

Additional documentation, including more-detailed analyses of project-area resources is in the project 

record.

Project Area

The project area includes both the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts, encompassing Prince of 

Wales Island (POW) and surrounding islands in Southeast Alaska. See Figure 1. There are about 1.8 

million acres of National Forest System (NFS) land and about 480,000 acres of non-NFS land within 

the project area. Table 1 displays the amount of NFS land within the project area in each land use 

designation (LUD).

Prince of Wales Island and many of the outer islands are mountainous, with elevations ranging from 

sea level to nearly 4,000 feet. A “temperate rainforest”, the maritime climate results in temperatures 

normally ranging from mid-40 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to mid-60°F in the summer, and from the high 

teens to the low-40s in the winter. Annual precipitation may exceed 100 inches, with the highest 

rainfall occurring during October and lowest in June. Individual storms vary dramatically over short 

distances and can produce intense rainfall and high winds. Most of the forested land is comprised of 

both old-growth and young-growth conifers, while red alder is common along streams, beach fringes, 

and on soils disturbed by management activities and landslides.
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 3

Figure 1. Vicinity map
1 – Purpose and Need

4 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

There are twelve communities within the project area with a total 2014 population of 3,553 (USDA 

Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-537 to 678). Employment in natural resource-based industries remains 

important in many of these communities. Many communities continue to depend primarily on fishing, 

timber, and subsistence uses.

Purpose and Need for Action

Purpose

The purpose of the POW LLA Project is to respond to the Forest Plan’s multiple-use goals and 

objectives, while moving the project area toward the desired conditions in that Plan (USDA Forest 

Service 2016a, p. 2-1). The POW LLA Project seeks to meet multiple resource objectives through an 

integrated approach that will improve forest ecosystem health on Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger 

Districts, help support community resiliency, and support economic development, consistent with the 

multiple-use goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. It is the purpose of this project to implement 

Forest Plan direction and work toward achieving its goals and objectives, including, but not 

limited to, the following:

Local and Regional Economies—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-3)

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

regional economies of Southeast Alaska.

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

Alaska’s communities.

Fish—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-3)

Goal: Maintain or restore the natural range and frequency of aquatic habitat conditions on the 

Tongass National Forest to sustain the diversity and production of fish and other freshwater 

organisms.

Objective: Design and implement fish habitat improvement projects annually across the Forest.

Biodiversity—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-3)

Goal: Maintain ecosystems capable of supporting the full range of native and desired nonnative 

species and ecological processes. Maintain a mix of representative habitats at different spatial and 

temporal scales.

Objective: c) Manage the Forest in order to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for 

introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of invasive species.

Objective: e) Restore watersheds to provide healthy, diverse terrestrial and aquatic habitat.

Recreation and Tourism—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-4)

Goal: Provide a range of recreation opportunities consistent with public demand, emphasizing 

locally popular recreation places and those important to the tourism industry.

Objective: Maintain existing Forest Service system trails to a standard that provides for the health 

and safety of all users. Construct or reconstruct trails to encourage a healthier lifestyle for the 

public. Emphasize projects that facilitate community use or community connections.

Objective: Maintain existing recreation sites and facilities to provide for the health and safety of 

all users. Construct or reconstruct facilities in locations where the need for the facilities are 
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 5

supported by either known use, partnerships for long-term maintenance, or repeated safety 

concerns. Remove facilities that are no longer needed or are not affordable.

Subsistence—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-5)

Goal: Provide for the continuation of subsistence uses and resources by rural Alaskan residents.

Objective: Evaluate and consider the needs of subsistence users in making project land 

management decisions.

Timber—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-5)

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

Alaska residents.

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

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

yield basis and in an economically efficient manner.

Objective: Manage young growth to provide commercial timber products and to maintain or 

improve habitat for wildlife and fish at the stand or landscape level.

Objective: Precommercial thin previously harvested suitable forest land.

Objective: Provide about three years supply of volume under contract to local mills and then 

establish NEPA-cleared volume to maintain flexibility and stability in the sale program.

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

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

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

Wildlife—Goals and Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-6)

Goal: Maintain the abundance and distribution of habitats, especially old-growth forests, to 

sustain viable populations in the planning area.

Goal: Maintain habitat capability sufficient to produce wildlife populations that support the use 

of wildlife resources for sport, subsistence, and recreational activities.

Objective: Design and implement structural and nonstructural wildlife habitat improvement

projects.

Objective: Include a young-growth management program to maintain, prolong, and/or improve 

understory forage production, and to improve habitat distribution, including future old-growth

characteristics in young-growth timber stands for wildlife on lands both suitable and not suitable 

for timber production.

Need

The Forest Service is under national direction to provide for multiple use of the national forests 

(Organic Administration Act of 1897, Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, and National Forest 

Management Act [NFMA] of 1976). The underlying need for the POW LLA Project comes in part 

from the Forest Service’s obligation, subject to applicable law, to seek to provide a supply of timber 

from the Tongass National Forest that meets market demand annually and for the planning cycle, and 

to restore and improve forest resources to a condition where they provide increased benefits to society 

(Tongass Timber Reform Act, Section 101). The Forest Plan, which was prepared under the direction 

of NFMA, was amended in 2016 and incorporates this direction.
1 – Purpose and Need

6 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Much of Southeast Alaska and, more locally, the Prince of Wales Island economy is largely dependent 

on natural resource industry sectors including forest products, minerals development, resource-related 

tourism and seafood harvest and processing. Industries dependent on natural resources tend to 

fluctuate on the request for products and the availability of resources. Although the overall size of the

timber industry sectors have substantially diminished, the remaining jobs and small businesses are 

critically important to rural community economies and household livelihoods. The forest products 

industry is an important component of the island social fabric, cultural identity, and heritage.

At this time, a need exists to contribute to the economic viability of Prince of Wales area communities 

by providing a sustainable level of forest products to help maintain the expertise and infrastructure of 

the timber industry. Timber harvest would be integrated with restoration opportunities in a sustainable 

manner that meets multiple economic, forest, and watershed objectives. There is a need for younggrowth forest management now to produce future desired resource values, products, services, and 

forest health conditions that sustain the diversity and productivity of forested ecosystems. Timber 

stand establishment and timber stand improvement activities (such as planting and precommercial 

thinning) that enhance early seral forests are necessary to achieve this. There is a need for restoration 

activities in some watersheds to reestablish self-sustaining habitats that promote fish, wildlife, and 

plant habitat and populations which contribute to commercial, sport, subsistence, traditional, and 

cultural uses by POW and surrounding island residents. Activities are needed to restore ecological 

function in some streams and watersheds to promote their recovery from floods and likely effects of a 

changing climate. Restoration projects also provide economic opportunities for POW communities.

For example, the Harris River Restoration Project awarded contracts to local businesses to complete

restoration activities. There is a need to maintain and expand recreation opportunities on POW and 

surrounding islands for growth in the recreation and tourism business sector. A sustainable recreation 

program in terms of operations and maintenance is needed to maintain recreation infrastructure at a 

functional level.

Proposed Action

The Forest Service is proposing a multi-year project involving a variety of activities to implement 

over the next 15 years, designed to improve forest ecosystem health, support community resiliency, 

and support economic development on Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. The proposed action 

was developed with input from an independently-formed, broadly-based collaborative group as well 

as from the broader public’s comments. Alternative 2 represents the proposed action. The 

proposed action, and alternatives to the proposed action, are presented in more detail in Chapter 2 of 

this FEIS.

During initial scoping and throughout the collaborative process, the Forest Service received 

suggestions for a wide array of site-specific activities and management strategies on NFS lands in the 

project area. The activities and management strategies fell within four broad categories: 1) Vegetation 

Management, 2) Watershed Improvement and Restoration, 3) Sustainable Recreation Management, 

and 4) Associated Actions. Proposed activities are described on the Activity Cards in Appendix A.

The activity types and management strategy categories are summarized below.

Vegetation management activities include: Old-growth commercial harvest; young-growth

commercial harvest; young-growth intermediate silvicultural treatments including precommercial 

thinning, pruning, and girdling; timber stand establishment (e.g., tree seedling planting); and wildlife 

habitat improvement treatments (Activity Cards 1 through 24).

Watershed improvement and restoration activities include: Fish habitat restoration, fish habitat 

improvements, aquatic organism passage and fish habitat connectivity (replace or remove culverts), 
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 7

karst systems improvement (reestablish drainage patterns), and invasive plant management (manual 

or mechanical treatments) (Activity Cards 25 through 35).

Sustainable recreation management activities include: Maintenance of all existing recreation 

facilities, as well as improvements to some existing facilities and construction of new facilities. 

Proposals received through public comment included cabins and three-sided shelters; a variety of 

trails; campsites and campgrounds; access and enhancements for kayaking, canoeing, and boating; 

creating interpretive sites; creating winter recreation opportunities; day use sites; and further 

development of existing recreation areas. Outhouse facilities may be necessary to accompany certain 

proposed recreation sites. A wide array of locations were suggested (Chapter 2); however, on the 

ground conditions will determine where activities will be implemented (Activity Cards 36 through 

46).

Associated actions include a number of activities associated with implementing the various proposed 

management activities that would be necessary, in addition to some associated actions which were 

proposed through public input and comments. Associated actions were divided into two categories: 

infrastructure actions and non-infrastructure actions. Examples of infrastructure actions include road 

construction, road maintenance, and development of rock pits. Examples of non-infrastructure actions 

include site preparation, hazard tree removal, and brushing.

Decisions to be Made

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

Based on the environmental analysis in this EIS, consideration of the proposed action and other 

alternatives (including No-Action) and their effects, consideration of public comments, and in 

accordance with Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired conditions, the Forest Supervisor will 

decide:

• Whether to select the No-action Alternative, an action alternative, or a modification of an action 

alternative;

• If an action alternative is selected, the range of treatments or activities to be authorized for: 1) 

vegetation management activities such as commercial old-growth and young-growth harvest, 

precommercial young-growth thinning treatments, timber stand establishment, and wildlife and 

riparian habitat improvement treatments; 2) watershed improvement and restoration treatments 

such as fish habitat restoration, fish habitat improvements, aquatic organism passage, fish habitat 

connectivity, karst system improvements, and invasive plant management; 3) recreation

management activities such as maintenance of existing recreation facilities, improvements to 

existing facilities, construction of new facilities, and decommissioning recreation infrastructure 

and sites; and 4) associated infrastructure activities such as road construction, road maintenance, 

and development of rock pits, and associated non-infrastructure activities such as site preparation, 

hazard tree removal, and brushing;

• If there are any timing or location restrictions for any activities, not already described in the 

Selected Alternative, Activity Cards, or Implementation Plan; and

• Mitigation measures and monitoring requirements.

Relationship to the Forest Plan

National forest planning takes place at several levels: national, regional, forest, and project. The 

Forest Plan is an extensive forest-level analysis. It provides land and resource management direction 

for the Tongass National Forest. The POW LLA Project is a project-level analysis; its scope is 

confined to addressing the significant issues and environmental effects specifically related to this 
1 – Purpose and Need

8 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

project. It does not attempt to address decisions made at higher levels. However, it does implement 

direction provided at those higher levels, and is designed to achieve the management direction of the 

Forest Plan as outlined in the purpose and need statement. Where appropriate, the POW LLA Project

EIS tiers to the analysis done for the Forest Plan, the supplement, and subsequent amendments as 

encouraged by regulations at 40 CFR 1502.20. Unless otherwise specified, all references to the Forest 

Plan are to the current Forest Plan, December 2016.

The Forest Plan uses land use designations (LUD), which are broad geographic zones that emphasize 

various resource values and outputs, to guide management of the Tongass National Forest. Each LUD 

provides direction on the types of activities, practices, and uses to be emphasized in specific areas. 

The POW LLA project area includes 15 LUDs (see Figure 2). Project area land use designations, 

goals, objectives, and desired future conditions of all LUDs are described in detail in the Forest Plan, 

Chapter 3. The acreage of each LUD in the POW LLA project area is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Land use designation (LUD) acreages in the POW LLA project area

LUD Acres

Wilderness LUD Group

Wilderness 162,655

Natural Setting LUD Group

LUD II 261,772

Remote Recreation 4,016

Semi-Remote Recreation 237,113

Old-Growth Habitat 304,101

Municipal Watershed 3,278

Research Natural Area 1,335

Special Interest Area 37,177

Wild River 10,693

Scenic River 10,452

Recreational River 3,719

Development LUD Group

Experimental Forest1 10,644

Scenic Viewshed 18,173

Modified Landscape 187,885

Timber Production 572,018

TOTAL 1,825,031

1 Experimental Forest is included in this grouping even though it is technically not a Development LUD (Table 1 in Forest 

Plan ROD p. 9)
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 9

Figure 2. Project area land use designations
1 – Purpose and Need

10 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Public, Agency, and Tribal Involvement

Public involvement is a key component of the planning process. The public has been involved from 

the earliest stages of the project. In May of 2016, a local, independent, broadly-based collaborative 

group – the Prince of Wales Landscape Assessment Team (POW LAT) – formed. The group’s mission 

focused on developing and providing proposed activities to be considered by the Forest Service in the 

POW LLA Project development and analysis process. After a year of deliberations, the POW LAT

submitted their list of suggested activities. These were considered along with input received internally 

and suggestions from the broader public in developing and refining the proposed action and 

alternatives.

Scoping

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines scoping as “an early and open process for 

determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a 

proposed action” (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1501.7). The scoping process is used to 

invite public participation, to help identify public issues, and to obtain public comment at various 

stages of the environmental analysis process, continuing until a decision is made. The project was 

first listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in the 4th quarter of 2016 (beginning October 

1st) for the Tongass National Forest.

Notice of Intent

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on November 30, 2016. The NOI 

informed the public of the opportunity to comment on the proposal from November 30 to December 

30, 2016.

In response to public comments on the proposed action received from initial scoping, as well as 

internal comments, the Forest Service refined the project purpose and need, developed a moredetailed proposed action, and published a Corrected NOI (CNOI) in the Federal Register on July 6, 

2017. The Forest Service requested public comment on the CNOI by August 7, 2017. Using the 

comments from the public, other agencies, tribes, collaborative groups, and others, the 

interdisciplinary team identified a list of issues to address.

Public, Agency, and Tribal Meetings and Mailings

As part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service engaged in the following public 

outreach through letters, meetings, presentations, and requests for comment, summarized below.

• October 31, 2016: Sent out letters to tribal governments and corporations to notify them of the 

project, purpose and need, and proposed action to-date, and to initiate government-to-government

consultation.

• November 2, 2016: Sent letter to Alaska Department of Natural Resource State Historic 

Preservation Officer (ADNR-SHPO) initiating communication on Section 106 determination.

• November 29, 2016: Scoping letter requesting comment on the project proposal sent to interested 

individuals, agencies, and organizations.

• November 30, 2016: NOI published in Federal Register.

• December 1, 2016: GovDelivery bulletin (email) announcing NOI publication on November 30, 

2016, initiating opportunity to comment during scoping period, sent to POW LLA Project mailing 

list of 555 recipients.
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 11

• November–December 2016: Public outreach through information tables at POW Island craft fairs, 

during Natural Resources Day, and by providing information to POW LAT.

• December 12, 2016: Public scoping meeting in Thorne Bay 4:30-6:00 p.m. to provide information 

and solicit comments/suggestions.

• December 13, 2016: Public scoping meeting in Naukati 4:00-5:30 p.m. to provide information 

and solicit comments/suggestions.

• December 15, 2016: Public Info Fair 10:00-4:30 p.m. in Craig, a collaborative event organized by 

POW LAT, the POW LLA Project IDT, and other entities.

• December 15, 2016: Public scoping meeting held in Craig 4:30-6:00 p.m. to provide information 

and solicit comments/suggestions.

• June 13, 2017: Letter inviting government-to-government consultation sent to tribes, as well as to 

native corporations, with draft CNOI language included.

• June 16, 2017: Public scoping meeting in Point Baker, at the request of Point Baker and Port 

Protection communities, 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. to provide information and solicit 

comments/suggestions.

• July 6, 2017: CNOI published in Federal Register.

• July 5-6, 2017: Letter requesting comment on the project proposed action as described in the 

CNOI, including draft Activity Cards, was sent to interested individuals, agencies, and 

organizations. A GovDelivery bulletin (email) was sent to 620 email addresses subscribed to the 

project.

• July 13, 2017: Public information meeting in Klawock 6:00-8:00 p.m. hosted by the Thorne Bay

and Craig Ranger Districts to discuss invasive plant treatment options on National Forest System

lands.

• December 4, 2017: Letter sent to tribal governments notifying them of the Draft Issues and 

Alternatives available for 14-day review and comment period December 5-19, 2017.

• December 5, 2017: Legal notice placed in the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record,

for a 14-day comment period December 5-19, 2017, on Draft Issues and Alternatives. A 

GovDelivery bulletin (email) was sent to 636 email addresses subscribed to the project.

• March 15, 2018: Formal consultation with Sealaska Corporation held in Juneau, AK 10:00-11:30 

a.m.

Draft EIS

Availability of the DEIS for Comment

The Notice of Availability for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on May 4, 2018, 

starting a 45-day comment period. A legal notice for Opportunity to Comment was also published in 

the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record, on May 3, 2018. Notification of the availability 

of the DEIS was mailed or emailed to all names on the POW LLA Project mailing list, including 

federal and state agencies, municipal offices, federally recognized tribes, Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations, non-federally recognized tribes, and any others requesting it,

including a hard copy or electronic media if requested. The DEIS was also available for review at the 

Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts, or electronically at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla.
1 – Purpose and Need

12 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

The Forest Service sent letters inviting government-to-government consultation and provided 

information on the DEIS to the following federally recognized tribal governments: Craig Tribal 

Association; Hydaburg Cooperation Association; Klawock Cooperation Association; Ketchikan 

Indian Corporation; Metlakatla Indian community; Organized Village of Kasaan; Organized Village 

of Kake; Organized Village of Saxman; and Wrangell Cooperative Association.

Public Comments on the DEIS

The Forest Service received more than 50,000 written comments from agencies, organizations, and 

individuals during the 45-day DEIS comment period. Most of these were form letters created by 

special interest organizations, available on their websites for members to sign and send using a 

provided link. All letters received were considered by the interdisciplinary team (IDT), both 

individually and collectively, as many of the letters had the same or similar concerns.

Substantive comments (within the scope of the proposal, specific and related to the proposal, and that 

include supporting rationale for the Responsible Official to consider) have been addressed and 

incorporated into the FEIS to the extent practicable. Some comments ask for clarification or 

additional information in the Final EIS, others requested certain information be considered, or 

requested modification to or creation of a new alternative. Chapter 2, Changes between Draft and 

Final EIS, summarizes changes, clarifications, and updates to the Final EIS both as a result of public 

comment and internal refinement. See also Appendix D, Response to Comments on the Draft EIS, for 

more information on the public comments and how the Forest Service responded to them.

Subsistence Hearings

Following publication of the DEIS in 2018, subsistence hearings were held in Whale Pass (May 29), 

Klawock (May 30), and Hydaburg (May 31) to accept testimony from users of subsistence resources 

on how the proposed activities within the project area may potentially affect them. These testimonies 

were considered for this analysis. Due to the request for more hearings, additional subsistence 

hearings were held in Point Baker (September 6), Kasaan (October 9), Klawock (October 10), and 

Naukati (October 11) to determine if there were any new issues that had not been previously raised. 

All written comments received were considered for this analysis and are in the project record.

Final EIS

A Notice of Availability for this FEIS has been published in the Federal Register. A legal notice has

been placed in the Ketchikan Daily News, the newspaper of record. Notification of the release of the 

FEIS has been mailed or emailed to the POW LLA Project mailing list, including federal and State 

agencies, municipal offices, tribes, and others requesting it, including a copy if previously requested. 

The FEIS is also available for review at the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts, or electronically 

at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla.

Draft and Final Record of Decision

The draft Record of Decision (ROD) is released to give the public an opportunity to review the 

proposed decision (Selected Alternative). Under the 36 CFR 218 objection process, the public will be 

notified of the availability of the draft ROD through a legal notice published in the newspaper of 

record, the Ketchikan Daily News, starting the 45-day objection filing period. Detailed information on 

objection rights and procedures will be included in the section “Administrative Review—Opportunity 

to Object” at the end of the draft ROD. Notification of the release of the draft ROD will be mailed or 

emailed to the POW LLA Project mailing list, including federal and state agencies, municipal offices, 

tribes, and any others requesting it, including a copy if previously requested. An electronic copy of 

the legal notice and the draft ROD will be posted on the Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis 
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 13

Project website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla. The draft ROD will also be available 

for review at the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts.

The Responsible Official may sign the final ROD when administrative review requirements under 36 

CFR 218.12 have been met. Implementation of decisions subject to the objection process may begin

immediately after a final decision is signed. There is not a requirement to publish notification of the 

decision. The final ROD will be posted on the project website and an email will be sent to the POW 

LLA Project mailing list notifying the public of the availability of the final ROD.

Public Involvement during Implementation

Should an action alternative be selected in the ROD, the Forest Service will continue to encourage

public involvement through solicitation of comments on activities proposed for implementation in 

any given year. Appendix B, the Implementation Plan, describes the process for continued public 

involvement by holding public meetings to invite comment and suggestions on proposed activities,

with times and locations determined by location of potential activities and to facilitate the greatest 

participation by the public. See Appendix B, section “Step 1”.

Issues Significant to the Proposed Action

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues through input received from comments 

during scoping (40 CFR 1501.7), following publication of the NOI to publish an EIS, the CNOI, and 

during public meetings. To describe and compare how the alternatives affect the resources related to 

the issue, units of measure are chosen that are quantitative where possible, predictable, responsive to 

the issue, and linked to cause-and-effect relationships. These issues, related resources, and how the 

alternatives address the issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, Environment and Effects.

Issue 1: Invasive Plant Management

Issue statement: Using only manual or mechanical treatments for invasive plant control may not 

effectively reduce the establishment and spread of invasive plant populations on Prince of Wales and 

surrounding islands. Use of herbicides in combination with other treatment methods increases 

effective invasive plant treatment strategies. However, using herbicides increases the level of 

exposure to the chemical properties contained within the herbicide to humans, soil, wildlife, aquatic 

resources, and non-target vegetation at a treatment site. There is an additional invasive plant section 

in Chapter 3 of this FEIS (Invasive Plants) which analyzes the effects of various alternative activities 

on the introduction and spread of invasive plants.

Invasive plants displace native plant communities and may cause long-lasting economic and 

ecological problems within and outside the National Forest. They can degrade fish and wildlife 

habitat, out-compete native plants, impair water quality and watershed health, and adversely affect 

other resource values such as scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. Invasive plants can spread 

rapidly across the landscape to all land ownerships.

The ability to minimize the adverse impacts of invasive plants and achieve eradication is greatest 

when infestations are small, at the early stages of invasion, and using the proper method based on the 

response to the treatment method by the species. Treatment costs, including the need for retreatments, 

are directly related to the methods used (manual, mechanical, or herbicide) and the response of 

targeted invasive plant species to the treatment. Often a combination of all three methods provides the 

most effective and cost efficient control.

In some instances, herbicide application is the recommended treatment of difficult-to-control invasive 

plants. Treatment extent, rate and method of application, and the properties of the chemicals proposed 
1 – Purpose and Need

14 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

influence the degree of risk. Mitigation measures and project design criteria minimize the risks 

associated with chemical use. Chemical toxicities and exposure scenarios will be evaluated for each 

proposed chemical for each resource, including human health.

Units of Measure

• Relative cost and treatment effectiveness by treatment method;

• Herbicide toxicology (chemical properties) and exposure (application rate in pounds per acre) for 

the herbicides, in terms of:

♦ Herbicide impacts on human health (workers and the public);

♦ Herbicide impacts on non-target vegetation (e.g., subsistence use or culturally significant 

plants)

♦ Herbicide impacts on soils, wetlands and karst ecosystems;

♦ Herbicide impacts on water/aquatic organisms;

♦ Herbicide impacts on wildlife; and

♦ Effects to Wilderness area characteristics from manual, mechanical, and herbicide 

treatments.

Issue 2: Subsistence

Issue statement: Proposed activities, particularly timber harvest and road construction, combined 

with past and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest would affect subsistence resources and 

lifestyle.

Units of measure are designed to assess abundance and distribution of subsistence resources, access to 

subsistence resources, and competition for those resources. The wildlife portion of the subsistence 

analysis focuses on effects to deer because deer is the only subsistence resource that is potentially 

significantly affected.

Units of Measure

• Effects to aquatic resources (see Issue 4 in this chapter).

• Effects to deer habitat (see Issue 5);

• Changes in access to subsistence resources by road density and

• Percentage of deer harvested based on ADF&G information of the estimated deer habitat 

capability (DHC) by both federally qualified subsistence users (direct and indirect effects) and all 

users (cumulative effects) by WAA.

Issue 3: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: The proposed quantity and quality of old-growth and young-growth timber volume 

offered by the Forest Service and the logging costs associated with the logging systems and 

silvicultural prescriptions would affect local operators’ abilities to contribute to local economies.

Units of Measure

• Timber volume (old-growth and young-growth) in million board feet (MMBF) for the life of the 

project (15 years);
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 15

• Cost of harvest, including logging, camp, and haul per thousand board feet (MBF) by “timber 

analysis area”;

• Transportation cost per MBF; and

• Number of annualized direct jobs supported for both domestic processing and Region 10 limited 

export policy (see 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS Appendix H, USDA Forest Service 2016e) 

for old-growth and 100 percent for young-growth (15 years).

Issue 4: Watershed Function

Issue statement: Proposed logging and road building activities in watersheds that have been 

impacted by past management may have adverse effects to water quality and fish habitat, and could 

reverse progress made by previous restoration efforts.

Units of Measure

• Number of watersheds with past restoration that could experience increased peak flow rates in 

response to potential timber harvest and road construction.

• Miles and percent of roads traversing slopes greater than 50 percent by 6th level HUC1

watershed;

• Number of watersheds that could experience increased peak flow rates as a result of past (30 year 

moving window) and proposed harvested and roaded area by 6th level HUC watershed;

• Total existing and proposed road miles within 300 feet of Class I and Class II streams and lakes

by 6th level HUC watershed;

• Number of new fish stream crossings;

• Miles of existing and proposed trails;

• Miles of proposed stream restoration;

• Total existing and proposed road miles and area by 6th level HUC watershed; and

• Total acres of harvest in the past 30 years and proposed vegetation management by 6th level HUC 

watershed.

Issue 5: Wildlife Habitat

Issue statement: Proposed actions, particularly timber harvest and road construction, combined with 

past and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest would reduce the amount of remaining 

productive old-growth (POG), high volume POG (HPOG) and large tree POG (SD67) wildlife 

habitat. Past actions have also impacted wildlife habitat by converting old-growth forest into younggrowth forests. Proposed actions in young-growth stands can improve wildlife habitat. These same 

activities would also affect current wildlife habitat connectivity provided by productive old-growth as 

well as older young-growth stands at different elevations and across the landscape.

 1 Hydrologic units (HUCs) are watershed boundaries organized in a nested hierarchy by size from the largest 

(regions) to the smallest (cataloging units), and can be viewed as the “address” of a particular watershed. 

Watersheds are spatially located landscape features uniformly mapped for the entire United States at multiple 

scales. The 6th level HUC is the scale commonly used to determine the potential effects of management 

activities.
1 – Purpose and Need

16 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Units of Measure

• Acres harvested of non-winter, POG, HPOG, and SD67 habitat by Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA) 

and Game Management Unit (GMU) 2;

• Acres harvested of HPOG habitat in south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation (deep snow 

habitat), and

• Acres harvested of POG habitat below 1,500 feet in elevation (average snow habitat).

• Literature thresholds for remaining habitat acres by WAA; and

• Total (open and closed) road density below 1,200 feet in elevation on NFS lands by WAA.

Other Issues and Concerns

Each comment received during scoping was considered a potential issue, but some concerns and 

suggestions were not considered alternative-driving issues or their resolution was beyond the scope of 

this project. Other concerns are addressed in the Forest Plan through direction on the protection and 

management of forest resources outlined in individual resource components and LUD components. 

Where possible, suggestions about the project were incorporated into the design of the proposed 

action and alternatives (see Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action). Additionally, 

some concerns and suggestions were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis for the reasons 

discussed in Chapter 2 (Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study).

Federal and State Permits and Authorizations

Prior to implementation of activities, the Forest Service would ensure all necessary permits or 

authorizations from other federal and state agencies are in place. These may include the following:

(1) State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Alaska Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (APDES):

• General permit for Log Transfer Facilities in Alaska;

• Review Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan;

• Certification of Compliance with Alaska Water Quality Standards (401 Certification) Chapter 20;

• Storm Water Discharge Permit/National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System review (Section 

402 of the Clean Water Act);

• Solid Waste Disposal Permit;

(2) US Army Corp of Engineers:

• Approval of discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;

• Approval of the construction of structures or work in navigable waters of the United States under

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899;

(3) State of Alaska, Division of Natural Resources:

• Authorization for occupancy and use of tidelands and submerged lands.

(4) State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game:

• Fish Habitat Concurrence (Title 16).
Purpose and Need - 1

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Purpose and Need – Chapter 1 ▪ 17

Availability of the Project Record

An important consideration in preparing this EIS is reduction of paperwork specified in 40 CFR 

1500.4. This FEIS provides sufficient site-specific information to demonstrate a reasoned 

consideration of the environmental impacts of the alternatives and ways to mitigate the impacts. The 

project record contains supporting material that documents the NEPA process and analysis from the 

beginning of the project through project implementation.

The project record is available electronically upon request from the Thorne Bay Ranger District office 

in Thorne Bay, Alaska and the Craig Ranger District office in Craig, Alaska. Reference documents, 

such as the Forest Plan, National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) and the TTRA, 

are available for review at public libraries and Forest Service offices throughout Southeast Alaska. 

The Forest Plan and its FEIS are available on CD-ROM and online 

(http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/R10/Tongass/PlanAmend). The Forest Plan planning record is also 

available electronically.

Map and Data Disclaimers

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

Service. Geographic information system (GIS) data and product accuracy may vary. Using GIS 

products for purposes other than those for which they were created may yield inaccurate or 

misleading results. The Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace GIS 

products without notification. For more information, contact the Thorne Bay Ranger District or the 

Craig Ranger District.

In addition, the accuracy of calculations made from GIS layers varies with the quality of the mapping 

itself. Numbers presented in tables in this document may not sum correctly due to rounding. Other 

slight anomalies due to rounding may also occur. Therefore, all numbers calculated from GIS should 

be considered as approximate. These numbers are accurate enough for comparison of alternatives and 

for a decision to be made.
1 – Purpose and Need

18 ▪ Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank.
Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 19

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed 

Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Prince of Wales Landscape 

Level Analysis (POW LLA) Project. This section also defines the differences between each 

alternative, providing a clear basis for choice among options by the Responsible Official. See Table 4. 

Effects Comparison of Alternatives by Issue using Units of Measure Identified for each Issue, at the 

end of this chapter. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design 

of the alternative, while some of the information is based upon the environmental, social, and 

economic effects of implementing each alternative. Examples of alternative design could include

helicopter logging versus the use of ground-based equipment, or whether or not to develop new 

and/or maintain existing recreation sites. Effects-based information, for example, could include the 

amount of erosion caused by helicopter logging versus skidding, or where, when, how much, and 

what kind of recreation opportunities have been requested by the public.

Changes between Draft and Final EIS

Changes throughout the FEIS

Changes and updates in the FEIS have been made as a result of public comment received on the 

DEIS, consideration of updated or additional information, regulatory changes, clarification of 

potential resource effects of the project, and editorial changes for grammar, phrasing, and 

punctuation. Some table locations and format were rearranged to better facilitate reading flow. These 

changes are minor and do not change the effects conclusions or activities under any of the 

alternatives. Some specific updates include the following:

Chapter 2

All action alternatives were updated to allow limited, short-term (up to 3 years) public access along

proposed temporary roads, where there are no specific safety or resource concerns, to gather firewood 

or biomass, once timber harvest activities are complete. These roads will then be decommissioned.

This short term allowance will not change the overall effects analysis for resources. Each road will be 

reviewed during harvest activities for availability of firewood and biomass. If temporarily leaving the 

road open for utilization of this material causes undo resource impacts, the road would be 

decommissioned immediately.

Proposed National Forest System roads designated for storage (Maintenance Level 1) will remain 

open (Maintenance Level 2) for 3-5 years once timber harvest activities are complete to allow for 

firewood or biomass collection. These roads will then be placed into storage to reduce maintenance 

costs. This short term allowance will not change the overall effects analysis for resources. Each road 

will be reviewed during harvest activities for availability of firewood and biomass. If temporarily 

leaving the road open for utilization of this material causes undo resource impacts, the road would be 

stored immediately.

Table 4, Comparison of Alternatives by Issue, was added near the end of Chapter 2 to summarize how 

the alternatives address the five issues for this project.
2 – Alternatives

20 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Chapter 3

Clarifying information has been added to Air Quality and Climate Change

Clarifying information has been added to Inventoried Roadless Areas

Issue 1: Invasive Plant Management

• Clarification of cost effectiveness statistics between alternatives.

• Added text clarifying how our analyses under Herbicide Exposure address recent court rulings 

related to glyphosate exposure and toxicity as a carcinogen.

• Text and analyses that included EDRR in Chapters 2 and 3, where it was included as a component 

of Alternatives 2 and 5, was removed. This clarified that EDRR was only to be considered as a 

component of Alternative 3.

Issue 3: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

• Discussion about falldown was added.

• Past export information has been added.

• Annual timber demand was updated for FY 18.

Issue 4: Watershed Function

• Effects of Forest Management Practices of Salmonid Stocks in the Affected Environment section.

• Remediation score for aquatic organism passage (AOP) was included in the project record.

• Temporary Barge Beach Access Points to the Effects Common to All Alternatives.

• Estimates of stream survey miles included in Methodology.

• Added references to Affected Environment and minor information additions made to tables in this 

section.

Issue 5: Wildlife Habitat

• Wildlife Habitat added discussion regarding migratory birds.

• Literary habitat thresholds were changed due to comments and to better reflect effects to habitat.

• Research and other documents requested by commenters were either determined to not apply to 

the POW LLA Project or were included in the FEIS.

• Discussion of the ermine was added to FEIS.

Socioeconomics

• Added cumulative effects of action alternatives

• Added information and reference about industrial capacity in Southeast sawmills

• Edited entire section for length and clarity

Appendices

• Appendix A (Activity Cards), Appendix B (Implementation Plan), and Appendix C (Present, and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities in the POW LLA Project Area) have minor editorial 

changes.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 21

• Appendix C (Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities) – All lands estimated timber 

volume amounts has been updated to reflect most updated information.

• FEIS Appendix A and Appendix B will also be published as Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 with the 

draft ROD.

• FEIS Appendix D, Response to Comments, responds to public comments on the DEIS and

identifies changes made in the FEIS as a result of public comments.

Regulatory Changes

The 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (Roadless Rule) generally prohibits cutting trees and 

building roads in inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) on NFS lands. The 2016 Forest Plan Record of 

Decision (ROD, page 6) includes in the Selected Alternative that no old-growth or young-growth 

harvest will occur in IRAs identified in the 2001 Roadless Rule.

On August 30, 2018, the Forest Service published a Notice of Intent initiating an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) and public rulemaking process to address the management of IRAs on the 

Tongass National Forest within the State of Alaska. This rulemaking is the result of a petition 

submitted by Governor Bill Walker’s administration in January 2018 on behalf of the State of Alaska, 

pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. The Forest Service has established a web page 

(https://www.fs.usda.gov/roadmain/roadless/alaskaroadlessrule) to update people on the process. This 

process is planned to be completed by summer of 2020.

The Alaska Roadless Rule will not make any changes to the 2016 Forest Plan or projects currently 

being implemented or proposed for implementation. Since no on-the-ground actions would be 

authorized through the rulemaking process, the Responsible Official determined that it would be 

unnecessary and inefficient to delay moving forward on the POW LLA Project until a potential 

Alaska Roadless Rule is reached.

Land Ownership Changes

There have been no changes to land ownership since the DEIS that would affect the project. The 

Alaska Mental Health Trust (AMHT) Land Exchange that was identified in the DEIS and on maps 

has not yet been finalized.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service is analyzing four alternatives, including No Action (Alternative 1), the proposed 

action (Alternative 2), and two additional action alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5), in response to 

issues raised by the public. Alternative 4 was removed from detailed consideration in the DEIS (see 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study section, below). However, since 

Alternative 4 was included during the public comment period for preliminary Issues and Alternatives 

in December 2017 while the DEIS was being prepared, it was decided to not renumber the remaining 

alternatives in the DEIS or FEIS. The following section describes the four alternatives considered in 

detail.

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, required by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR Section 

1502.14(d)), provides a baseline to measure and compare impacts of the various action alternatives 

against and represents the existing condition in the project area. Under Alternative 1, none of the 

specific management activities in the FEIS would be implemented to accomplish project goals and 

objectives. Natural disturbances and current management of the project area would continue as 
2 – Alternatives

22 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

before. Ongoing activities such as recreation, firewood gathering, road and trail maintenance, 

invasive plant treatments, and other routine forest management activities not associated with this 

decision would continue as authorized by previous decisions. As a result, this alternative does not 

meet the purpose and need for this project.

Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 provide a range of options for meeting the purpose and need of this project 

and represent different ways of addressing the significant issues (see Chapter 1). Features common to 

all the action alternatives are described below followed by features specific to Alternatives 2, 3 and 5. 

Table 5 at the end of this chapter provides a comparison of actions alternatives by activity, including 

activities common to all action alternatives. More information regarding specific activities is included 

on the Activity Cards, Appendix A. Activities would be implemented when funding and personnel

become available.

Features Common to All Action Alternatives

Alternatives were designed by describing the conditions being targeted for treatments, what 

thresholds cannot be exceeded in an area, or placing limits on the intensity of specific activities. GIS 

queries were used to determine potential areas in which some activities may occur based on existing 

conditions. This included but was not limited to existing vegetation, known invasive plant 

populations, stream reaches, existing recreation sites, and road barriers to fish passage (Red 

crossings). This information enabled the Forest Service to develop alternative design criteria for the 

action alternatives. The design criteria for each alternative are described below.

Logging System and Transportation Analysis

The Logging System and Transportation Analysis (LSTA) identifies potential stands for timber 

harvest as well as the transportation network needed to access those stands. See Commercial 

Vegetation Management Map, online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla.

No alternative would harvest all stands identified in the LSTA, only the acreage needed to meet the 

harvest level for the alternative would be harvested (see Table 2 below). Similarly, no alternative 

would construct all roads identified in the LSTA, only those needed to harvest the selected stands. 

The total acreage and maximum miles of road construction under any one alternative is expected to 

change based on the logging systems used and where harvest occurs on the landscape, but would not 

exceed the amount identified within that alternative (see Table 2 below).

The old-growth volume per acre is estimated at 14 MBF per acre across the project area based on a 

weighted average of reconnaissance strata data, explained in detail in Issue 3. For young-growth

analysis, Alternative 2 used 25 MBF per acre to determine which stands may potentially be treated. 

This gives a conservative estimate on the volume per acre needed to reach an economical offering, 

but does reduce the acreage and volume available earlier in the project time line. Alternatives 3 and 5 

used 22 MBF per acre to determine which young-growth stands may be potentially treated. This 

would increase the acreage and volume available in the earlier portions of the project timeline while 

still striving to meet the minimum volume per acre for economical timber offerings.

The Activity Cards and Implementation Plan further detail the requirements to implement timber 

harvest or road construction.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 23

Table 2. Potential harvest volume acres and associated miles of road construction by alternative.

Total LSTA Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

Harvest Levels by Alternative (MMBF) for 15 years

Old Growth 423 0 235 115 75

Young Growth Alt 2: 758

Alts 3 & 5: 743 0 421 529 529

Total volume 656 644 604

Harvest Levels by Alternative (acres)

Even-aged Management 

Old-growth harvest 

- 0 9,972 3,253 4,244

Uneven-aged Management

Old-growth harvest

- 0 13,297 9,760 2,122

Total Old Growth 48,140 0 23,269 13,014 6,365

Even-aged Management

Young-growth harvest

- 0 15,156 15,630 15,630

Uneven-aged Management

Young-growth harvest

- 0 4,210 21,040 21,040

Total Young Growth 77,389 0 19,366 36,670 36,670

Road Construction Associated with Harvest (miles)

Temporary Road 505 0 129 173 180

NFS Road 138 0 35 48 49

Access and Travel Management Plan and Travel Analysis

The POW LLA Project EIS incorporates by reference the decision on the Access and Travel 

Management Plan Environmental Assessment for Prince of Wales and Surrounding Islands (USDA 

Forest Service, 2009, as amended). This document will continue to guide travel management within 

the project area and no changes to objective maintenance levels for existing roads are proposed as 

part of the POW LLA Project. Designated routes and areas are reviewed annually and when approved 

changes are implemented. The Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) shows the designated routes and 

areas along with class of vehicles authorized and, if appropriate, times of year for which use is 

authorized. The annual review of the Access and Travel Management Plan will be conducted as 

described in Appendix B.

A travel analysis for this project was conducted in accordance with FSH 7709.55 for proposed NFS 

roads. The recommended operational and objective maintenance levels for each road were assigned 

and a proposed travel management strategy assigned. The project travel analysis is found in the 

project record.

Fish Habitat Restoration and Improvement

Activities will be implemented based on the ROD and the availability of funding and personnel. 

Activities could occur in the following locations in any of the action alternatives (see also Watershed 

Improvement and Restoration Treatments Map online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla).
2 – Alternatives

24 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Fish habitat restoration

108 Creek 

142F Creek 

Alder Creek

Big Salt Lake 

Buster Creek 

Camp Creek 

Chuck Creek

Coffman Creek 

Deer Creek 

Dog (Chum) Creek 

Dolores Creek 

Eagle Creek 

Flicker Creek 

Harris River

Hatchery Creek 

Hydaburg River 

Inlet Creek 

Klawock Lake 

Logjam Creek 

Luck Lake 

Maybeso Creek 

Port Saint Nicholas Creek 

Ratz Creek 

Red Bay Creek 

Reynolds Creek 

Rio Beaver 

Sal Creek 

Salt Chuck 

Saltery Creek 

Shaheen Creek 

Slide Creek 

Slow Creek 

Snug Creek

Staney Creek

Thorne River 

Turn Creek

Twelvemile Arm 

Yatuk Creek

Fish habitat improvement

Control Creek/Balls Lake

Devil Lake 

Eek Lake 

Manhattan Creek 

Nichols Lake 

Rio Roberts 

Sarkar Creek 

Welcome Lake

Recreation Activities

Similar to fish habitat activities, recreation activities will be implemented based on the ROD and the 

availability of funding and personnel and could occur in the following locations in any of the action 

alternatives (see also Sustainable Recreation Map online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla):

Three-sided shelters and/or cabins at or near:

Canoe Point

The Palisades

Fern Point

Point Gertrudis

Eagle Island, Sea Otter Sound

Hydaburg

Near South POW Wilderness

Mable Bay

Jackson Island

Port Refugio LTF

Sal Creek

Cape Ulitka

Little Veta Bay

Arena Cove

Winter recreation alpine areas

New trails or trail improvements:

Luck Creek

Honker Divide Trail

Deweyville

Rio Beaver

Rio Roberts Fish Pass

Sunnahae

Sarkar canoe route/portages

Suemez Island

Rabbit Ears—ORV Trail

(Coffman Cove)

Roller Bay to Cape Ulitka

Port San Antonio to Little 

Veta Bay

Port Refugio to Arena Cove

Memorial Beach

Through old-growth forests

Convert roads to trails

Harris River trail system 

connecting Gándlaay Háanaa 

Trail and Harris River

interpretive sites and a hut-tohut trail system
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 25

Campsites and Recreation Vehicle (RV) pads:

Luck Lake day-use area El Capitan Near Hydaburg

Winter recreation:

Upper Steelhead

One Duck

Barron Mountain

Baird Peak

Sunnahae

West Ridge near Polk Inlet

Ridge lines east of the 

North Thorne drainage

Near Control Lake

Develop, improve, and/or enhance maintenance of the existing recreation infrastructure:

El Capitan

Ratz Harbor

Memorial Beach

Control Lake Cabin

Balls Lake

Eagles Nest Campground

Cutthroat Road

• New boat launches and/or docks included Calder Bay, Port Refugio, and Port San Antonio.

• Improve signage and maintenance of the Salt Chuck Mine site.

• A picnic day-use area was identified near Neck Lake.

Wilderness

All action alternatives include manual and mechanical treatment of invasive plants across the project 

area, including in designated wilderness. The Forest Service has conducted a minimum requirements 

analysis (MRA) to determine if the treatment of invasive plant species is necessary for the 

administration of wilderness, and the minimum activity to accomplish the action. The final MRA 

determination has been made by the Regional Forester. The MRA allows for site-specific, 

professional judgment when determining weed treatment options, including: hand-pulling, tarping, 

and various means of applying herbicides.

With the exception of invasive plant treatment, activities proposed under this project in wilderness

areas were not included in any alternative because the authority to make decisions in wilderness areas 

is reserved to the Chief of the Forest Service or the Regional Forester, or because activities require 

additional procedures beyond those required by the National Environmental Policy Act. They may be 

analyzed in the future as separate projects.

Watershed Restoration

Watershed restoration activities would improve watershed condition and restore aquatic habitat 

degraded by past management. A 2015 assessment identified about 30 watersheds in the project area 

with known restoration needs (High Potential Restoration Watersheds spreadsheet in the project 

record). Public involvement recommended stream restoration activities in twenty of these watersheds. 

The Watershed Classification and Assessment Tracking Tool (WCATT) scores with larger numbers 

indicate poorer watershed conditions. Watersheds with a score of 1 indicate that essential projects 

have been completed. The 22 watersheds with the highest potential for restoration in the project area

are listed in Table 3.
2 – Alternatives

26 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 3. Forest Service watershed restoration priorities according to WCATT scores and correlation to 

public input

6th Level HUC1 HUC Name 2015 WCATT 

Score (NFS land)

Correlates to 

public input2

190101031003 Staney Creek 1.6 yes

190101030205 Rio Beaver 1.6 yes

190101030207 Outlet Thorne River, Falls, Gravelly 1.6 yes

190101030303 Twin Island Lake-Big Creek-108 Creek 1.6 yes

190101030307 Eagle Creek 1.6 yes

190101030308 Ratz Creek 1.6 yes

190101030309 Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence Strait - Sal 1.6 yes

190101030310 Thorne Bay-Frontal Tolstoi Bay - Deer Creek 1.6 yes

190101030501 Twelvemile Creek 1 yes

190101030503 Maybeso Creek 1.6 yes

190101030506 Karta Bay-Frontal Kasaan Bay 1.5 no

190101030502 Indian Creek-Harris River 1 yes

190101030504 Twelvemile Arm-Frontal Kasaan Bay 1.4 yes

190101030904 Flicker Creek 1.4 yes

190101030101 Headwaters Logjam Creek 1.4 yes

190101030103 Outlet Logjam Creek 1.4 yes

190101031005 Shaheen Creek 1.4 yes

190101031007 Warm Chuck Inlet-Frontal Tonowek Bay - Chuck 

Creek 1.4 yes

190101030901 Red Lake-Big Creek 1.3 yes

190101030903 Buster Creek 1.3 yes

190101030102 Hatchery Creek 1.3 yes

190101030204 190101030204-Marty Mountain (Thorne River) 1.3 yes

1 Hydrologic Unit Code

2 Public input from Attachment 3 POW LAT letter 06/05/2017, project record # 833_0926.

Watershed Restoration Action Plans (WRAP) will be developed to identify the essential activities

necessary to improve watershed condition. The WRAPs are informed by existing data and field 

assessments of roads and drainage structures, streams, riparian vegetation, landslides, and invasive 

species.

Stream assessments completed to date are displayed on the Watershed Improvement and Restoration 

Treatments Map (see Watershed Improvement and Restoration Treatments Map online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla). Additional streams may be considered for restoration if

future assessments determine that fish habitat and or hydrological condition have been degraded. 

Restoration activities could occur on both NFS lands and non-NFS lands in cooperation with other 

landowners.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 27

Other Activities

These are additional activities common to all action alternatives, not listed above:

• The Forest Service proposes to precommercially manage approximately 4,500 acres of younggrowth stands annually using various treatments to achieve timber, wildlife, or riparian objectives

for the stands.

• The Forest Service proposes to plant tree seedlings within selected harvest units to enhance 

species composition if post-harvest evaluation determines that artificial reforestation is beneficial. 

Seed may be obtained by cone collection, for the purposes of tree seedling generation.

• The Forest Service proposes wildlife tree creation using methods such as blasting, girdling, and 

fungal inoculation in young-growth stands.

• The Forest Service proposes that stream-crossings within the project area that do not allow for 

fish and aquatic organism passage at all flows, referred to as ‘‘Red crossings,’’ may be replaced 

with appropriate structures, removed, or permitted with the Army Corps of Engineers.

• The Forest Service proposes to improve karst systems that have been impacted from past 

management by removing blockages to restore natural water flows into karst features. Younggrowth stands adjacent to impaired karst systems may be thinned to increase precipitation 

throughfall to increase spring flow and to flush accumulated sediment.

• Development or improvement of up to 70 sites (FS Agreement No. 06MU-11100100-151 MOU 

between Forest Service and State of Alaska, in the project record) for marine access facilities 

(MAF) within the project area for recreation or timber removal. This Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) is effective through December 31, 2018 it may however be extended by 

written mutual consent of the parties to the MOU. MAFs may include log transfer facilities 

(LTF), docks, boat ramps, floats, buoys, anchorages, breakwaters, boat haulouts, and similar 

improvements and facilities. These sites are not always associated with a road but may be used 

for a shoreline location such as near a cabin or shelter.

• The Forest Service will consider opportunities for fresh- and saltwater canoe and kayaks access

points, which could include spur trails, roadside pullouts, and shoreline improvements to mitigate 

bank degradation.

• Infrastructure actions: Road maintenance and use; management of system and temporary roads, 

including construction, maintenance, and potential storage of system roads and decommissioning 

of temporary roads after project implementation (maintenance level changes may occur); 

collection and placement of various materials (rocks, trees, logs) for stream restoration, use and 

development of new and existing rock pits (for both road needs and personal use); reconstruction 

and maintenance of marine access facilities and log transfer facilities; and infrastructure to access 

recreational sites. The Forest Service may construct up to two new LTFs.

• Non-infrastructure actions: Site preparation, hazard tree removal, wildlife-proof garbage can 

installation and maintenance, brushing and brush disposal, and viewshed improvement.

Features Specific to the Action Alternatives

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2 is the project’s proposed action, designed to meet the purpose and need as stated for the 

project. A highly collaborative, public process was used to develop Alternative 2. During scoping and 

throughout the collaborative process, the Forest Service received suggestions for a wide array of sitespecific activities and management strategies. Input from local youth, Prince of Wales Landscape 
2 – Alternatives

28 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Assessment Team (a local independent collaborative group), tribes, and the general public were used 

to finalize the proposed action.

The intent of Alternative 2 is to provide a variety of management activities that would support a stable 

long-term economy for the local communities while maintaining important fish and wildlife habitat. 

The proposed old-growth and young-growth harvest volume would provide an opportunity for local 

mills to shift to a primarily young-growth industry as outlined in the Forest Plan.

Vegetation Management

• Alternative 2 could offer up to an average of 25 MMBF of old-growth timber annually from 

suitable timber lands during the first 5 years of implementation, and up to an average of 15 

MMBF of old-growth timber annually during the next 5-year period. An evaluation of the amount 

of old-growth timber remaining within the project area would occur 10 years after the decision, to 

determine if economical offerings are still available from the suitable timber land base during the 

last 5-year period of the project. This evaluation would be conducted using the Implementation 

Plan process. Based on this evaluation up to 10 MMBF of old-growth timber may be offered for 

years 10 and 11 of the project and up to 5 MMBF of old growth timber for the final 3 years.

• Alternative 2 would offer an average of 3 MMBF annually of young growth during the first 7 

years of implementation and an average of 50 MMBF of young-growth timber annually during 

the next 8-year period, from suitable lands as defined under the Forest Plan. Young growth 

harvested under this alternative would occur in stands that generally have not reached 95 percent 

of culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI). Commercial harvest stands will, however, 

have generally reached a level of growth where at least 50 percent of the total volume occurs in 

trees with a merchantable height suitable to produce two 34-foot logs.

• An old-growth small sales strategy was developed to address concerns raised through public 

comment. The strategy would ensure economical old-growth timber is available for small 

operators within the project area, including availability beyond the 15-year timeline of this 

project, until sufficient young-growth timber is available to supplement their volume needs.

For each old-growth large sale greater than 10 MMBF, an amount equal to 25 percent of that sale 

volume must be identified from the remaining potential old-growth timber stands and placed in a 

pool for small sales offerings. Those designated stands should meet the following criteria: 1) be 

generally within 1⁄4 mile of existing or planned road connected to the road system on POW and 

Kosciusko Islands; 2) contain green timber with volume, species composition, and economic 

viability suitable for small operators; 3) be compatible with yarding systems in use by and 

available to small operators, generally ground-based and short-span cable systems; and 4) 

generally be offered with less than 3 MMBF per contract to meet the harvest and milling 

capacities of small operators.

• Old- and young-growth commercial harvests would use various prescriptions and logging 

systems, and would provide material to local mill operators through large sales, small sales, 

salvage sales, and microsales. Harvested trees generally are removed without the limbs and tops 

attached. However, the limbs, tops, and cull material could potentially be used as biomass, or 

other products. Commercial harvest of both old and young growth within a 5-mile radius around 

communities would use harvest prescriptions to improve or maintain deer habitat and existing 

wildlife corridors.

• Alternative 2 uses various treatments including thinning, girdling, pruning, and slash treatments 

to improve wildlife habitat in young-growth stands. Treatments would be prioritized in deep snow

habitat (south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation) when consistent with stand objectives 

and desired future conditions.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 29

Watershed Improvement and Restoration Treatments

• Alternative 2 includes instream restoration activities on up to 200 miles of stream within the 

project area in any watershed identified as having need to restore proper functioning condition, 

including but not limited to those listed in Table 3. The Forest Service would consider

opportunities for interpretive signs within restored watersheds for public education.

• Alternative 2 includes multiple fish habitat improvements such as lake fertilization, egg 

incubation boxes, fry stocking, and barrier modifications for fresh water systems to improve wild 

sockeye salmon runs in areas that historically produced larger runs, or to improve/provide Pacific 

salmon access to spawning and rearing habitat.

• Alternative 2 includes the use of manual and mechanical treatments, as part of an integrated pest 

management approach, to eradicate or control existing and new infestations of non-native, 

invasive plants. No herbicide would be used to treat invasive plants under this alternative.

Sustainable Recreation Management

Possible recreation activities on National Forest System lands include maintenance of existing 

recreation infrastructure, improvements to existing facilities, and construction of new infrastructure. 

As funding allows, construction may include outhouse facilities to accompany certain proposed 

recreation sites. Sustainable Recreation Management activities include:

• Alternative 2 includes development of up to three new cabins and up to twelve new shelters that 

are boat or road accessible. Existing cabins may be decommissioned, but would be replaced in a 

more accessible location that has a higher potential for use. The goal is to have no net loss of 

cabins.

• Alternative 2 includes development of up to 50 miles of new trails. Trail uses may include 

walking, hiking, bicycling, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicles. Maintenance on existing 

trails would continue, but improvements would only occur on trails that have regular use and a 

need for improvements. Spur trails to recreation structures may be developed. Interpretive 

information along new or existing trails would also be considered. Road-to-trail conversions

would be considered.

• Alternative 2 includes development of up to three new campgrounds and decommissioning Harris 

River Campground in exchange for developing the campground at El Capitan.

• Alternative 2 includes development of interpretative and informational signs that would be 

associated with recreation infrastructure and along roads and trails.

• Alternative 2 includes development of up to eight winter sport access points and areas for overthe-snow vehicle use. This may include pullouts, vegetation clearings wide enough (up to 60 feet) 

to facilitate snow cover of clearings and provide access to subalpine/alpine locations, and 

warming huts.

• Alternative 2 includes development of a picnic day-use area near Neck Lake. In addition, to 

support input from local youth, the Forest Service would consider permitting a day use area on 

the island for uses such as Frisbee golf, archery, and other youth activities.

Associated Actions

The Forest Service could construct about 35 miles of NFS road and about 129 miles of temporary 

road associated with the amount of commercial timber volume offered (Table 2).
2 – Alternatives

30 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 addresses public concerns from past management and its effects to the spread of 

invasive plants (Issue 1), subsistence opportunities (Issue 2), watershed function (Issue 4) and wildlife 

habitat (Issue 5) while supporting local small mills and providing a limited time for larger mills to 

increase their utilization of young-growth or locate another source of old-growth to supplement their 

timber supply (Issue 3). It reduces old-growth harvest, emphasizes more young-growth harvest

sooner, and incorporates other design criteria beyond what is required in the Forest Plan to limit the 

effects of harvest and emphasizes improvements in habitat on NFS lands adjacent to non-NFS land.

Also see Table 5.

This alternative addresses all issues to some degree in its design, but emphasizes Issues 1, 2, and 5 by 

maintaining and improving wildlife habitat across the landscape, increasing the use of uneven-aged

management to achieve wildlife habitat goals, and including herbicides to control invasive plant 

populations. It emphasizes a more rapid shift to primarily young-growth harvest, requiring mills to 

increase their utilization of young-growth or locate another source of old-growth to supplement their 

timber supply (Issue 3). It has a reduced amount of stream restoration and fish habitat improvement 

activities proposed, but would avoid increases to peak flow rates in all watersheds (Issue 4).

Vegetation Management

• Alternative 3 could offer up to an average of 10 MMBF of old-growth timber annually from 

suitable timber lands within the project area during the first 5 years of implementation, up to an 

average of 8 MMBF of old-growth timber annually during the next 5-year period, and up to an 

average of 5 MMBF old-growth timber annually during the last 5-year period. The old-growth 

stands in the area “North of 20 Road” would only be harvested as part of sales of less than 3 

MMBF (see Commercial Vegetation Management Map).

• Alternative 3 could offer an average of 7 MMBF annually of young growth during the first 7 

years of implementation and an average of 60 MMBF of young-growth timber annually during 

the next 8-year period, from suitable lands as defined under the Forest Plan. Young growth 

harvested under Alternative 3 would occur in stands that generally have not reached 95 percent of 

culmination of mean annual increment (CMAI). Commercial harvest stands will, however, have 

generally reached a level of growth where at least 50 percent of the total volume occurs in trees 

with a merchantable height suitable to produce two 34-foot logs.

• An old-growth small sales strategy was developed to address concerns raised through public 

comment. The strategy would ensure economical old-growth timber is available for small 

operators within the project area, including availability beyond the 15-year timeline of this 

project, until sufficient young-growth timber is available to supplement their volume needs.

For each old-growth large sale greater than 10 MMBF, an amount equal to 60 percent of that sale 

volume must be identified from the remaining potential project old-growth timber stands and 

placed in a pool for small sales offerings. Those designated stands should meet the following 

criteria: 1) be generally within 1⁄4 mile of existing or planned road connected to the road system 

on POW and Kosciusko Islands; 2) contain green timber with volume, species composition, and 

economic viability suitable for small operators; 3) be compatible with yarding systems in use by 

and available to small operators, generally ground-based and short-span cable systems; and 4) 

generally be grouped and offered with less than 3 MMBF per offer to meet the harvest and 

milling capacities of small operators.

• Old- and young-growth commercial harvests would use various prescriptions and logging 

systems, and would provide material to local mill operators through large sales, small sales, 

salvage sales, and microsales. Harvested trees generally are removed without the limbs and tops 
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 31

attached. However, the limbs, tops, and cull material could potentially be used as biomass, or 

other products.

• Alternative 3 includes use of slash treatments in harvested young-growth stands in beach buffers, 

old-growth reserves (OGR), and on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation (high-value 

deer winter habitat) when consistent with stand objectives and desired future conditions.

• Alternative 3 includes use of uneven-aged management prescriptions for young-growth 

treatments on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation in WAAs with greater than 10 

percent estimated deer harvest of the estimated deer habitat capability (DHC).

• Alternative 3 includes single-tree selection (STS) harvest of old growth on south-facing stands

below 800 feet in elevation in Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA) with estimated deer harvest greater 

than 10 percent of the estimated DHC and in VCU 5280.

• Alternative 3 incorporates various young-growth harvest recommendations from the Interagency 

Wolf Habitat Management Program (see Table 15).

• Prescribed burning may occur in young growth treated stands and would be limited to southfacing stands less than 800 feet in elevation in an effort to promote longer-term sustained deer

forage in high-value deer winter habitat within non-development LUDs. The proposed blocks of 

burning would average less than 10 acres in size.

• Alternative 3 emphasizes maintaining or improving wildlife habitat by using uneven-aged

management prescriptions and maintaining or creating wildlife travel corridors in areas with 

previous or proposed harvest.

Watershed Improvement and Restoration Treatments

• Alternative 3 limits instream restoration activities to a total of 80 miles of stream within the 

project area, representing the highest priority based on field assessments and public input to 

address public concerns about an increase in the amount of stream restoration activities.

• Alternative 3 only includes barrier modifications for fresh water systems for improving Pacific 

salmon access to spawning and rearing habitat.

• Alternative 3 avoids increasing peak flow rates in all watersheds through design and scheduling 

of canopy openings created by timber harvest.

• Alternative 3 would authorize the use of manual, mechanical, and herbicide treatments, as part of 

an integrated pest management approach, to eradicate or control existing and new infestations of 

non-native invasive plants.

Sustainable Recreation Management

Alternative 3 was designed to address public concerns about developing more recreational sites 

within the project area. Alternative 3 fosters a sustainable recreation program by: 1) focusing on 

maintenance of existing recreation site; 2) limiting development of new sites so there is no net 

increase in the number of recreation sites, and to those where maintenance costs are anticipated to be 

low; and 3) decommissioning low-use sites with high maintenance costs.

Alternative 3 Sustainable Recreation Management activities may include:

• Limiting outhouse development to vault toilets at existing road accessible locations.

• Decommissioning existing cabins where use levels do not justify the maintenance cost.

• Improvement of popular and high use trails, which support the associated maintenance and 

development costs.
2 – Alternatives

32 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

• Implementation of road to trail conversions after evaluating public input and district staff 

assessments of development and maintenance costs.

• Establishing up to twelve semi-developed sites, with a tent platform/pad, picnic table, and fire 

ring. Site selection would be based on road or boat accessibility.

• Decommissioning or downsizing the Harris River Campground.

• Developing informational signs associated with new recreation sites.

• Developing winter sport access points and areas where documented public support indicates 

potential high use for over-the-snow recreation. Development would include pullouts and 

vegetation clearing (up to 60 feet) to facilitate snowmobile access to open sub-alpine/alpine areas.

Associated Actions

Alternative 3 includes construction of about 48 miles of NFS road and about 175 miles of temporary 

road in association with the amount of commercial timber volume offered.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 was developed in response to public comments on the December 2017 Draft Issues and 

Alternatives document. Concerns were expressed that the Forest Service did not fully consider 

reducing the amount of old-growth timber for offer. The other components of this alternative are 

similar to either Alternative 2 or 3 for each activity listed, depending on which best aligned with 

comments received during this comment period (see Table 5).

Alternative 5 addresses all issues to some degree in its design, but emphasizes Issues 2, 4, and 5 by 

incorporating up to 200 miles of stream restoration, maintaining and improving wildlife habitat across 

the landscape and requiring mitigating efforts to avoid detectable increases to peak flow rates. It 

incorporates manual and mechanical treatments to eradicate, control, or contain populations of 

invasive plants (Issue 1). Like Alternative 3, it emphasizes a more rapid shift to primarily younggrowth harvest which would require local mills to increase their utilization of young-growth or locate 

another source of old-growth to supplement their timber supply (Issue 3).

Vegetation Management

• Alternative 5 could offer up to an average of 5 MMBF of old-growth timber annually from 

suitable timber lands within the project area throughout the life of the project. The area “North of 

the 20 Road” would not be considered for old-growth harvest (see Commercial Vegetation 

Management Map).

• Alternative 5 could offer an average of 7 MMBF annually of young growth during the first 7 

years of implementation and an average of 60 MMBF of young-growth timber annually during 

the next 8-year period, from suitable lands as defined under the Forest Plan. This is the same as in

Alternative 3.

• Old- and young-growth commercial harvests would use various prescriptions and logging 

systems, and would provide material to local mill operators through large sales, small sales, 

salvage sales, and microsales. Harvested trees generally are removed without the limbs and tops 

attached. However, the limbs, tops, and cull material could potentially be used as biomass, or 

other products.

• The wildlife habitat treatments in commercial young-growth stands are the same as Alternative 3 

including slash treatments and use of uneven-aged management prescriptions.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 33

• Alternative 5 includes no old-growth harvest on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation 

in Wildlife Analysis Areas (WAA) with estimated deer harvest greater than 10 percent of the 

estimated deer habitat capability (DHC) and in VCU 5280.

• Alternative 5 incorporates all of the recommendations from the Interagency Wolf Habitat 

Management Program, which include broader mitigation measures for wolves and deer habitat, 

such as young-growth treatments to improve deer habitat.

• Prescribed burning may be use to promote long-term deer forage in all deer habitats. The 

proposed blocks of burning would average less than 10 acres in size.

• Alternative 5 emphasizes maintaining or improving wildlife habitat by using uneven-aged

management prescriptions and maintaining or creating wildlife travel corridors in areas with 

previous or proposed harvest.

Watershed Improvement and Restoration Treatments

• Alternative 5 includes instream restoration activities on up to 200 miles of stream in any 

watershed identified as having need to restore proper functioning condition. The Forest Service 

would consider opportunities for interpretive signs within restored watersheds for public 

education. This is the same as in Alternative 2.

• Alternative 5 includes lake fertilization and barrier modifications only in freshwater systems to 

improve wild sockeye salmon runs in areas that historically produced larger runs or to 

improve/provide Pacific salmon access to spawning and rearing habitat.

• Alternative 5 includes use manual and mechanical treatments, as part of an integrated pest 

management approach, to eradicate or control existing and new infestations of non-native, 

invasive plants. This is the same as in Alternative 2.

Sustainable Recreation Management

Alternative 5 recreation activities on National Forest System lands include maintenance of existing 

recreation infrastructure, improvements to existing facilities, and potential construction of new 

infrastructure. As funding allows, construction may include outhouse facilities to accompany certain 

proposed recreation sites. Sustainable Recreation Management activities are the same as in 

Alternative 2 and include:

• Alternative 5 includes development of up to three new cabins and up to twelve new shelters that 

are boat or road accessible. Existing cabins may be decommissioned, but would be replaced with 

a more accessible location that has a higher use potential. The goal is to have no net loss of 

cabins.

• Alternative 5 includes development of up to 50 miles of new trails. Trail uses may include 

walking, hiking, bicycling, mountain biking, and off-highway vehicles. Maintenance on existing 

trails would continue, but improvements would only occur on trails that have regular use and a 

need for improvements is identified. Spur trails to recreation structures may be developed. 

Interpretive information along new or existing trails would also be considered. Road-to-trail 

conversions would be considered.

• Alternative 5 includes developing up to three new campgrounds and decommissioning Harris 

River Campground in exchange for developing a campground at El Capitan.

• Alternative 5 may develop interpretative and informational signs that would be associated with 

recreation infrastructure and along roads and trails.
2 – Alternatives

34 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

• Alternative 5 includes developing up to eight winter sport access points and areas for over-thesnow vehicle use. This may include pullouts and vegetation clearings (up to 60 feet) to provide 

access to subalpine/alpine locations, and warming huts.

• Alternative 5 includes a picnic day-use area near Neck Lake. In addition, to support input from 

local youth, the Forest Service would entertain proposals to permit a day use area on the island 

for uses such as Frisbee golf, archery, and other youth activities.

Associated Actions

Alternative 5 could construct about 49 miles of NFS road and about 180 miles of temporary road

associated with the amount of commercial timber volume offered.

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

In the DEIS, no alternative was identified as the preferred alternative. After consideration of public 

input during scoping and comments to the DEIS, the Responsible Official has identified Alternative 2 

as the preferred alternative that will best contribute to economic and social resilience of project area 

communities and the wellbeing of the forest. However, any of the alternatives, or portions of them, 

could be selected by the Responsible Official in the Record of Decision.

Design Criteria and Mitigation Common to All Action Alternatives

All action alternatives comply with Forest Plan direction, LUDs, and Best Management Practices

(BMP) designed for the protection and management of forest resources, as well other relevant federal

and state laws and regulations. Additional direction comes from applicable laws and Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks.

The analysis documented in this FEIS discloses both beneficial and adverse effects that may occur 

from implementing the actions proposed under each alternative. Both design criteria and mitigation 

measures alleviate potential adverse effects from natural or human-caused disturbances. Mitigation 

includes doing any, or a combination, of the following: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not 

taking a certain action or parts of an action, (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation, (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, 

or restoring the affected environment, (d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by 

preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action, and (e) compensating for the 

impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR 1508.20).

Project-specific design criteria and mitigation measures are included as part of the action alternatives, 

as applicable, and described in the Activity Cards, Appendix A. The Activity Cards describe each 

potential activity and the related resource considerations. Resource specialists used on-the-ground 

inventories, computer (GIS) data, and aerial photographs to assess project area conditions and 

resource-specific concerns, describing on the cards how these concerns would be mitigated (if not 

completely avoided) for each activity. See Appendix A. Resource concerns and mitigation measures 

may be refined further by specialists after specific activity locations and details are identified, and 

documented through the Implementation Plan process.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed 

in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the proposed action provided 

suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives 

were outside the scope of the project, did not meet the purpose and need of the project, were similar 
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 35

to the alternatives considered in detail, or were determined to include components that would cause 

unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, the following four alternatives were considered, but 

dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

1. An alternative was considered that would:

• offer no old-growth sales;

• limit the amount of young-growth offered for sale until it meets culmination of mean annual 

increment (CMAI) requirements;

• require all young-growth prescriptions to be uneven-aged management; and

• maximize watershed restoration, wildlife habitat improvements and recreation opportunities.

This alternative was eliminated because timber volumes under this alternative would not sustain a 

local timber industry to meet the purpose and need of this project. It does not meet the need for a 

sustainable level of forest products to contribute to the economic viability of Prince of Wales area

communities and does not address the need for young-growth forests to produce future desired 

resource values, products, services, and forest health conditions that sustain the diversity and 

productivity of forested ecosystems.

2. An alternative was considered that would:

• limit old-growth offerings to 5 MMBF annually for small purchasers and cottage industry only;

• only allow uneven-aged management prescriptions in high-value wildlife habitat;

• allow offerings of 9.2 MMBF annually of young-growth harvest for the first 10 years post 

decision and maximizing offerings as possible using the authorities in the Forest Plan;

• decommission some existing low-use recreation facilities and focus on maintaining highly used 

existing facilities; and

• focus restoration activities on protecting the existing instream investments (Harris River, Sal 

Creek, Twelvemile, Staney Creek, and Luck Creek); and

• implement precommercial thinning activities.

This alternative was eliminated because the young-growth, recreation, and restoration activities fall 

within the range of alternatives considered in detail. Alternatives 3 and 5 have a reduced amount of 

old-growth harvest that would support local small mills or “cottage industry” while providing a 

limited time for larger mills to increase their utilization of young-growth or locate another source of 

old-growth to supplement their timber supply. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 address high-value habitat 

needs by maintaining or improving wildlife habitat and corridors across the landscape and implement 

instream habitat restoration activities, and Alternatives 3 and 5 stagger entries to minimize peak flow 

rate increases.

3. An alternative was considered that would:

• maximize the old-growth offering up to 100 MMBF annually;

• require even-aged prescriptions to be used where cable or shovel yarding is feasible;

• reclaim rock from existing roads to build new roads;

• not allow young-growth offerings until stands meet CMAI requirements;

• not allow timber stand improvement or timber stand establishment treatments to be implemented;
2 – Alternatives

36 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

• decommission existing low-use recreation facilities, focus on maintaining highly used existing 

facilities, and not construct any new recreation facilities; and

• not implement any new restoration activities.

This alternative was eliminated because it does not meet the purpose and need for this project. It does 

not meet the need for young-growth forests to produce future desired resource values, products, 

services, and forest health conditions that sustain the diversity and productivity of forested 

ecosystems. Nor does it meet the need for restoration activities in some watersheds to reestablish selfsustaining habitats that promote viable fish, wildlife, and plant populations. It does not meet the need 

to expand opportunities for growth in the recreation and tourism business sectors. The amount of oldgrowth volume requested could eliminate all currently available old growth within 10 years and does 

not meet the need to provide a sustainable level of forest products to contribute to the economic 

viability of communities in the project area into the future.

4. An alternative, initially introduced as Alternative 4, which would:

• allow young-growth and old-growth timber harvest in 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA), phase II and III lands identified in the Tongass Timber 

Program Adaptive Management Strategy, T77 watersheds, and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon 

Conservation Priority Areas;

• increase the number of recreation sites within the project area and would not decommission any 

existing recreation facility;

• consider fish habitat improvements such as lake fertilization, egg incubation boxes, and barrier 

modifications for fresh water systems that have shown a decrease in fish population or have 

potential for increased habitat;

• conduct stream restoration activities on up to 200 miles of stream within the project area in any 

watershed identified as having need to restore proper functioning condition;

• allow manual, mechanical, and herbicide treatments; and

• be deferred until agency rulemaking potentially modifies the regulations at 36 CFR 294.13(b)(4) 

(2001) (the “Roadless Rule”) and any needed subsequent Forest Plan amendments.

This alternative was introduced during the comment period on Issues and Alternatives in December 

2017 as Alternative 4, primarily designed in response to address public comments requesting that we 

maximize the available productive timber stands for harvest by expanding the potential timber base 

into areas not available for commercial harvest under the Forest Plan, such as Inventoried Roadless 

Areas, Tongass 77 Watersheds, and The Nature Conservancy/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas. 

This would require a Forest Plan amendment in addition to changes to existing legislation or 

rulemaking. The Responsible Official decided to not amend the Forest Plan through this project to 

narrow the scope of analysis. This matches the corrected Notice of Intent published in the Federal 

Register for this project. All other proposed activities within Alternative 4, besides the expanded 

timber base and additional telecommunication sites that require a Forest Plan amendment, are 

included within one of the other alternatives being analyzed in detail. Therefore, Alternative 4 was 

eliminated from detailed consideration.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 37

Comparison of Alternatives by Issue

Table 4. Effects Comparison of Alternatives by Issue using Units of Measure Identified for each Issue

Issue 1: Invasive Plant Management

Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Relative cost and treatment 

effectiveness by treatment method

Treatment costs would be 

lowest under the current 

funding levels for treating 

weeds under the existing 

CE.

Avg. treatment cost per 

acre: $288

Avg. annual cost for 

assumed treatment target: 

$10,944

Estimated maximum acres 

treated annually: 38 acres

Total acres restored over 

15 years: 143 (about 25 

percent restoration 

effectiveness)

Avg. cost per restored acre: 

$1,148.

Treatment costs would be 

lowest under the current 

funding levels for treating 

weeds under the existing 

CE.

Avg. treatment cost per 

acre: $288

Avg. annual cost for 

assumed treatment target: 

$10,944

Estimated maximum acres 

treated annually: 38 acres

Total acres restored over 

15 years: 143 (about 25 

percent restoration 

effectiveness)

Avg. cost per restored acre: 

$1,148

Avg. treatment cost per 

acre: $103

Avg. annual cost for 

assumed treatment target: 

$6,800

Estimated maximum acres 

treated annually: 100 

acres

Total acres restored over 

15 years: 1,200 (about 80 

percent restoration 

effectiveness)

Avg. cost per restored 

acre: $86

Treatment costs would be 

lowest under the current 

funding levels for treating 

weeds under the existing 

CE.

Avg. treatment cost per 

acre: $288

Avg. annual cost for 

assumed treatment target: 

$10,944

Estimated maximum acres 

treated annually: 38 acres

Total acres restored over 

15 years: 143 (about 25 

percent restoration 

effectiveness)

Avg. cost per restored acre: 

$1,148

Herbicide impacts on human health Minor amounts of herbicide 

use would be used to treat 

invasive plant populations 

under this alternative under 

the existing CE at 

administrative and 

recreation sites and 

facilities. Exposure to 

human would be minimized 

by adhering to label 

instructions and additional 

project design features 

(PDF). Negligible Risk.

Minor amounts of herbicide 

use would be used to treat 

invasive plant populations 

under this alternative under 

the existing CE at 

administrative and 

recreation sites and 

facilities. Exposure to 

human would be minimized 

by adhering to label 

instructions and additional 

project design features 

(PDF). Negligible Risk.

No effect1– Imazapyr, 

Glyphosate, & Adjuvants 

for enhancing herbicide 

performance.

Negligible effect –

Aminopyralid. Negligible 

Risk.

Minor amounts of herbicide 

use would be used to treat 

invasive plant populations 

under this alternative under 

the existing CE at 

administrative and 

recreation sites and 

facilities. Exposure to 

human would be minimized 

by adhering to label 

instructions and additional 

project design features 

(PDF). Negligible Risk.

Herbicide impacts on non-target 

vegetation (includes rare and 

sensitive plants)

Minor effect2 Minor effect2 Minor effect2 Minor effect2
2 – Alternatives

38 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Herbicide impacts on soils Minor short-term2 effect to 

soil productivity and 

associated physical and 

biological components and 

processes.

Adverse long-term effect 

could increase due to 

continued expansion of 

current infestations, 

establishment of new 

populations, and increased 

soil erosion in localized 

areas.

Minor short-term2 effect to 

soil productivity and 

associated physical and 

biological components and 

processes.

Adverse long-term effect 

could increase due to 

continued expansion of 

current infestations, 

establishment of new 

populations, and increased 

soil erosion in localized 

areas.

Minor short-term2 effect to 

soil productivity and 

associated physical and 

biological components and 

processes.

Beneficial long-term 

effects due to anticipated 

increase in native plant 

species.

Minor short-term2 effect to 

soil productivity and 

associated physical and 

biological components and 

processes.

Adverse long-term effect 

could increase due to 

continued expansion of 

current infestations, 

establishment of new 

populations, and increased 

soil erosion in localized

areas.

Herbicide impacts on aquatic 

organisms

Cumulatively, short-term –

minor effects2 due to low 

number of infestations 

occurring within RMAs, 

near Class I and II streams 

and along shorelines and 

low toxicity of proposed 

herbicides under an 

existing CE.

Potential long-term –

adverse effect to aquatic 

organisms expected as 

weed populations grow and 

reduce productivity of 

riparian areas.

Cumulatively, short-term –

minor effects2 due to low 

number of infestations 

occurring within RMAs, 

near Class I and II streams 

and along shorelines and 

low toxicity of proposed 

herbicides under an 

existing CE.

Potential long-term –

adverse effect to aquatic 

organisms expected as 

weed populations grow and 

reduce productivity of 

riparian areas.

Cumulatively, short-term –

minor effects2 due to low 

number of infestations 

occurring within RMAs, 

near Class I and II 

streams, and along 

shorelines, and low toxicity 

of proposed herbicides.

Long-term – effects are 

expected to be beneficial 

due to improved aquatic 

habitat.

There could be some 

localized effects to aquatic 

macrophytes with the use 

of imazapyr. Glyphosate 

may cause sub-lethal 

effects to fish.

Cumulatively, short-term –

minor effects2 due to low 

number of infestations 

occurring within RMAs, 

near Class I and II streams 

and along shorelines and 

low toxicity of proposed 

herbicides under an 

existing CE.

Potential long-term –

adverse effect to aquatic 

organisms expected as 

weed populations grow and 

reduce productivity of 

riparian areas.

Herbicide impacts on water quality

and riparian condition

Short-term – negligible4

adverse effects to water 

quality and riparian 

condition for small 

infestations.

Long-term – moderate, 

adverse effects in localized 

areas resulting from the 

expected spread of 

Short-term – negligible4

adverse effects to water 

quality and riparian 

condition for small 

infestations.

Long-term – moderate, 

adverse effects in localized 

areas resulting from the 

expected spread of 

Short-term – negligible4, 

localized and adverse 

impacts on water quality

and riparian condition.

Long-term – negligible, 

localized and beneficial 

impacts to water quality

and riparian condition.

Short-term – negligible4

adverse effects to water 

quality and riparian 

condition for small 

infestations.

Long-term – moderate, 

adverse effects in localized 

areas resulting from the 

expected spread of 
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 39

invasive weeds, particularly 

reed canarygrass.

invasive weeds, particularly 

reed canarygrass.

invasive weeds, particularly 

reed canarygrass.

Herbicide impacts on wildlife Threatened and 

Endangered Species - No 

effect3

Sensitive Species - No 

effect3

MIS - Negligible effects4

Migratory Birds - Negligible 

effects4

Threatened and 

Endangered Species - No 

effect3

Sensitive Species - No 

effect3

MIS - Negligible effects4

Migratory Birds - Negligible 

effects4

Threatened and 

Endangered Species - No 

effect3

Sensitive Species - May 

affect5

MIS - Negligible effects4

Migratory Birds -

Negligible effects4

Threatened and 

Endangered Species - No 

effect3

Sensitive Species - No 

effect3

MIS - Negligible effects4

Migratory Birds - Negligible 

effects4

Effects to Wilderness area 

characteristics from manual, 

mechanical, and herbicide treatments

Short-term localized 

impacts to the untrammeled 

and opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

Wilderness would decline 

due to repeated entries to 

manually treat weeds or the 

placement of tarps.

Long-term decrease in 

natural quality as weeds 

remain present and 

potentially spread.

Short-term localized 

impacts to the untrammeled 

and opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

Wilderness would decline 

due to repeated entries to 

manually treat weeds or the 

placement of tarps.

Long-term decrease in 

natural quality as weeds 

remain present and 

potentially spread.

Short-term localized 

impacts to the 

untrammeled, 

opportunities for solitude, 

and primitive and 

unconfined recreation

qualities due to the 

presence of work crews or 

the placement of tarps.

Full suite of treatment 

options would result in the 

long-term beneficial 

impact on natural quality.

Short-term localized 

impacts to the untrammeled 

and opportunities for 

solitude qualities of 

Wilderness would decline 

due to repeated entries to

manually treat weeds or the 

placement of tarps.

Long-term decrease in 

natural quality as weeds 

remain present and 

potentially spread.

1 This conclusion is based on the hazards (i.e., formulated end-use products highest toxicity category IV; "not likely" to be carcinogenic; and no basis to assert the herbicide 

would cause an adverse effect on nervous system, immune system, endocrine functions, reproduction and development) and dose response and risk characterization longer-term 

and short-term exposure calculations were below the level of concern.

2 Minor effects cause observable and short-term changes to natural conditions, but do not reduce the integrity of a resource.

3 No effect: the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat.

4 Negligible effects may or may not cause observable changes to natural conditions; regardless, they do not reduce the integrity of the resource. Negligible effects are also when

the change would be so small that it would not be of any measurable or perceptible consequence to the individuals or populations 5 May affect is an official determination for sensitive species (FSM 2670) and is separate from a no effect, negligible effect or minor effect.

Issue 2: Subsistence

Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Effects to the distribution and 

abundance of, access to, and 

competition for aquatic subsistence

resources 

No direct or indirect effects.

Cumulatively, effects would 

remain similar to current 

conditions.

Improvements to the distribution and abundance of aquatic subsistence resources from 

activities that address fish habitat fragmentation and improve fish habitat. Minor adverse 

effects to the distribution and abundance of aquatic subsistence resources from road 

building, timber harvest, and MAF development.

Temporary and localized or short term disruptions on access to aquatic subsistence

resource from project activities.
2 – Alternatives

40 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Minor changes the competition for aquatic subsistence resources as a result of project 

activities are expected.

None of the project alternatives would present “a significant possibility of significant 

restriction” of subsistence uses for salmon, other fin fish, seaweed, and marine 

invertebrates.

Effects to deer habitat No direct effects.

Indirect effects of 2 to 8 

percent decrease in DHC 

by WAA as previously 

harvested stands move 

from stand initiation to stem 

exclusion stage

The Forest Plan estimates that some WAAs in the project area may retain 50 percent or 

less of the estimated deer habitat capability; WAAs 1420 and 1422.

The Forest Plan estimates that with full implementation of the Forest Plan that the North 

Central Prince of Wales Province (#14) is predicted to retain between 52 and 55 percent 

of the estimated 1954 DHC; the Southern Outer Islands Province (#16) about 80-82 

percent DHC; Dall Island and Vicinity (#17) about 66 percent DHC and South Prince of 

Wales (#18) about 81-82 percent DHC (Table 3.10-16 Forest Plan FEIS p. 3-288)

Changes in access to subsistence

resources by miles of proposed new 

road

No NFS or temporary road 

would be built under this 

project under Alternative 1.

About 35 miles of NFS road 

construction and 129 miles 

of temporary road

construction may occur, 

total 164 miles.

About 48 miles of NFS 

road construction and 175 

miles of temporary road

construction may occur, 

total 223 miles

About 49 miles of NFS road 

construction and 180 miles 

of temporary road

construction may occur, 

total 229 miles.

WAAs with concerns for percent 

harvest of DHC

WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420

Issue 3: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Timber volume (old-growth and 

young-growth) in million board feet 

(MMBF) for the life of the project (15 

years) 

No timber harvest would 

occur under this project for 

Alternative 1. Timber 

harvest under other 

projects would continue as 

planned.

Old growth: 235 MMBF

Young growth: 421 MMBF

Total: 656 MBF

Old growth: 115 MMBF

Young growth: 529 MMBF

Total: 644 MBF

Old growth: 75 MMBF

Young growth: 529 MMBF

Total: 644 MBF

Transportation cost per MBF -0- $50.78 $68.23 $74.37

Number of annualized direct jobs

supported for both domestic 

processing and Region 10 limited 

export policy for old-growth and 100 

percent for young-growth 

-0- Old growth

 Domestic process: 1,269

 R10 limited export: 1,061

Young growth

 100 percent export: 1,596

Old growth

 Domestic process: 519

 R10 limited export: 621

Young growth

100 percent export: 2,005

Old growth

 Domestic process: 339

 R10 limited export: 405

Young growth

 100 percent export: 2,005
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 41

Issue 4: Watershed Function

Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Number of watersheds with past 

restoration that could experience 

increased peak flow rates as a “worst 

case scenario” in response to 

potential timber harvest and road 

construction

-0- 5 (Table 36) -0- -0-

Cumulative miles of existing roads

and potential roads traversing slopes 

greater than 50 percent 

183 187 185 185

Number of watersheds that could 

experience increased peak flow rates

as a result of past (30 year moving 

window) and proposed harvested and 

roaded area by 6th level HUC 

watershed (“worst case scenario”)

-0- 36 (Table 37) -0- -0-

Total existing and proposed road 

miles on NFS lands within 300 feet of 

Class I and Class II streams and 

lakes 

785 907 907 903

Total existing and proposed road 

miles on NFS lands 

4,008 4,262 4,349 4,317

Number of new fish stream crossings

on NFS land

0 432 432 425

Miles of existing and proposed trails Existing trails: 89

Proposed trails: 0

Existing trails: 89

Proposed trails: 50

Existing trails: 89

Proposed trails: 0

Existing trails: 89

Proposed trails: 50

Miles of proposed stream restoration Up to 200 miles of stream 

within the project area in 

any watershed identified as 

having need to restore 

proper functioning 

condition.

Total of 80 miles of stream 

within the project area, 

representing the highest 

priority based on field 

assessments and public 

input

Up to 200 miles of stream 

within the project area in 

any watershed identified as 

having need to restore 

proper functioning 

condition.

Total acres of proposed timber 

harvest

-0- 42,665 49,684 43,035
2 – Alternatives

42 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Issue 5: Wildlife Habitat (NFS land only)

Unit of Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Acres of non-winter habitat harvested Only what would occur 

under separate NEPA for 

small and micro sales

23,269 acres 13,014 acres 6,365 acres

Acres of POG harvested Only what would occur 

under separate NEPA for 

small and micro sales

23,269 acres 13,014 acres 6,365 acres

Acres of average snow harvested 

(assume all POG is <1500 feet)

Only what would occur 

under separate NEPA for 

small and micro sales

23,269 acres 13,014 acres 6,365 acres

Acres HPOG harvested (47% POG) Only what would occur 

under separate NEPA for 

small and micro sales

10,936 acres 6,116 acres 2,992 acres

Acres of deep snow habitat harvested 

(6% of HPOG)

Only what would occur 

under separate NEPA for 

small and micro sales

656 acres 367 acres 180 acres

Acres of SD67 harvested (19% of 

POG)

Only what would occur 

under separate NEPA for 

small and micro sales

4,421 1162 568

Qualitative discussion on literature 

thresholds for % remaining and acres 

of non-winter habitat

1,625,718 acres or 9% 

reduction from 1954

Project may result in one

WAA 1525 dropping below 

50% and a 2% reduction in 

total habitat

1% reduction in total 

habitat

< 1% habitat reduction in 

total habitat

Qualitative discussion on literature 

thresholds for % remaining and acres 

of POG 

814,912 acres or 18% 

reduction from 1954

Project may result in seven 

WAAs dropping below 50% 

habitat remaining and a 3% 

reduction in total habitat

2% reduction in total 

habitat 1% reduction in total habitat

Qualitative discussion on literature 

thresholds for % percent remaining 

and acres of average snow habitat 

(POG habitat below 1,500 feet in 

elevation)

750,618 acres or 19% 

reduction from 1954

Project may result in five 

WAAs dropping below 50% 

habitat remaining and a 3%

reduction in total habitat

2% reduction in total 

habitat

< 1% reduction in total 

habitat

Qualitative discussion on literature 

thresholds for % remaining and acres 

of HPOG habitat

379,176 acres or a 32% 

reduction from 1954. There 

are five WAAs that are 

currently below 50% habitat 

remaining

Project may result in two 

WAAs dropping below 50% 

habitat remaining and a 3% 

reduction in total habitat

2% reduction in total 

habitat

1% reduction in total habitat
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 43

Qualitative discussion on literature 

thresholds for % remaining and acers 

of deep snow habitat (HPOG habitat 

in south-facing stands below 800 feet 

in elevation)

49,449 acres or 33% 

reduction from 1954. There 

are seven WAAs that 

currently below 50% habitat 

remaining

Project may result in three 

WAAs dropping below 50% 

habitat remaining and 1% 

reduction in total habitat

< 1% reduction in total 

habitat

No habitat loss

Qualitative discussion on literature 

thresholds for % remaining and acres 

of SD67 habitat

158,805 acres or a 27% 

reduction from 1954. There 

are four WAAs currently 

below 50% habitat 

remaining.

Project may result in three 

WAAs dropping below 50% 

habitat remaining and 3% 

reduction in total habitat

1% reduction in total 

habitat

< 1% reduction in total 

habitat

Comparison of Action Alternatives by Activity

This section provides a summarized comparison of action alternative components. Information in the table is focused on activities and 

different levels of effects or outputs that can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 5. Comparison of Action Alternatives

Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Activities Common to all Action Alternatives

Salvage 

opportunities for 

wood energy and 

other products

Salvage opportunities for wood energy and other products may occur as allowed by the Forest Plan. Within Old Growth Habitat LUD, 

opportunities are limited to within one tree length from a road or landing. 

Precommercial 

thinning of younggrowth stands

Precommercially treat up to 4,500 acres of young-growth stands annually for timber production, wildlife habitat improvement, and/or 

riparian improvement (see Precommercial Vegetation Management Map online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla).

Slash treatments may occur in thinned stands for wildlife habitat improvement. 

Tree planting and 

inter-planting

Tree planting and inter-planting may occur in any post-harvest unit to achieve desired species composition or regeneration requirements. 

Cone collection Cone collection may occur to acquire native seed for tree planting. 

Marine access

facilities

Up to 70 sites may be developed or improved for marine access facilities (MAF) within the project area for recreation or timber removal. 

Developments may include log transfer facilities (LTF), docks, boat ramps, floats, buoys, anchorages, breakwaters, boat haulouts, and 

similar improvements and facilities. These sites are not always associated with a road but may be used for a shoreline location such as 

near a cabin or shelter. MAFs associated with recreation are displayed on the Sustainable Recreation Management Map and the LTFs

are displayed on the Commercial Vegetation Management Map online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla.

Log transfer 

facilities

About 13 existing LTFs may be used and about 2 new LTFs may be constructed (see Commercial Vegetation Management Map online at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla).
2 – Alternatives

44 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Roads on the 

National Forest 

Roads may be opened, stored or decommissioned through a travel management analysis during project implementation. All new 

temporary roads would be decommissioned.

Fish stream 

crossing structures

All newly installed fish-stream crossing structures must meet fish passage requirements.

Existing stream-crossings within the project area that do not allow for fish and aquatic organism passage at all flows, referred to as ‘‘Red 

crossings’’, may be replaced with appropriate structures, removed, or permitted by regulatory agencies as funding allows (see Watershed 

Improvement and Restoration Treatments Map online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla). 

Harvesting wood for 

stream restoration 

needs

Harvesting rootwad trees, cut trees, and salvage of cull logs and stumps to provide a source of Large Woody Debris (LWD) for stream 

restoration activities where trees and trees with rootwads are needed to achieve stream restoration objectives.

Wildlife trees Wildlife trees may be created using methods such as blasting, girdling, and fungal inoculation in young-growth stands.

Restoration of 

historical surface 

flows to karst

features

Historical surface-water flow paths may be restored to address past management activities that impeded natural water flows or created 

unnatural water flows to karst features. For example if a road drainage ditch captures and directs surface flow to a karst feature where it 

naturally would not have drained, corrections may be taken. These opportunities are not currently mapped and would be identified during 

field inventory. 

Recreational view 

improvements

To enhance recreation experiences, view improvement activities may occur at recreation sites, trails or along roads to provide or improve 

vistas, including timber stand thinning, pruning, or vegetation clearing. 

Canoe and kayak

access points

Opportunities for fresh- and saltwater canoe and kayaks access points would be considered (not identified in the 70 MAFs above), which 

could include spur trails, roadside pullouts, and shoreline improvements to mitigate bank degradation. 

Soil Restoration May restore soil productivity where detrimental soil conditions approach or exceed 15 percent of an activity area.

Associated Actions Infrastructure actions: Road maintenance and use; management of system and temporary roads: including construction, maintenance, 

and potential storage (maintenance level changes may occur); and use and development of new and existing rock pits.

Non-infrastructure actions: Site preparation, hazard tree removal, wildlife-proof garbage can installation and maintenance, brushing and 

brush disposal, and viewshed improvement.

Activities that vary by Action Alternative

Activity Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Invasive plant 

management

(See Invasive Plant 

Management Map

at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

 No herbicide would be used to treat 

invasive plant populations under this 

alternative with the exception of 

administrative and recreation sites and 

facilities covered under CE for this activity.

 Use manual treatments (e.g., hand pulling 

and tarping) and mechanical treatments 

(mowing) to eradicate, control, or contain 

populations of invasive plants. The 

analysis area is the project area, which 

includes both NFS and non-NFS lands, to 

allow for a comprehensive approach to 

weed management, and enable 

 Use an integrated weed management 

approach, which includes manual 

treatments (e.g., hand pulling and tarping), 

mechanical treatments (mowing), and 

herbicides (spot, broadcast, and 

hand/selective applications) to eradicate, 

control, or contain populations of invasive

plants within the project area.

 The analysis area is the project area, which 

includes both NFS and non-NFS lands, to 

allow for a comprehensive approach to 

weed management, and enable 

partnerships with other landowners if 

Same as Alternative 2
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 45

partnerships with other landowners if 

funding becomes available through federal 

grants or other initiatives.

 The number of treatment acres is based 

on the current inventory of invasive plants, 

approximately 2,300 acres of known 

infestations (see Invasive Plant 

Management Map online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powll

a), including lands of other ownership. It is 

likely that additional undocumented 

infestations would be treated. Infestations 

selected for treatment would be addressed 

on a yearly basis through an annual 

treatment plan.

funding becomes available through federal 

grants or other initiatives.

 The number of treatment acres is based on 

the current inventory of invasive plants, 

approximately 2,300 acres of known 

infestations (see Invasive Plant 

Management Map online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla

), including lands of other ownership. It is 

likely that additional undocumented 

infestations would be treated. Infestations 

selected for treatment would be addressed 

on a yearly basis through an annual 

treatment plan.

 To provide flexibility to respond to newly 

discovered invasive plant infestations, an 

adaptive management tool called Early 

Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) would 

be used. With this tool, new infestations 

would be treated using the range of 

methods and design criteria described in 

the alternatives.

Commercial younggrowth harvest

(See Commercial 

Vegetation 

Management Map

at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

Offer a variety of young-growth timber sale 

sizes post-decision:

 Years 1-7 an average of 3 MMBF of young 

growth annually; and

 Years 8-15 an average of 50 MMBF of 

young growth annually.

 An estimated average of 25 MBF per acre 

would be used to determine which stands 

may potentially be treated. This gives a 

conservative estimate on the volume per 

acre needed to reach an economical 

offering, but does reduce the acreage and 

volume available earlier in the project time 

line.

 In young-growth stands surrounding 

communities, leave untreated areas as

wildlife travel ways (corridors) to benefit 

deer to benefit subsistence users.

 Prescriptions that improve or maintain 

wildlife habitat would be used in both 

Offer a variety of young-growth timber sale 

sizes post-decision:

 Years 1-7 an average of 7 MMBF of young 

growth annually; and

 Years 8-15 an average of 60 MMBF of 

young growth annually.

 An estimated average of 22 MBF per acre 

would be used to determine which stands 

maybe potentially treated. This will allow for 

increased acreage and volume in the 

earlier portions of the project timeline while 

still striving to meet the minimum volume 

per acre for economical timber offerings.

 To improve deer habitat, slash treatments 

may occur in beach buffers, OGRs, and on 

all south facing stands below 800 feet in 

elevation.

 In WAAs with >10 percent estimated 

subsistence deer harvest of the estimated 

deer habitat capability (DHC), all youngSame as Alternative 3.
2 – Alternatives

46 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

young-growth and old-growth stands 

within a 5-mile radius of communities to 

benefit subsistence users.

growth treatments on south-facing stands

below 800 feet in elevation would be 

treated with uneven-aged management

prescriptions.

Commercial oldgrowth timber 

harvest

(See Commercial 

Vegetation 

Management Map

online at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

Offer a variety of old-growth timber sale 

sizes post-decision:

 Years 1-5 up to an average of 25 MMBF of 

old growth annually;

 Years 6-10 up to an average of 15 MMBF 

of old growth annually; and

 Years 11-15 evaluate the remaining 

amount of old growth available. For 

analysis an assumption was used where:

-years 11-12 up to 10 MMBF annually, and

-years 13-15 up to 5 MMBF annually.

 Prescriptions that improve or maintain 

wildlife habitat would be used in both 

young-growth and old-growth stands 

within a 5-mile radius of communities to 

benefit subsistence users.

Offer a variety of old-growth timber sale sizes 

post-decision:

 Years 1-5 up to an average of 10 MMBF of 

old growth annually;

 Years 6-10 up to an average of 8 MMBF of 

old growth annually; and

 Years 11-15 up to an average of 5 MMBF 

of old growth annually.

 In WAAs with >10 percent estimated 

subsistence deer harvest of the estimated 

DHC allow 25 percent removal of oldgrowth using single tree selection on southfacing stands below 800 feet in elevation.

 At the north end of POW Island, in an area 

bounded by the National Forest System 

road 2000000 to the south, saltwater to the 

north, the communities of Point Baker and 

Port Protection to the west, and western 

shoreline of Red Bay to the east (“North of 

the 20 Road”), old-growth stands would 

only be harvested as part of sales of 

generally less than 3 MMBF. See 

Commercial Vegetation Management Map 

online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla

Offer an average of 5 MMBF annually 

with sales offered each year (1-15).

 In WAAs with >10 percent estimated 

subsistence deer harvest of the 

estimated DHC, do not allow oldgrowth harvest on south-facing stands

below 800 feet in elevation.

 North of the 20 Road, old-growth

stands would not be harvested (see 

Commercial Vegetation Management

Map online at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/p

owlla).

Old-growth small 

sales strategy 

An old-growth small sales strategy was 

developed to address concerns raised 

through public comment. The strategy would 

ensure economical old-growth timber is 

available for small operators within the 

project area, including availability beyond the 

15-year timeline of this project, until 

sufficient young-growth timber is available to 

supplement their volume needs.

 For each old-growth large sale greater 

than 10 MMBF, an amount equal to 25 

percent of that sale volume must be 

identified from the remaining potential 

Same as Alternative 2, except:

 For each large sale offered greater than 10 

MMBF, an amount equal to 60 percent of 

that sale volume must be identified from 

the remaining potential project old-growth 

timber stands and placed in a pool for small 

sales offerings.

 Assumption 2) calculations were based off 

the total alternative volume of 115 MMBF in 

Years 1 through 15 post-decision (thus, no 

need for Assumptions 3 and 4).

No old-growth small sale strategy is 

developed for this alternative.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 47

project old-growth timber stands and 

placed in a pool for small sales offerings.

 Those designated stands should meet the 

following criteria:

1) be generally within 1⁄4 mile of existing or 

planned road connected to the road 

system on POW and Kosciusko Islands;

2) contain green timber with volume, 

species composition, and economic 

viability suitable for small operators;

3) be compatible with yarding systems in 

use by and available to small operators, 

generally ground-based and short-span 

cable systems; and

4) generally be grouped and offered with 

less than 3 MMBF per offer to meet the 

harvest and milling capacities of small 

operators.

 Assumptions include:

1) a minimum annual average of 2 MMBF 

of old-growth timber is needed for small 

operators within the project area for 25 

years, though designated volume for after 

Year 15 is not considered part of the 

harvest allowed in the decision; and

2) calculations were based off the total 

alternative volume of 200 MMBF in Years 

1 through 10, and an assumption that:

3) Years 11 and 12 would have a 

maximum annual average of 10 MMBF 

offered and

4) Years 13 through 15 would have a 

maximum annual average of 5 MMBF 

offered.

Peak Flow Rates No restriction would be placed on location 

and timing of timber harvest activities as 

relates to peak flow rate increases. During 

the implementation process, careful 

consideration of watershed-specific activities 

and characteristics will be necessary to 

Project activities will be located and timed so 

that no increases to peak flow rates would be 

anticipated in any project area watershed.

Same as Alternative 3.
2 – Alternatives

48 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

ensure that fish habitat and water quality are 

not degraded by peak flow rate increases.

Stream restoration

(See Watershed 

Improvement and 

Restoration 

Treatments Map

online at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

Conduct stream restoration activities on up 

to 200 miles of stream within the project area 

in any watershed identified as having need 

to restore proper functioning condition. The 

Forest Service is including watersheds that 

have both NFS and non-NFS lands in the 

project area to allow for a comprehensive 

approach to stream and floodplain

restoration, and enable partnerships with 

other landowners. 

Same as Alternative 2 except limiting 

instream restoration activities to a total of 80

miles of stream within the project area, 

representing the highest priority based on 

field assessments and public input

Same as Alternative 2.

Fish habitat 

improvements

(See Watershed 

Improvement and 

Restoration 

Treatments Map

online at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

Consider multiple fish habitat improvements 

such as barrier modifications, lake 

fertilization, egg incubation boxes, and fry 

stocking to improve Pacific salmon access to 

spawning and rearing habitat, and to 

improve wild sockeye salmon runs in areas 

that historically produced larger runs. 

Consider only barrier modifications to 

improve Pacific salmon access to spawning 

and rearing habitat.

Consider only lake fertilization and 

barrier modifications to improve Pacific 

salmon access to spawning and rearing 

habitat, and to improve wild sockeye 

salmon runs in areas that historically 

produced larger runs.

Connectivity of old 

growth between 

Port Protection and 

Calder Bay 

Current LUD designations provide 

connectivity for this area.

No restrictions for old-growth harvest in VCU 

5280.

Current LUD designations provide 

connectivity for this area.

Allow only STS prescriptions for old-growth

stands in VCU 5280.

Current LUD designations provide 

connectivity for this area.

Allow no old-growth harvest in VCU 

5280.

Incorporation of 

recommendations 

made by the

Interagency Wolf 

Habitat 

Management 

Program: 

Recommendations 

for Game 

Management Unit 2. 

Management 

Bulletin R10-MB822. USDA Forest 

Service, USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 

Will meet Forest Plan direction. DEER

Young Growth (0-25 years):

 Aim to thin all young growth prior to about 

25 years post-harvest in medium to high 

productivity stands.

 Leave untreated or unthinned strips (leave 

strips) to provide elevational movement

corridors for wildlife to maintain or enhance 

connectivity between higher and lower 

elevations. Promote/maintain redcedar and 

yellow-cedar through thinning and planting 

if needed.

Young Growth (26-60 years):

 The Interagency Wolf Habitat 

Management Program

recommendations would be 

implemented fully.

 Use a mean buffer of 2,400 feet in 

radius (about 0.5 mile) for reproductive 

wolves at den sites as suggested in 

Draft Preliminary Wolf Buffer Analysis 

(ADF&G 18 Oct 2017)
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 49

and Alaska 

Department of Fish 

and Game. Wolf

Task Committee

Wolf Technical 

Committee (2017)

 Leave untreated or unthinned strips that 

provide elevational movement corridors for 

deer to maintain or enhance connectivity

between higher and lower elevations. Use 

400 feet as a guide to space travel 

corridors within thinning treatments in the 

absence of existing routes, terrain features, 

or other habitat connectivity drivers.

 Consider a variety of treatment 

combinations including variable-spaced 

thinning, girdling, pruning, small gap 

creation, and slash treatments, with the 

goal of creating deer forage and movement 

corridors in proximity to each other.

 Reduce or abate effects of slash on deer

mobility in treated stands.

Older Young Growth ( >60 years):

In areas where succession towards oldgrowth conditions is identified as a dual 

objective (i.e., Old-growth Habitat LUDs, 

beach and estuary fringe, and Riparian 

Management Areas outside of Tongass 

Timber Reform Act buffers that are within 

Development and Old-growth Habitat LUDs):

 Without compromising continued 

succession towards old-growth conditions, 

design treatments that provide understory 

deer forage and reduce effects of stem 

exclusion and slash to support long-term 

deer habitat. Treatments could include 

variable-density thinning, thinning favoring 

dominant trees, creating small gaps and 

narrow openings, and pruning.

 Incorporate unthinned or untreated leave 

strips of intact canopy, especially along 

ridgelines, to promote elevational

movements during severe winters and 

minimize distance between deer and 

foraging opportunities across the 

landscape.

 Consider vulnerability to predation when 

designing sizes and shapes of multi-aged
2 – Alternatives

50 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

class-rotational configurations, decreasing 

deer vulnerability on flatter slopes by 

creating smaller and more dispersed 

treatments.

WOLF

Den:

Protect the integrity of known wolf dens 

(active and inactive) with noncircular buffers 

generally centered on the den with 

consultation with Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game (ADF&G) and the United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

 Retain roadless, gently sloping (about 25 

percent) old-growth forest within 330 feet of 

major lakes and streams (defined in Wolf 

Plan) to preserve denning habitat and densite options for wolves.

 In Forest Plan Legacy VCUs, retain acres 

to create large buffers along major lakes 

and streams as defined in Wolf Plan. See 

Legacy standards and guidelines in the 

Forest Plan.

 Use a mean buffer of 2,400 feet in radius 

(about 0.5 mile) for reproductive wolves at 

den sites as suggested in Draft Preliminary 

Wolf Buffer Analysis (ADF&G 18 Oct 2017)

Road Density:

 During implementation, prioritize roads for 

closure based on wolf harvest 

vulnerabilities.

 Focus road closures in areas to benefit 

wolves.

Recreation 

infrastructure

(See Sustainable 

Recreation 

Management Map

at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

Recreation infrastructure inventory may 

increase or be realigned to improve

recreation opportunities in areas with road or 

boat based access and potential for higher 

use and decrease infrastructure in those 

areas with difficult access and limited use.

Develop new recreation infrastructure in 

areas identified by the public, and that are 

accessible by road or boat.

A reduction in recreation infrastructure 

inventory is likely.

Develop new sites to realign and improve 

recreation and tourism opportunities. 

Development should not exceed the current 

inventory by decommissioning sites. New 

sites would be accessible by road or boat.

Same as Alternative 2.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 51

Improvements at existing and newly 

developed recreation sites would be 

implemented to enhance recreation 

opportunities.

Maintain and improve existing infrastructure. 

Development of infrastructure (e.g., 

outhouses, structures, trails) must consider 

maintenance needs and limitations of 

available and foreseeable program 

resources (see Sustainable Recreation 

Management Map online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla).

Decommissioning recreation facilities could 

occur; facilities considered for 

decommissioning may be evaluated by level 

of use comparatively against other POW 

district infrastructure, ease of access, and 

maintenance requirements. To maintain 

inventory levels, may develop new facilities 

in lieu of decommissioned sites.

New recreation sites design should require 

less program investment and maintenance 

commitment.

Develop or improve sites to reduce 

maintenance requirements; this shift could be 

achieved through limiting the amenities 

provided such as outhouses and trash 

receptacles, and the use of durable materials 

and construction methods.

Decommission some recreation infrastructure 

and sites where the amount of use does not 

justify the maintenance cost. Facilities 

considered for decommissioning will be 

evaluated by level of use comparatively 

against other POW district infrastructure, 

ease of access, and maintenance 

requirements.

Interpretive and 

informational signs

Interpretative and informational signs would 

be associated with existing and new

recreation infrastructure and along roads 

and trails.

Informational signs would be associated with 

existing or new recreation sites. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Trail Management

(See Sustainable 

Recreation 

Management Map

at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

Maintenance would continue on existing 

trails.

Improve regularly used trails if a need is 

identified.

Up to 50 miles of new trails may be 

developed.

Spur trails to recreation structures may be 

developed. 

Only trails with enough use to justify the cost 

of maintenance would be improved.

No new trails would be developed.

Use levels would be based on public input 

and district staff experience. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Road to trail

conversions

Consider road-to-trail conversions. Road to trail conversions would be minimal 

and limited to routes with documented public 

support indicating the potential for high use 

and district staff knowledge. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Winter sport access

and warming huts

Up to eight winter sport access points and 

areas would be developed for over-the-snow 

vehicle use (see Sustainable Recreation 

Management Map online at

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla). 

Only winter sport access points and areas 

with documented public support indicating the 

potential for high use would be developed for 

over-the-snow recreation. Development 

would include pullouts and standard OHV 

Same as Alternative 2.
2 – Alternatives

52 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

This may include pullouts, vegetation 

clearings (up to 60 feet), providing access to 

subalpine/alpine locations, and warming 

huts. 

width trails (up to 50 inches) to subalpine/alpine elevations.

Outhouses Consider outhouse development for all 

existing and proposed recreation facilities. 

Install outhouses based on anticipated use 

levels and maintenance requirements. 

Maintenance must be sustainable with 

available and foreseeable program 

resources. 

Outhouse development would be limited to 

vault toilets at existing road accessible 

locations. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Campgrounds and 

campsites

(See Sustainable 

Recreation 

Management Map

at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

Consider development of three 

campgrounds: Hydaburg, El Capitan, and 

Luck Lake. Decommission Harris River

Campground in exchange for developing the 

campground at El Capitan. 

Selection of campgrounds or campsites

would be limited by maintenance costs to 

program resources and projected use levels.

The Harris River campground would be 

decommissioned.

Consider up to 12 semi-developed sites 

(where 12 shelters were proposed in 

Alternative 2). These sites would be 

developed with a tent platform/pad, picnic 

table, and fire ring. Site selection would be 

based on road or boat accessibility. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Cabins and shelters

(See Sustainable 

Recreation 

Management Map

online at 

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

About 3 cabins and 12 shelters may be 

developed that are boat or road accessible. 

No new cabins or shelters would be 

developed. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Cabin 

decommissioning

Cabins may be decommissioned.

Cabins selected for decommissioning could 

be replaced with a cabin in a more 

accessible location, with potential for higher 

use; no net loss of cabins. 

Cabins would be decommissioned where the 

amount of use does not justify the 

maintenance cost. 

Same as Alternative 2.

Transportation 

management

(See Commercial 

Vegetation 

Management Map

online at

All existing roads may be used to implement 

proposed activities.

 About 35 miles of new NFS road 

construction may occur.

 About 129 miles of new temporary road

construction may occur. 

All existing roads may be used to implement 

proposed activities.

 About 48 miles of new NFS road 

construction may occur.

 About 175 miles of new temporary road

construction may occur.

All existing roads may be used to 

implement proposed activities.

 About 49 miles of new NFS road 

construction may occur.

 About 180 miles of new temporary 

road construction may occur.
Alternatives - 2

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Alternatives – Chapter 2 ▪ 53

http://www.fs.usda.g

ov/goto/tongass/po

wlla)

More miles are needed since more young

growth would be harvested.

More miles are needed since more 

young growth would be harvested.

Prescribed burning 

for wildlife habitat

improvement in 

young growth

harvested stands

No prescribed burning. Prescribed burning may occur in nondevelopment LUDs. Prescribed burning 

would be limited to south-facing areas less 

than 800 feet in elevation to promote longterm sustained deer forage in high-value deer 

winter habitat. The proposed blocks of 

burning would average less than 10 acres in 

size. 

Prescribed burning may be use to 

promote long-term deer forage in all 

LUDs. The proposed blocks of burning 

would average less than 10 acres in size.
2 – Alternatives

54 ▪ Chapter 2 – Alternatives Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

This page is intentionally left blank
Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 55

Chapter 3. Environment and Effects

Introduction

This chapter describes the affected environment within the project area and the environmental 

impacts of the alternatives. The Forest Plan FEIS provides additional background information and 

analyses not included here.

Geographic Information System Database and Quantification for this 

EIS

The Forest Service uses its computerized geographic information system (GIS) database to conduct 

spatial analysis of alternatives and effects and to display resource information in map format. Much 

of the GIS data consist of map “layers,” each representing a particular resource or attribute (such as 

forest type, soil type, or recreation places). These GIS data layers originated from aerial imagery 

interpretation and are updated from field inventories using standard data collection procedures. GIS 

layers facilitate consistency by using the same base data for individual resource effects analysis. GIS 

data and product accuracy may vary.

This analysis used the best available information and included habitat variables such as vegetation, 

slope, and elevation. Potential habitat is based on the presence of habitat characteristics as described 

in available scientific literature, previous habitat surveys, recorded observations, and other credible

sources of biotic information. This project was analyzed and assessed with consideration of the best 

available science, Forest Plan direction, research and life history literature, approved survey 

protocols, and professional judgment. The assumptions about proposed treatments used to make the 

determination of effects are found in the individual resource sections below.

The baseline numbers used to describe the existing condition may depend on overlaying of multiple 

layers, which may not always line up (e.g., along property boundaries, saltwater shorelines, lake 

edges). This may produce variation in acreage estimates. The differences can amount to hundreds of 

acres or more, especially because the calculations are for a large project area. The slivers of area 

creating these discrepancies, on a percentage basis, are insignificant.

Numbers presented are rounded to the nearest whole acre, whole mile, or whole percent, except for 

road densities. No attempt has been made to adjust the numbers to force the sums of rounded numbers 

to equal the totals. Therefore, the sum of rounded individual numbers may be different than the 

expected sum, and all numbers calculated from GIS should be considered as approximate.

Conditions and GIS data are always changing. GIS data generated for analysis represent what is on 

the ground at the time that the analysis is conducted.

Ecological and Administrative Land Divisions

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

resources and allow analysis of how they may be affected by Forest Plan and project-level decisions. 

These divisions vary by resource since the relationship of each resource to geographic conditions and 

zones varies. The allocation of Forest Plan land use designations (LUD), discussed in Chapter 1, is

one such division. Other divisions important to describe the affected environment and perform effects 

analyses are described briefly here.
3 – Environment and Effects

56 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Biogeographic Province (BP)

A biogeographic province designation refers to 21 ecological subdivisions of Southeast Alaska 

identified by generally distinct ecological, physiogeographic, and biogeographic features (see map in 

the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, p. 3-186). Four biogeographic provinces: 14, 16, 17, and 18,

overlay the POW LLA project area.

Game Management Unit (GMU)

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

(ADF&G) to manage wildlife populations. GMU 2 includes Prince of Wales Island and most of the 

outer islands. Coronation Island is in the project area and is in GMU 3.

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA)

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA) are undeveloped areas typically exceeding 5,000 acres that met the 

minimum criteria for wilderness consideration under the Wilderness Act and that were inventoried 

during the Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Review (RARE II) process (1979). Some of 

these areas have been modified since that review due to land transfer (for example the 2015 Sealaska 

Land conveyance impacted some upland roadless acres in VCUs 5280 and 5310) and development, 

road construction, and timber harvest that occurred before the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

or while the Tongass National Forest was exempt from the 2001 Rule. The Forest Service Roadless 

Area Conservation Rule, Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 dated November 2000 

contains maps that display the IRAs analyzed for this project. The POW LLA Project includes 24

IRAs (see https://www.fs.usda.gov/nfs/11558/www/nepa/109834_FSPLT3_4431593.pdf).

Value Comparison Unit (VCU)

Value comparison units are distinct geographic areas, each encompassing a drainage basin containing 

one or more large stream systems. The boundaries usually follow major watershed divides. The POW 

LLA project area includes 207 VCUs. The POW LLA Project VCU map is available in the project 

record (file 833_1024).

Watershed

Activities for this project were analyzed at the 6th level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). HUCs are 

unique identifiers used in a standardized watershed classification system, the Watershed Boundary 

Dataset (WBD), developed by the USGS. Hydrologic units are watershed boundaries organized by 

size and location, and can be viewed as the “address” of a particular watershed. Watersheds defined as 

HUCs are uniformly mapped for the entire United States. The project boundary contains 136 (HUC6 

level) watersheds (see Map 6: Watersheds) with at least a portion of their drainage areas within the 

project area.

Wildlife Analysis Area (WAA)

Wildlife analysis areas are land divisions used by the ADF&G for wildlife analysis and regulating 

wildlife populations. The project area includes 32 WAAs. The wildlife and subsistence analyses use 

information by WAA for estimating effects.

Analyzing Effects

Environmental effects are the effects of implementing an alternative on the physical, biological, 

social, and economic environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 

implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) include the following specific 

categories for the analysis of environmental effects.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 57

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or 

action. Indirect effects occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity. Cumulative

effects result from incremental effects of actions, when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions.

In the Environmental Effects sections, the direct and indirect effects are presented first, followed by 

cumulative effects. For most resources, private lands and other public lands, as well as waters outside 

the jurisdiction of the Forest Service (i.e., submerged islands, marine waters, Alaska State Parks) are 

not included in the direct and indirect effects analysis. However, for aquatics and invasive plants, all 

lands in the project area were considered for direct and indirect effects analysis because some

activities may extend into other land ownerships for continuity and integration of planning and 

implementation. Any such project must be supported and authorized by the other landowners, usually 

through formal agreements. For evaluating cumulative effects, the interdisciplinary team (IDT)

considered all lands in the project area. For some resources, an expanded boundary was evaluated. 

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis area for each resource is described in the 

appropriate section later in this chapter.

Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Past Projects

Past projects considered in cumulative effects analysis generally are physically located on the 

landscape, such as roads. The past projects combined with the natural environment, represent the 

affected environment described for each resource in this chapter. These projects include timber 

harvest, thinning of harvested stands, recreation developments, road construction and Log Transfer

Facility (LTF) construction; stream restoration and enhancement, and highway construction.

To understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of project alternatives, this 

analysis assumes that current environmental conditions are a result of effects from past actions. This 

is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate effect of all preceding human actions and natural 

events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Cumulative effects discussions contained in the POW LLA Project do not attempt to quantify the 

effects of past actions by adding up all previous actions on an action-by-action basis. The reasons for 

not taking this approach are as follows:

• Existing conditions are a result of numerous actions (i.e., timber harvesting, road construction, 

off-highway vehicle use) over the past decades, and trying to isolate the individual actions that 

continue to have residual effects would be impractical. GIS layers include all past harvest and 

roads. These layers were used in the analysis to describe existing condition.

• Revealing specifics of past actions on an individual basis would not be advantageous in 

determining the cumulative effects of the proposed action or other alternatives. Focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is 

limited information on the environmental effects of individual past actions, and one cannot 

reasonably determine each and every action over past decades that has contributed to current 

conditions. Also, it is uncertain how the effects of past natural events, together with humancaused events, have cumulatively shaped the current landscape. By looking at existing conditions, 

we are more likely to convey the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, 

regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects.
3 – Environment and Effects

58 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

• Public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information 

on individual past actions.

• Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum (Connaughton 

2005) regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without 

delving into the historical details of individual past actions.”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in the POW LLA Project is based on current 

environmental conditions.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects are cataloged in the Catalog of Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities table (Appendix C).

The following types of projects are either present actions or are considered reasonably foreseeable

future activities and are combined with past projects (represented by the existing condition for each 

resource) to be considered in the cumulative effects analysis. Existing conditions are a result of 

numerous actions (e.g., timber harvesting, road construction, off-highway vehicle use) over the past 

decades, and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual effects would be 

impractical. Revealing specifics of past actions on an individual basis would not be advantageous in 

determining the cumulative effects of the proposed action or other alternatives. Focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited 

information on the environmental effects of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably 

determine each and every action over past decades that has contributed to current conditions. Also, it 

is uncertain how the effects of past natural events, together with human-caused events, have 

cumulatively shaped the current landscape. By looking at existing conditions, we are more likely to 

convey the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular 

action or event contributed those effects.

Reasonably foreseeable future projects are those with either a developed proposed action or a GIS 

layer or map displaying a spatial location. There are four future actions within Appendix C that have a 

timeframe of “unscheduled” or “unknown”. The two “unknown” timeframes are associated with two 

mining projects, Niblack and Bokan Dotson-Ridge. These mining projects were included in Appendix 

C because the owners have recently invested funds in advancing the development of these mines. 

Jobs estimates have been disclosed in press releases (July 2017 and January 2018) that could be used 

in the cumulative effects analysis for Socioeconomics resource. Neither of these mining projects have 

submitted a “plan of operations” for which ground disturbance analysis could be conducted.

The two “unscheduled” timeframes are associated with pending legislation that have either a GIS 

layer or map displaying a spatial location along with full description of all activities involved. These 

are discussed in the two following sections.

ANCSA Admiralty Island Land Exchange Finalization Act of 2017

On June 29, 2017, the ANCSA Admiralty Island Land Exchange Finalization Act of 2017 (S. 1484) 

and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act of 2017 (S. 1481) were introduced in the 

U.S. Senate and propose a land exchange between the Sealaska Corporation (Sealaska) and the Forest 

Service. The proposed land exchange is for 23,000 acres of subsurface estate on Admiralty Island at 

Cube Cove currently owned by Sealaska Corporation in exchange for Federal land involving a 

combination of Surface and Subsurface estates near Kitkun & Lancaster Cove. This is noted on the 

maps “Sealaska Land Exchange—U.S. Forest Service Lands” and dated March 10, 2016 (in the

project record) and in the legislative text of S. 1481 and S. 1484. These acres are located in 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 59

Cholmondeley Sound between Lancaster Cove and Kitkun Bay on Prince of Wales Island. The Forest 

Service would acquire, as part of the exchange, sub-surface estate on Admiralty Island near Juneau, 

Alaska, outside of the project area. This land exchange is analyzed in the cumulative effects analyses 

for each resource later in this chapter.

State National Forest Management Act of 2017

The State National Forest Management Act of 2017 is not addressed in cumulative effects analyses 

for each resource because of the wide-ranging effects it would have on the POW LLA Project.

Potential effects from this legislation are presented here.

During the 115th Congress, the State National Forest Management Act of 2017 (H.R. 232) was 

introduced. This bill authorizes States to select and acquire certain National Forest System lands to be 

managed and operated by the State for timber production and for other purposes under the laws of the 

State.

State of Alaska officials and interested parties have advocated to establish an additional Alaska State 

Forest managed to provide income for state government programs. The Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources has a preliminary GIS layer depicting preferred areas, totaling 2 million acres in Southeast 

Alaska, which would require transfer of areas of Tongass NFS lands to the State of Alaska. This

preliminary GIS layer (available in the project record) provides a way to analyze potential effects if 

this land conveyance is authorized through legislation.

If this legislation were passed by Congress it would impact the POW LLA Project. About 665,226 

acres lie within the project area as depicted in the map provided by the state. The majority of these 

acres are also suitable forest land and included as part of the project LSTA. About 44,710 acres (93 

percent) of old growth and 68,122 acres (88 percent) of young growth would be removed from the 

project LSTA.

About 60 percent of the existing discrete (cabins, shelters, day-use areas) and linear (trails) recreation

sites are within the state preferred areas. About 44 percent of proposed discrete and about 90 percent 

of proposed linear recreation sites would be removed from the project.

About 11 miles of existing restored stream reaches (86 percent) are within the state preferred areas. 

Of the proposed lake acres and miles of stream reaches for fish habitat improvement consideration, 

about 306 lake acres (14 percent) and about 7 miles (16 percent) would be removed from the project. 

An additional 95 miles of stream reaches (47 percent) considered for fish habitat restoration activities 

would be removed from the project.

If HR 232 becomes law, the POW LLA Project would not be able to meet the purpose and need. The 

proposed old-growth and young-growth LSTA, sustainable recreation activities, and fish habitat 

improvement and restoration activities were developed to give opportunities for community resilience 

and economic development while improving forest ecosystem health across the landscape. With the 

removal of different proposed activities and potential conveyance of existing infrastructure to the 

state, the POW LLA Project and its alternatives and effects analysis would need to be reconfigured or 

canceled.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information

There is incomplete knowledge about many of the relationships and conditions of wildlife, fish, 

forests, climate change, jobs, and communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of a large 

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

questions about population dynamics and habitat relationships; and the interaction of resource supply, 
3 – Environment and Effects

60 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

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

central relationships are sufficiently well-established in the respective sciences for the Responsible 

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

possible beneficial and adverse environmental effects.

Comprehensive stream, rare and sensitive plant, invasive plant, geology, soil, landslide, wetlands, 

wildlife, and cultural surveys have not been conducted within the entire project area, but are ongoing 

throughout the project planning process. In addition, as more resources or technology become 

available, they will also contribute to the process of gathering more information on the project area 

and continuing to refine existing condition information. For example, the Tongass National Forest has 

begun an effort to compile extensive coverage of this project area from a type of remote sensing 

called LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), which will help inform decision making on the project. 

It is likely that additional streams, plant populations, karst features, unsuitable soils, landslides, 

wetlands, nests, dens, and cultural sites will be found prior to implementation in currently unsurveyed areas, though knowledge of these additional occurrences is not essential for a reasoned 

choice among alternatives. Any newly discovered sites would receive the appropriate protections 

under the Forest Plan and relevant laws or regulations. Additional field surveys prior to implementing 

activities may be required as identified on the Activity Cards, Appendix A.

With karst terrain underlying portions of the project area, the watershed boundaries do not capture 

subsurface flow patterns. Dye tracing studies have allowed us to understand some of the subsurface 

flow paths, but many insurgence locations, resurgence locations, and their connectivity are still 

unknown. Refer to the Karst section for more information on subsurface flows. Additional karst 

features may be identified prior to implementation. These features would receive the appropriate

protections under the Forest Plan and relevant laws or regulations.

Visitation and public use levels are an important, but incomplete, piece of information for a 

qualitative analysis of recreation infrastructure use levels. Cabin reservations and campground 

receipts provide only a partial count of actual use. Currently no system is in place to quantify the 

number of people that use POW’s other recreation sites, beyond anecdotal information from the 

public and staff. However, anecdotal information and general public comments do provide recreation 

staff with a relative sense of recreation use across the districts.

In some cases, community-level demographic and economic data are unavailable or suppressed due to 

privacy concerns. In the affected environment section, this is particularly the case for economic data 

in the smallest communities in the project area.

The physical condition of transportation resources are subject to change from natural events and 

normal use. Although inventory and condition surveys record current conditions, changes may occur 

at any time. Traffic counts are not routinely collected on NFS roads, although the roads are generally 

designed and managed as low volume roads, i.e., roads with less than or equal to 400 vehicles per 

day.

Research on the benefits of young-growth management to wildlife is ongoing. Active management is 

proposed to improve habitat conditions in young stands; however, questions remain regarding the 

trade-offs associated with the benefits and costs of different types and timing of treatments (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b).

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementation of any action alternative could cause adverse environmental effects that cannot be 

effectively mitigated. Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the land for multiple 

resources. Proposed activities are reflected in the Activity Cards (Appendix A); the interdisciplinary 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 61

process used for making these cards incorporated design criteria that could eliminate or lessen 

adverse effects. The application of Forest Plan direction, Best Management Practices (BMP), and 

project-specific mitigation measures are all intended to limit the extent, severity, and duration of 

potential effects. Alternatives and their actions are designed to reduce or avoid adverse environmental 

effects; however, some adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be completely mitigated could 

occur. This chapter discloses beneficial and adverse effects in the issues discussions and resource 

sections.

Short-term Use and Long-term Productivity

Short-term uses and their effects are those that occur annually or within the first few years of project 

implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue 

producing goods and services long after the project has been implemented. Under the Multiple-Use 

Sustained Yield Act and the National Forest Management Act, all renewable resources are to be 

managed so that they are available for future generations. By meeting Forest Plan direction, this 

project meets the requirements of the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act and the National Forest 

Management Act.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible Commitments is a term that describes the loss of future options. It applies primarily to 

the effects of using nonrenewable resources, such as minerals extraction or loss of cultural resources, 

or factors such as soil productivity, that are renewable only over extremely long periods of time.

Loss of soil due to erosion and mass failures is an irreversible commitment of resources. The loss of 

soil resources would be minimized to the extent feasible for all activities by following Region 10 Soil 

Quality Standards, incorporating BMPs and applying mitigation measures specified in this document.

Road construction is an irreversible action because of the time it takes for a constructed road to revert 

to natural conditions. The development or expansion of rock quarries for roadbuilding or other uses is 

also an irreversible commitment. See also the Transportation section in this chapter.

Soils and wetlands displaced by road construction activities are irreversible commitments of project 

resources, due to the long-term loss of soil productivity. It is irreversible because the soils and 

wetland resources have deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of 

time or at a great expense, or because the wetland soils have been destroyed or removed. In road 

construction, wetland soils are either scraped away or are buried beneath road fill, greatly limiting 

their pre-disturbance productivity. See also the Soils section and the Wetlands section in this chapter.

Loss of heritage resource sites resulting from accidental damage or vandalism would be an

irreversible commitment of resources. Standards and guidelines, survey methodology prior to 

activities, and mitigation measures specified in this document provide reasonable assurance that no 

irreversible loss of heritage resources would occur. See also the Cultural Resources section in this 

chapter.

Irretrievable Commitments applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. 

These decisions are reversible, but the production opportunities foregone are irretrievable. Oldgrowth forest structure converted to even-aged forest structure by timber harvest can be considered an 

irretrievable commitment of the old-growth structure, especially if the land is continually managed 

for optimum timber production. It is not expected that old-growth characteristics would naturally 

reoccur within harvest areas for 150 years or more; however, old-growth forest structure would 

eventually return to the landscape. Foregoing timber harvest opportunities in certain areas at this time, 

due to resource concerns or economics, may represent an irretrievable commitment of resources 
3 – Environment and Effects

62 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

because that volume cannot be harvested. The commitment is irretrievable rather than irreversible

because future entries could harvest those areas if they are still classified as part of the suitable timber 

base.

The reduction in the visual quality of an area due to timber harvesting would be an irretrievable 

commitment of resources. The commitment is irretrievable because viewsheds will typically heal 

from a visual quality standpoint after about 40 years. Young-growth trees will have the color and 

height needed so as not to be evident to the casual observer after this time.

Resources Not Discussed in Detail

Resources that are likely to remain unaffected by this project, or those that do not have measureable 

effects are discussed briefly here.

Air Quality and Climate Change

The affected environments for Climate, Climate Change, and Air Quality are described in detail in the 

2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS (pp. 3-11 to 3-19).

Air quality and climate change are related issues that are often separated in politics and research. Both 

issues are addressed for the Tongass National Forest in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016c). 

This section describes climatic change and air quality specifically for the POW LLA Project. The 

spatial scale for this project is the entirety of POW and outlying islands, for which the conditions are 

considered similar to the Tongass National Forest. How carbon storage, carbon sequestration, timber 

harvest, vegetative regrowth and carbon emissions interact over time is very complex, making it 

unrealistic to define a temporal scope of analysis.

Affected Environment

Air Quality

Air quality in the project area is regarded as generally very good. Considering the prevailing winds 

off of the Pacific Ocean, the small size of the human population on POW, the low levels of industrial 

development, and the lack of large-scale wildland fire smoke emissions, there are not many long-term 

or large-scale air pollutant sources on POW. However, temporary localized air pollution does occur in 

the form of marine vessel emissions, vehicle and diesel power emissions, wood smoke, incinerators or 

refuse burning, and dust from vehicle traffic on unpaved roads.

To determine if national and state ambient air quality standards are being met, an annual review of 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

(ADEC) reports are conducted at the Forest level. Currently there are no non-attainment areas in the 

vicinity of POW. Air quality is monitored in the five wildernesses in project area. Lichens are

monitored as sensitive indicators of air quality every 10 years for 26 air pollutants including sulfur, 

nitrogen and heavy metals (K. Dillman 2016a).

Climate Change

Climate is important to local ecosystems as well as human health and infrastructure, since 

temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and metrological events (e.g., timing of the first and last 

frosts, or severe storms causing flooding) all influence the distribution of water, soil, plants, and 

wildlife across the project area. Significant, lasting change to existing and historical weather patterns 

is commonly called “climate change”. Impacts of climate change include increases in prolonged 

periods of high temperatures, heavier precipitation, increases in wildfire frequency and size, increase 

in severity of drought, ocean rise, and ocean acidification. The term “greenhouse gases” (GHG) refers 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 63

to a variety of gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that react with sunlight in a way that influences global 

air temperature. GHGs are a function of air quality and include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous 

oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (EO 13514).

Long-term climate trends and decadal climate cycles have always occurred in Southeast Alaska (Neal 

et al. 2002). There is a growing body of literature on the topic of climate change and the likely effects 

on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of the Tongass National Forest (see the 2016 Forest Plan FEIS

for detailed discussion).

Climate changes likely to impact streams and aquatic organisms are discussed briefly in the 

Watershed Function – Aquatics (Issue 4) section of this FEIS.

Carbon Sequestration

Atmospheric carbon, as well as other gases (e.g., methane, nitrous oxide, and water molecules) trap 

the sun’s heat to create the natural “greenhouse effect” which makes life possible on Earth 

(McPherson and Simpson 1999). The balance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regulated by 

complex interactions between the atmosphere, terrestrial environment, marine environment, and 

geologic processes. Forest ecosystems, such as those managed on the Tongass National Forest, 

represent a large terrestrial sink for carbon, such that the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change has recognized forest management as an effective strategy for off-setting GHG 

emissions (Wilson et al. 2013). A widely recognized ecosystem service provided by the Tongass is 

carbon flux regulation.

The relationship between timber harvests, reforestation, wood building materials, and the net storage 

of carbon is complicated. For example: carbon is stored in building materials, but the storage value 

does not last as long as a living old-growth tree, as carbon stored in buildings generally outlives its 

usefulness or is replaced within decades (Law et al. 2018). When considering land management 

practices that mitigate the loss of carbon, reforestation contributes the most to carbon sequestered, 

followed by reduced timber harvest practices (Law et al. 2018). For more details on carbon 

sequestration see the Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-13 to 16).

Yellow-cedar Decline

Temperature and precipitation changes have an impact on forested lands (Haufler et al. 2010). A 

decline in Alaska yellow-cedar distribution in Southeast Alaska has been attributed to changes in 

temperature and precipitation linked to climate change. Although yellow-cedar distribution has been 

undergoing change over the last century, scientists are indicating that an acceleration in change is due 

to decreasing snow pack related to climate change (Hennon and Shaw 1997, Beier et al. 2008, 

Hennon et al. 2016). Yellow-cedar decline is discussed in more detail in the Silviculture section of 

this chapter.

Environmental Effects

Analysis of the effects of climate and air resources was qualitatively evaluated by comparing 

differences in the amount of old- and young-growth timber harvest as well as road building activities 

between alternatives. A qualitative discussion of air pollution sources, GHG emissions, and carbon 

sequestration was taken for disclosing air pollution and climate change implications. This qualitative 

discussion includes an evaluation of how climate change may modify conditions in the project area 

and how the proposed actions may influence levels of GHG and therefore, climate change. Although 

most Forest Service projects are considered very small in terms of global carbon flux, this qualitative 

comparison of alternatives provides insight into how proposed actions for each alternative could 

impact the carbon flux.
3 – Environment and Effects

64 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Air Quality

Each of the action alternatives considered for the POW LLA Project FEIS would involve harvesting 

of wood products over a period of time, as described in the POW LLA Project FEIS Chapter 2. For 

the POW LLA Project, the action Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, as well as the No-action Alternative 1, all 

result in a net release of air pollution into the atmosphere through varying amounts of road 

construction, timber harvest, use of administrative vehicles of all kinds, mining, recreation

development and use, and other land management actions. Some proposed activities involve 

removing vegetation, grading and contouring the ground, hardening roads, extraction of materials 

such as gravel, soil, rock, and minerals from POW sources, and constructing bridges, all of which 

require fuel-burning construction machinery and an increase in construction related vehicle traffic for 

the next 15-year period. All these construction activities would increase GHG and other fossil fuel 

combustion emissions, airborne dust, and particulate matter from wood burning.

The expected direct effects on air quality from forest management and other activities would be 

temporary and limited in location. These may be dust and vehicular emissions as described above 

from logging operations, administrative, and recreational use of Forest roads, as well as short-term 

smoke emissions due to limited prescribed burning to enhance wildlife habitat. Alternatives 3 and 5 

contain proposed activities to promote long-term deer forage through prescribed burns in select areas 

less than 10 acres. This activity would also be seasonal in timing and not occur in the same location 

over 15 years.

Alternatives 1, 2, 5, and 3 would result in progressively more potential total harvest and wood 

processing, while Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 would result in progressively more potential road 

building and harvest-related vehicle use. Therefore, these proposed activities could subsequently 

result in progressively more potential emissions by alternative (including emissions of GHG). 

Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in progressively more potential prescribed burning in 10-acre 

blocks. However, due to the short-lived nature of these activities coupled with the dynamic weather 

patterns throughout Southeast Alaska continually circulating the air sheds within the project area 

(wind and rain throughout the year), no significant adverse effects on air quality are anticipated from 

these activities under any of the alternatives considered.

Indirect effects on air quality conditions could result from the use of the harvested trees from a timber 

sale such as in operating of industrial processing sites, firewood burning, as well as emissions and 

dust from the private vehicles using unpaved roads. These indirect effects can be aesthetically 

displeasing, or have potential health risks to both humans and sensitive ecosystems of the Forest. The 

periodic monitoring of lichens in sensitive ecosystems in Wilderness help determine if nonWilderness pollution emissions are impacting wilderness air quality. Additionally the EPA and the 

ADEC have regulatory responsibility under the Clean Air Act to manage emissions from permanent 

point sources. The enforcement of the applicable regulations by these agencies is anticipated to keep 

any potential adverse effects within the standards for air quality; therefore, no significant indirect 

effects are expected to occur in any POW LLA Project alternative, from activities such as timber 

harvesting.

Climate Change

Each of the action alternatives considered for the POW LLA Project involves old-growth and younggrowth timber harvest along with road construction. The action Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, as well as the 

No-action Alternative 1, all result in a net release of GHG and other pollutants into the atmosphere 

through varying amounts of road construction, timber harvest, use of administrative vehicles of all 

kinds, mining, recreation development and use, and other land management actions. Some proposed 

activities involve removing vegetation, grading and contouring the ground, hardening roads, 

extraction of materials such as gravel, soil, and rock from POW sources, and the construction of 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 65

bridges, all of which require fossil fuel-burning machinery and an increase in construction vehicle 

traffic for the next 15-year period. All these construction activities would increase GHG and other 

fossil fuel combustion emissions.

Considering the total estimated timber harvest, and the percentage of old-growth timber harvest for 

the action alternatives, Alternative 2 with an estimated 42,665 acres total harvest (54 percent being

old growth) appears to be the most impactful for carbon storage, followed by Alternative 3 with 

49,684 acres (26 percent being old growth), with Alternative 5 seeming to be the least impactful with 

43,035 acres total harvest (15 percent being old growth). Action Alternatives 2 and 3 have identical 

potential road building (400 miles) leading to similar vehicle use, and Alternative 5 has slightly less 

road building with an estimate of 373 miles. This adds to the qualitative conclusion that the impacts 

to carbon flux are the greatest with Alternative 2, with Alternative 3 being similar, and Alternative 5 

being the least impactful of the action alternatives. However, the extent and scope of cumulative 

effects on climate change and carbon sequestration depends on: 1) the amount and condition of total 

forest land harvested (worldwide, as well as locally within the project area); 2) the use to which the 

harvested wood is put, and how the timber ground is further managed (worldwide, as well as locally); 

3) the amount of carbon released during harvest, processing and transporting wood products; 4) the 

decomposition rates of organic materials; and 5) non-timber related factors such as the amount of new 

hydro-electrical or other renewable energy power projects that are built which may offset diesel 

generated power, future community expansion, and other economic development in the region.

It is anticipated that, in general, communities in the SE Alaska region along with the population 

worldwide will continue to increase, while some specific locations will decrease; thus, the socioeconomic factors driving resource extraction will vary over time and space. Uncertainty also exists 

concerning how forested lands outside the U.S. would be managed by their respective governments or 

landowners, but it is likely that many areas will continue to be managed under forest practices that 

respond to global timber and other markets. However, within POW private and State-owned lands, it 

is likely that they will be managed for production of forest products for all alternatives considered in 

this analysis. Products resulting from harvest are primarily lumber and other building materials;

therefore, there is a potential that the carbon held within these products would be stored for long 

period of time, such as the life of a building or longer (Marmon et al. 1990). Short-term uses are 

considered to be paper products and fuel, and the carbon storage capacity is less. Any temporary 

storage of carbon in lumber products may be offset by carbon released during and after harvest, 

transportation and processing. Therefore each of the alternatives would cumulatively add to the global 

effects of climate change by contributing to the net release of carbon into the atmosphere.

The Forest Plan discusses the risk of possible effects and the considerable uncertainty concerning 

specific predictions of how the climate may change, and even more uncertainty regarding the effects 

of climate change on the resources of the Tongass. Predictions include increased temperature and 

precipitation, increased flooding, reduced snowpack, changes and timing of stream flow, and shifts in 

anadromous salmon distribution and productivity, among many others (Shanley et al. 2005). 

Therefore, the overall rate of carbon sequestration and climate change would likely continue at the 

current rate for several years regardless of the action alternative. Based on the literature presented in 

the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment, the rate of carbon sequestration would be higher under the Noaction Alternative compared to the action alternatives. Carbon sequestration would be variable but 

probably lower under Alternative 1, but still very dependent on harvest volume, regeneration rates, 

decomposition rates etc. In this context, climate change considerations are not essential for a reasoned 

choice among the alternatives considered in this project analysis. The Tongass National Forest will 

continue to monitor potential effects of climate change through the existing Forest Plan monitoring 

programs, and other studies that are happening regionally and nationally.
3 – Environment and Effects

66 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Inventoried Roadless Areas

The Forest Service’s Roadless Area Conservation Review process (2000) identified undeveloped 

areas, typically exceeding 5,000 acres, which met the minimum criteria for wilderness consideration 

under the Wilderness Act. For analyses, the Tongass National Forest uses the inventoried roadless 

areas (IRA) identified in a set of maps, associated with the Forest Service Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule, Final EIS, Volume 2, dated November 2000. There are 24 IRAs within the project 

area. The Tongass completed an SEIS (2003) to the 1997 Forest Plan revision to review inventoried 

roadless areas. The assessment looked at potential impacts to the unique or outstanding biological, 

physical, or social values of the IRAs. Some of the IRAs identified on the November 2000 map have 

been modified due to land exchanges and development, road construction, and timber harvest that 

occurred while the Tongass National Forest was exempt from the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation 

Rule. These changes are considered as the current condition.

None of the alternatives propose old-growth or young-growth harvest, new roads, or road 

construction or reconstruction within IRAs. No direct impacts are expected from timber harvest or 

road construction for any of the alternatives.

There are winter sports areas recommended in the Ratz, Thorne River, Karta, Twelvemile, and Eudora 

IRAs. These winter sports areas are adjacent to existing road systems and would allow travel into the 

IRAs by foot, skis, snowshoes, snowmobiles, or other off-highway vehicles. These impacts would be

limited because no roads or timber harvest is planned for these winter sports areas. The Roadless Rule 

recognizes that this type of “dispersed recreation opportunities such as hiking, camping, picnicking, 

wildlife viewing, hunting, fishing, cross-country skiing, and canoeing” and “the use of mountain 

bikes, and other mechanized means of travel is often allowed.” As long as the roadless character is 

provided for in implementation of the activities, there will be no direct effect to the character of the 

IRAs (Federal Register /Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 /Rules and Regulations page 3245).

Roadless area characteristics are identified in § 294.11 as: (1) High quality or undisturbed soil, water, 

and air; (2) sources of public drinking water; (3) diversity of plant and animal communities; (4) 

habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species 

dependent on large, relatively undisturbed areas of land; (5) primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, 

and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation; (6) reference landscapes; (7) naturally 

appearing landscapes with high scenic quality; (8) traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and 

(9) other locally identified unique characteristics (FEIS Vol. 1, 3–3 to 3–7).

The action alternatives include dispersed recreation activities, three-sided shelters and beach access, 

in the Outer Islands, Suemez Island, Sukkwan, and Nutkwa IRAs. This dispersed recreation is limited 

to small beach accessible areas on the edges of the IRAs. These activities fall within the Primitive, 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized, and Semi-Primitive Motorized classes of dispersed recreation 

activities discussed in the Roadless Rule. As long as the roadless area characteristics are provided for 

in implementation of the activities, there will be no direct or indirect effect to the character of the 

IRAs (Federal Register /Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 /Rules and Regulations page 3245).

Watershed improvement activities are also included in the action alternatives. The Roadless Rule also 

addresses ecosystem health including wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement, if it is designed to 

maintain or help restore ecosystem composition or structure to conditions within the range of 

variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic 

period. This will allow the agency to manage for the full range of habitat types needed to support the 

diversity of native and desired nonnative species (Federal Register /Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 

12, 2001 /Rules and Regulations page 3257). As long as the roadless area characteristics are provided 

for in implementation of the activities, there will be no direct or indirect effect to the character of the 

IRAs.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 67

None of the indirect or incremental cumulative effects associated with the alternatives should 

adversely affect the values of the IRAs within the project area. None of the alternatives would change 

how the IRAs meet the minimum criteria for Wilderness consideration.

Land Status

The federal land within the project area administered as National Forest System (NFS) land is part of 

the Tongass National Forest. In addition to the federal lands in the project area, approximately 

487,810 non-federal acres are owned by a variety of landowners, including the State of Alaska, 

Alaska Native Village Corporations and Regional Corporations, communities, and private 

landowners.

None of the action alternatives propose to acquire or dispose of any property. There would be no 

effect to lands and minerals resources since no alternative would interfere with permits or mineral

opportunities. Future Forest Service projects under other decisions would be analyzed at that time and 

an up-to-date review on then-existing authorizations and mineral claims would be researched. 

Property boundaries may need to be surveyed if an activity is proposed within one-quarter mile of 

non-NFS lands. This would be accomplished prior to implementation.

On May 5, 2017, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, Public Law 115-31, Div. G, Section 

431(a)(2) (Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Exchange Act of 2017 or “the Act”) was enacted and 

authorized an equal value land exchange between the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority 

(AMHTA) and the Forest Service. Since this law has been passed, but the final transfer of lands has 

not been completed, the Forest Service must determine if this project has any direct, indirect, or 

cumulative effects that may affect the equal value of the land exchange. The land exchange is 

comprised of about 18,000 acres of AMHTA land and 21,000 federal acres across nine areas in 

Southeast Alaska. The Act established a framework to facilitate and expedite the land exchange over a 

2-year period in two separate phases. Phase 1 (planned to be completed by the end of 2018) includes 

approximately 2,400 acres of NFS land near Naukati on Prince of Wales Island (POW), Alaska in 

exchange for approximately 2,500 acres near Ketchikan, Alaska. Phase 2 (planned for completion by 

May 2019) of the land exchange includes the remaining approximate 18,600 acres of NFS land near 

Hollis and Naukati on POW, and Shelter Cove near Ketchikan, Alaska, in exchange for 15,500 acres 

of AMHTA land adjacent to communities across the Tongass National Forest.

Within the project area, the NFS lands to be exchanged to the AMHTA totals about 12,421 acres. Of 

the 12,421 acres, approximately 10,883 are located near Naukati, Alaska as depicted on Map 8 of the 

Act, and approximately 1,538 acres are near Hollis, Alaska as depicted on Map 9 of the Act. Since 

this land exchange is not final it was considered a “present” activity on the Catalog of Present and 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities table (Appendix C). However, all alternatives were 

designed as if the land exchange was final and proposed activities within these lands were limited to 

stream restoration, fish habitat improvement, and invasive plant management activities only through 

an agreement with AMHTA. None of the direct, indirect, or incremental cumulative effects associated 

with the alternatives would affect the value of the land exchange and no alternative would interfere 

with the land exchange. For these reasons, no effects to the land exchange between AMHTA and the 

Forest Service are expected and no further analysis is necessary.

The cumulative effects analysis on the affect that the land exchange may have on the individual 

resources are below in their respective sections.

Land ownership within the Tongass National Forest is complex, and land ownership has been shaped 

by multiple public land laws including the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), 

(ANILCA), Alaska Native Allotment Act, Alaska Statehood Act, and the National Defense 
3 – Environment and Effects

68 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Sealaska Finalization Act). Many of these public land laws 

still have pending adjudication by the Bureau of Land Management. Over the past few years, multiple 

pieces of legislation have been introduced that, if enacted, may result in additional transfer of lands 

out of federal ownership in the project area.

Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers

Certain segments of rivers on Prince of Wales Island have been recommended to Congress for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Within the project area, the recommended 

designations include 40 miles of wild, 29 miles of scenic, and 20 miles of recreational rivers. The 

Forest Plan describes desired conditions for wild, scenic, and recreational rivers and management 

prescriptions to achieve Forest Plan goals and objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, pp. 3-76 to 3-

96), to ensure free-flowing condition, water quality, river classifications, and outstandingly 

remarkable values will be maintained until Congress makes a decision about these rivers. No 

appreciable effect is expected with the implementation of this project that would cause these river 

segments to deviate from the desired condition or preclude them from inclusion by Congress in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Recreation and tourism use and activities will continue to 

be managed consistent with the Forest Plan and the ANILCA. For these reasons, effects to river 

segments recommended for inclusion, or managed under the Wild, Scenic, or Recreational River 

classifications are expected to be negligible and no further analysis is necessary.

Environment and Effects by Significant Issue

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issues guidance to federal agencies to determine the 

significant issues concerning any proposal and to eliminate those issues that are not significant or that 

are outside the scope of this document. With the help of the public and other agencies, the Forest 

Service has identified five issues (see Chapter 1) to be examined in detail for the proposed project. 

The following sections describe the environmental effects of each alternative by issue. Effects to 

other resources are discussed in this chapter as well (see section Environment and Effects for Other 

Resources).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 69

Issue 1: Invasive Plant Management

Issue statement: Using only manual or mechanical treatments for invasive plant control may not 

effectively reduce the establishment and spread of invasive plant populations on Prince of Wales and 

outer Islands. Use of herbicides in combination with other treatment methods increases effective 

invasive plant treatment strategies. However, using herbicides increases the level of exposure to the 

chemical properties contained within the herbicide to humans, soil, wildlife, aquatic resources, and 

non-target vegetation at a treatment site.

Background: Invasive plants displace native plant communities and may cause long-lasting 

economic and ecological problems within and outside the National Forest. They can degrade fish and 

wildlife habitat, out-compete native plants, impair water quality and watershed health, and adversely 

affect other resource values such as scenic beauty and recreational opportunities. Invasive plants can 

spread rapidly across the landscape to all land ownerships.

The ability to minimize the adverse impacts of invasive plants is greatest through prevention and by 

treating infestations while they are small (typically at the early stages of invasion). This section 

discusses the effects of treating infestations using an integrated weed management approach. The 

section on Invasives later in this Chapter 3 describes the effects of all other project activities on 

preventing further spread of weeds in the project area.

Treatment costs, including the need for retreatments, are directly related to the methods used (manual, 

mechanical, or herbicide) and the response of targeted invasive plant species to the treatment. Often a 

combination of all three methods provides the most effective and cost efficient control.

In some instances, herbicide application is the recommended treatment of difficult-to-control invasive

plants. Treatment extent, rate and method of application, and the properties of the chemicals proposed 

influence the degree of risk. Mitigation measures and project design criteria minimize the risks 

associated with chemical use. Chemical toxicities and exposure scenarios will be evaluated for each 

proposed chemical for each resource, including human health.

Units of Measure

• Relative cost and treatment effectiveness by treatment method;

• Herbicide toxicology (chemical properties) and exposure (application rate in pounds per acre) for 

the herbicides, in terms of:

♦ Herbicide impacts on human health (workers and the public);

♦ Herbicide impacts on non-target vegetation (e.g., subsistence use or culturally significant 

plants);

♦ Herbicide impacts on soils, wetlands and karst resources;

♦ Herbicide impacts on water/aquatic organisms;

♦ Herbicide impacts on wildlife; and

♦ Effects to Wilderness area characteristics from manual, mechanical, and herbicide 

treatments.

Desired Conditions

The desired future condition stated in the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016a):
3 – Environment and Effects

70 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

“Viable populations of native and desired nonnative species and their habitat are maintained and are 

not threatened by invasive species....”

Forest Plan Goals and Objectives include Biodiversity Goal (p. 2-3), “Maintain ecosystems capable of 

supporting the full range of native and desired nonnative species and ecological processes. Maintain a 

mix of representative habitats at different spatial and temporal scales.”

Objective (c), “Manage the Forest in order to reduce, minimize, or eliminate the potential for 

introduction, establishment, spread, and impact of invasive species.”

Forest Plan Wilderness goals and objectives include:

Wilderness Goal (p. 2-6), “Manage designated Wilderness to maintain an enduring wilderness

resource while providing for the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, 

conservation, and historical use, as provided in the Wilderness Act of 1964 and ANILCA.”

Objective, “Preserve and perpetuate biodiversity. Inventory and reduce or eliminate invasive species

in Wilderness.”

Methodology

There are two parts to the invasive plant issue: 1) effectiveness and costs of control methods, and 2) 

herbicide exposure to humans, non-target plants, soil, water/aquatic organisms, wildlife, and 

Wilderness area characteristics.

For effectiveness and costs of control methods, alternatives are compared by:

• Average cost per acre

• Average annual cost for an assumed treatment target

• Total cost over a 15-year period

The following assumptions are built into the cost analysis for consistent alternative comparison 

purposes:

• Each year’s treatment is expected to be 80 percent effective where herbicides are an available 

method (Alternative 3), and 25 percent effective if herbicide use is restricted (Alternatives 1, 2 

and 5) (USDA Forest Service 2005).

• Alternative 3 is assumed to follow a pattern of declining herbicide use over time, even though the 

analysis assumes 100 percent herbicide treatment methods being used for years 1 through 15 on 

certain invasive plant species.

• All alternatives maintain the same treatment acres per year given funding constraints.

• Calculations are based on current infestation acres only.

The estimated average cost of treatment for the project area is approximately $288 per acre per year 

for manual and mechanical treatments and $103 per acre per year for herbicide treatments. This 

information was derived from budget allocations and accomplishment reporting between 2008 

through 2017 for the Tongass National Forest (Krosse 2018a). This figure is used to provide a relative 

comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the general treatment methods. However, a very limited 

acreage of weeds have been treated using herbicides (less than 5 acres over the past 4 years), thus 

average cost per acre for herbicide treatments cover a much briefer period (4 years) compared to costs 

associated with manual and mechanical methods.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 71

For herbicide exposure, the primary information evaluated in this analysis is based on laboratory and 

field studies of herbicide toxicity, exposure, and environmental fate to estimate the risk of adverse 

effects to humans and non-target organisms. Formal risk assessments were done by Syracuse 

Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) using peer-reviewed articles from the available 

scientific literature and current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documents and were used for 

this analysis.

Additional information incorporated into the herbicide exposure analysis is based on herbicide 

product labels and the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) pesticide 

use website (http://www.dec.state.ak.us/eh/pest/index.htm).

Following Forest Service Manual 2320.2 and Forest Plan direction, effects on Wilderness character 

were also analyzed using the five qualities of Wilderness: untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, 

outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, and other features of 

value.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from the use of any herbicide depends on the type (its 

toxic properties/hazards) and extent (the level of exposure to the herbicide at any given time, and the 

duration of the exposure). The spatial context for the analysis of effects of herbicides and herbicide 

treatment methods on humans, soil, wildlife, aquatic resources, and non-target vegetation includes the 

project area, both NFS and non-NFS land. The analysis area includes lands other than National Forest 

System lands to provide a comprehensive approach to weed management, and enable partnerships 

with other landowners if funding becomes available. The temporal context is seasonal for direct and 

indirect effects and over the life of the project (15 years) for cumulative effects.

Unless otherwise stated, the project area is the area of analysis for direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects.

Affected Environment

The Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts are currently treating non-native, invasive weeds (to a 

very limited degree) under a Categorical Exclusion (CE) which allows the Forest Service to use 

chemical treatments at administrative and recreation sites. Manual and mechanical treatments are also 

currently being implemented throughout the districts which are generally small scale at locations 

where invasive plants infestations are of the highest concern. Total known weed infestation currently 

mapped within the project area is approximately 2,288 acres (less than 0.01 percent of the project 

area), including close to 100 non-native plant species. Most field inventories were conducted in 

disturbed areas — along road systems and within rock pits, at Forest Service administrative sites, and 

in areas used for recreation such as campgrounds, dispersed recreation sites, cabins, and trails; thus,

that is where most of the known weed infestations occur. Weeds occur in wilderness areas as well

(less than 1 acre of known infestations).

Most weeds do not grow well under the shade of natural vegetation; however, some species such as 

orange hawkweed can persist, and even thrive, in forested settings. Existing weed infestations are 

spreading and increasingly there are new populations discovered. Expansion varies by species, 

whether pathways for spread are near existing infestations (e.g., roads, trails, flowing water), and by 

the amount of existing disturbance. Based on data from the Pacific Northwest, weed expansion occurs 

at an annual rate of 1 to 5 percent for infestations not actively treated, and can be as high as 15 

percent.
3 – Environment and Effects

72 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Environmental Effects

Several measures and processes minimize potential adverse effects of weed control methods on 

resources of concern: different treatment options proposed in the action alternatives, project design 

feature (PDF) implementation, strict adherence to herbicide label requirements, the Pesticide Use 

Proposal (PUP) process, and permitting or regulatory requirements.

The ability to minimize the adverse impacts of invasive plants and achieve eradication is greatest 

when infestations are treated while they are small, at the early stages of invasion, and using the proper 

method based on the response to the treatment method by the species. Treatment costs, including the 

need for retreatments, are directly related to the methods used (manual, mechanical, or chemical2

) and 

the response of targeted invasive plant species to the treatment. Often a combination of all three 

methods provides the most cost efficient and effective control.

Specialists have analyzed the most ambitious treatment scenarios for the action alternatives to provide 

a comparison of effects by treatment type. For Alternative 3, specialists analyzed the environmental 

effects of using all available treatment methods (manual, mechanical, and chemical) in combination 

with an early detection-rapid response (EDRR) management strategy within the project area. For 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, specialists analyzed the treatment of weeds using only manual and 

mechanical techniques. In addition, all analyses incorporate applicable resource-specific project 

design criteria.

The full analyses for each resource, including methods, assumptions and literature, are the same as 

those described in resource reports cited in Table 6 and elsewhere in this document. All reports, which 

include a full analysis of effects including use of scientific risk assessments are available as separate 

reports in the project record and are synthesized in Krosse (2018d).

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by resource and/or issue measures (citations are for specific 

resource reports which provide detailed analysis of each resource or issue measure)

Resource or Issue 

Measure Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 Alternative 3

Treatment methods and 

where they can occur

Under an existing CE, small-scale manual, 

mechanical, and/or chemical weed 

treatments for new and existing weed 

infestations would continue to take place.

Chemical use limited to Forest Service

administrative sites, recreation sites, and 

facilities; manual/mechanical use used in 

other sites across the project area.

No EDRR.

Manual, mechanical, and/or chemical 

weed treatments proposed for all 

existing and new weed infestations on 

NFS and non-NFS lands.

EDRR.

Estimated maximum 

acres treated annually 

(Krosse 2018a)

38 100

Average treatment cost 

per acre (Krosse 2018a) $288 $103

Average annual cost for

an assumed treatment 

target (Krosse 2018a)

$10,944 $6,800

 2 Treatment types for manual and mechanical methods include hand pulling, digging, clipping and tarping. 

Mechanical methods include mowing. Treatment types for chemical methods include broadcast spray, spot 

spray, and hand-selective methods (e.g., wicking, wiping, and other stem and leaf application; stem injection; 

and cut-stump). No aerial application is proposed for this project.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 73

Resource or Issue 

Measure Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 Alternative 3

Total acres restored over 

15-year period1 (Krosse 

2018a)

143 1,200

Average cost per 

restored acre (Krosse 

2018a)

$1,148 $86

Risk to human health 

(Krosse 2018b)

No risk No effect2– Imazapyr, Glyphosate, and

Adjuvants (for enhancing herbicide 

performance)

Negligible effect – Aminopyralid

Aquatic Organisms 

(Schneider 2018)

Cumulatively, short-term – minor 3 due to 

low number of infestations occurring within 

RMAs, near Class I and II streams and 

along shorelines and low toxicity of 

proposed herbicides under an existing CE.

Potential long-term – adverse effect to 

aquatic organisms expected as weed 

populations grow and reduce productivity of 

riparian areas.

Short-term – minor effects due to low 

number of infestations occurring within 

RMAs, near Class I and II streams, and 

along shorelines, and low toxicity of 

proposed herbicides.

Long-term – effects are expected to be 

beneficial due to improved aquatic 

habitat.

There could be some localized effects 

to aquatic macrophytes with the use of 

imazapyr. Glyphosate may cause sublethal effects to fish.

Wilderness Character 

(Fluharty 2018)

Short- and possible long-term spread of 

weeds can adversely affect wilderness

character, including to ecosystem 

processes and visual integrity.

Short-term – localized impacts to the 

untrammeled and opportunities for solitude 

qualities of Wilderness would decline due 

to repeated entries to manually treat weeds 

or the placement of tarps.

Long-term – decrease in natural quality as 

weeds remain present and potentially 

spread.

Short-term – localized impacts to the 

untrammeled, opportunities for solitude, 

and primitive and unconfined recreation

qualities due to the presence of work 

crews or the placement of tarps.

Long-term – full suite of treatment 

options results in a beneficial impact on 

natural quality.

Wildlife and Fish (M. 

Dillman 2018a)

Threatened and Endangered Species –

May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Sensitive Species - No effect4

MIS Negligible effects4

Migratory Birds - Negligible effects

Threatened and Endangered Species -

May affect, not likely to adversely affect

Sensitive Species - May affect6

Migratory Birds - Negligible effects

Subsistence (M. Dillman 

2018b)

Abundance and distribution - No effect

Access - No effect

Competition - No effect

Abundance and distribution - No 

change

Access - No effect

Competition - No effect

Recreation (Recreation 

Opportunity Setting 

[ROS] and Recreation 

Places/Sites) (Cisneros 

2018)

ROS

The proposed activities would not affect 

remoteness, access, activities, and 

experiences in a way that would change 

the recreation setting from one class to 

another.

Recreation Places

Weed populations could increase to the 

point that they are no longer practical or 

reasonable to treat. Temporary visual 

impact from implementation of manual and 

ROS

The proposed activities would not affect 

experiences in a way that would change 

the recreation setting from one class to 

another.

Recreation Places

Short-term – temporary displacement of 

forest visitors due to area closures for 

herbicide spraying; temporary visual 

impact from implementation of manual 
3 – Environment and Effects

74 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Resource or Issue 

Measure Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 Alternative 3

mechanical treatments, such as the 

presence of tarps. The naturalness of the 

area would decrease.

and mechanical treatments, such as the 

presence of tarps.

Long-term – naturalness of the area 

would increase.

Air Quality (Krosse 

2018c)

No effect No effect

Adverse Impacts to nontarget vegetation 

(includes rare and 

sensitive plants) (K. 

Dillman 2018b)

Minor effect3 Minor effect3

Impact to soil productivity 

(Foss 2018)

Minor short-term3 effect to soil productivity 

and associated physical and biological 

components and processes.

Adverse long-term effect could increase 

due to continued expansion of current 

infestations, establishment of new 

populations, and increased soil erosion in 

localized areas.

Minor short-term2 effect to soil 

productivity and associated physical 

and biological components and 

processes.

Beneficial long-term effects due to 

anticipated increase in native plant 

species.

Impacts to wetlands

(Foss 2018)

Short-term – no effect

Long-term – adverse effect expected due 

to continued expansion of infestations and 

establishment of new populations. 

Reduction in extent of native species.

Negligible, short- and long-term adverse 

effects.

Beneficial long-term effects expected 

due to anticipated increase in native 

plant species.

High vulnerability Karst 

(open karst systems)

(Foss 2018)

No effect No effect due to implementation of 

hydrology and aquatic PDFs

Hydrology (water quality

and riparian condition) 

(Whitacre 2018)

Short-term – negligible5 adverse effects to 

water quality and riparian condition for 

small infestations.

Long-term – moderate, adverse effects in 

localized areas resulting from the expected 

spread of invasive weeds, particularly reed 

canarygrass.

Short-term – negligible, localized and 

adverse impacts on water quality and 

riparian condition.

Long-term – negligible, localized and 

beneficial impacts to water quality and 

riparian condition.

Climate Change (Krosse 

2018c)

Does not respond to potential increases in 

infestations due to potential changes in 

climate.

Consistent with recommendations to 

respond to potential changes in climate.

Cultural Not Determined7 Not Determined7

1 Based on current inventory and not EDRR.

2 This conclusion is based on the hazards (i.e., formulated end-use products highest toxicity category IV; "not likely" to be 

carcinogenic; and no basis to assert the herbicide would cause an adverse effect on nervous system, immune system, 

endocrine functions, reproduction and development) and dose response and risk characterization longer-term and short-term 

exposure calculations were below the level of concern.

3 Minor effects cause observable and short-term changes to natural conditions, but do not reduce the integrity of a resource.

4 No effect: the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat.

5 Negligible effects may or may not cause observable changes to natural conditions; regardless, they do not reduce the 

integrity of the resource. Negligible effects are also when the change would be so small that it would not be of any 

measurable or perceptible consequence to the individuals or populations

6 May effect is an official determination for sensitive species (FSM 2670) and is separate from a no effect, negligible effect 

or minor effect.

7 All new proposed activities proposed are subject to Section 106 on a case by case basis as discrete activities are identified.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 75

Cost Effectiveness: Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects by 

Alternative

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 have a higher total cost (in terms of infested acres) over a 15-year period

compared to Alternative 3. Additionally, due to the relatively low effectiveness of the treatment 

methods in these alternatives, only about 143 acres of infested area would be restored (the invasive 

plants eradicated) over the 15-year period, a figure slightly more than 50 percent of the total treated 

acres during the 15-year period. This equates to about 6 percent of the currently known infestations. 

The result would be a very minor net reduction of the total invasive plant infestations within the 

project area over time (Krosse 2018a).

Overall, fewer acres of infested areas would be treated (assumed to be the average of current 

treatments of 38 acres per year), due to budget limitations. Because of the difference in effectiveness 

rates for manual/mechanical treatments (25 percent), compared to chemical methods (80 percent), 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 require many more acres to be retreated year after year. Therefore, progress 

toward treating new acres of previously untreated infestations would be much less in Alternatives 1, 

2, and 5. Over the long term, invasive plants would continue to grow and spread, ultimately costing 

tax payers even more through time. Alternatives 1, 2 and 5 would take an indefinite number of years 

of treatment to eliminate all currently known 2,288 acres. The high costs of not treating these 

infestations in the next 15 years can be compared to the burdensome costs of the lower 48 states in 

their annual treatment costs (USDA Forest Service 1998).

Alternative 3

In terms of cost efficiency, Alternative 3 would provide for the lowest cost of treatment over the next 

15 years due to the ability to use herbicides in combination with other mechanical and manual 

treatment methods (analyzed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 5). Each year of treatment is assumed to 

reduce a population size by 80 percent of the treated area, given the range of tools that would be 

available. Information on effectiveness of this treatment method indicates that it would take fewer 

years to eliminate or control invasive plant infestations by including the use of herbicides. Given the 

currently known infestations within the project area, Alternative 3 would take over 20 years of 

treatment to eliminate all currently known 2,288 acres within the project area (not including future 

infestations). Herbicide use is expected to decrease with time as the infestation acreage decreases for 

those plants that respond to herbicides, allowing for more manual and mechanical treatment methods 

to treat the smaller infestation acres.

Total cost of treating the 2,288 acres of known infestations is lower in Alternative 3 than Alternatives 

2 and 5 by approximately $62,000; and more total acres would be treated (1,500) over the 15-year 

period. Alternative 3 would have the highest amount of restored acres (1,200) of any of the 

alternatives. Restored acres are those that no longer infested by invasive plant and are functioning as 

near natural plant communities. In addition, higher treatment accomplishments per year are possible 

under this alternative with the use of herbicides because application costs are lower by approximately 

$4,100 resulting is less labor needed as opposed to manual and mechanical treatment methods alone.

Alternative 3 decreases the known and foreseeable future invasive plant infestations over time, 

ultimately controlling about 50 percent of known infestations that respond best to herbicide within a 

15-year period.
3 – Environment and Effects

76 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 7. Cost and effectiveness comparisons of treating the known weed populations by alternative

Alternative

Maximum 

annual 

acres 

treated

Total acres 

treated over 

15-year 

period1

Total acres 

restored 

over 15-year 

period2

Average 

cost per 

restored 

acre

Total cost 2018-

2033

Average 

annual 

cost

1, 2, and 5 38 570 143 $1,148 $164,160 $10,944

3 100 1,500 1,200 $85 $102,000 $6,800

1Assumptions of maximum annual acres treated are based on professional judgement using historical accomplishments 

combined with budget outlooks for the future (Krosse 2018a). This assumes current budgets for financing the Invasive Plant 

program on the Tongass NF will not increase.

2Based on only the known infestations and not EDRR.

Herbicide Exposure

Risk of exposure to the chemical properties contained within the proposed herbicides to human health 

and other resources such as soil, wildlife, aquatic resources, and non-target vegetation at a treatment 

site is the second part of the Invasive Plant Treatment issue. Table 6 provides a comparison of effects 

of each alternative by resource. Due to the specific concerns regarding effects on human health, the 

information provided below focuses on this topic, while the citations to reports containing more detail 

on effects to other resources are referenced in Table 6. A synopsis of all effects are summarized in 

Krosse (2018d).

A very low level of herbicide use (less than 5 acres of weeds treated annually using herbicides) from 

past activities are known in the project area and therefore pose a very low level of risk to human 

health and other resources. Most people are subject to some background level of chemical exposure; 

the most common known exposure is use of herbicide-based products for personal use (e.g., the use of 

Roundup, which is a glyphosate-based, commercially available herbicide, in gardening), or 

consumption of fruits or vegetables containing herbicide residue.

The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is not currently using herbicides for 

vegetation management along the roads on Prince of Wales Island that they maintain.

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternatives 1, 2, and 5, with the exception of very limited treatments authorized under an existing 

Categorical Exclusion for five administrative and recreation sites within the project area, could have 

very limited direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to human health and other resources related to 

herbicide use. Effects to human health and other resources with respect to herbicide treatments are 

analyzed in Alternative 3.

Alternative 3

All Resources

See Table 6 above under Environmental Effects for a comparison of effects by alternatives on all 

resources concerning invasive plant treatments. Citations are included to the resource-specific reports 

available in the project record.

Human Health

Human health and safety are special concerns when considering a weed management project due to 

the potential for herbicide exposure to applicators, the public, and employees. Exposure could occur 

from direct contact, drinking contaminated water, eating contaminated plants, gathering and using 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 77

special forest products, or as a result of recreational users coming into contact with contaminated 

vegetation. However, the likelihood of harm from such exposure is extremely low as the proposed 

herbicides are considered to have low toxicity3 levels and are taken up by plants quickly. Glyphosate, 

for example, is taken up into the plant within about 6 hours of application. Further, implementing 

project design features (PDF), strictly adhering to label requirements, the Pesticide Use Proposal 

(PUP) process, and permitting or regulatory requirements comprise the many layers of caution 

included in this project.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The SERA Herbicide Risk Assessments include analyses for both workers and the general public. The 

three herbicides proposed for use in this project pose negligible to low risk to workers and the public, 

based on the risk assessments.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Workers

This section focuses on the risks of proposed herbicide application to applicators themselves. 

Herbicide applicators are more likely than the general public to be exposed to herbicides, and may 

handle undiluted herbicide concentrate during mixing and loading. In routine broadcast and spot 

applications, workers may contact and internalize herbicides mainly through exposed skin, but also 

through the eyes, mouth, nose, or lungs. Worker exposure is influenced by the application rate 

selected for the herbicide, the number of hours worked per day, the acres treated per hour, and 

variability in human dermal absorption rates.

All herbicides can cause irritation and damage to the skin and eyes if mishandled. Eye or skin 

irritation would likely be the only overt effect because of mishandling these herbicides. These effects 

can be minimized or avoided by prudent industrial hygiene practices during handling. Worker 

exposure can be effectively managed through ordinary prudent practices and use of personal 

protective equipment (PPE) required for applicators.

Human Health Risk Assessment for the three proposed herbicides summarize risks for backpack and 

broadcast spraying under normal application and typical exposures. Exposure levels that were 

evaluated range from predicted average exposure to worst-case exposure. Risks from 

accidental/incidental exposures are also displayed. Backpack spray exposures assume that workers on 

average treat a little more than 4 acres per day (ranging from 1.5 to 8 acres per day) and broadcast 

spray exposures assume that workers average 112 acres per day (ranging from 66 to 168 acres per 

day). For all scenarios, it is assumed that the workers do not receive any protection from exposure 

provided by clothing.

Accidental worker exposures are most likely to involve splashing a solution of herbicides into the 

eyes or on the skin. Two general types of exposure are modeled: one involving direct contact with a 

solution of the herbicide and another associated with accidental spills of the herbicide concentrate 

onto the surface of the skin. Exposure scenarios involving direct contact with herbicide solutions are 

characterized by immersing unprotected hands for 1 minute or wearing contaminated gloves for 1 

hour. Workers are not likely to immerse their hands in herbicide; however, the contamination of 

gloves or other clothing is possible.

Exposure scenarios involving chemical spills onto the skin are characterized by a spill onto the lower 

legs as well as a spill onto the hands. In these scenarios, it is assumed that a solution of the chemical 

is spilled onto a given surface area of skin and that a certain amount of the chemical adheres to the 

 3 Toxicity is defined as the degree to which a substance is able to damage an organism.
3 – Environment and Effects

78 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

skin. Surfactants or other adjuvants to enhance herbicide performance could be used according to 

label and PDF-HH-9. Many surfactants could cause eye irritation.

The maximum rates proposed for use in the project were evaluated for this FEIS. Most of the 

herbicides proposed for use have low potential to harm workers. In most cases, even when maximum 

rates and upper exposure estimates were considered, hazard quotient (HQ) values were below the 

threshold of concern. Hazard quotients are a ratio of exposure to toxicity and if the HQ value is below 

1, the risk is considered acceptably low.

Direct and Indirect Effects to the Public

The general public is unlikely to be exposed to high levels of any herbicides used in the 

implementation of this project. The SERA Risk Assessments considered several exposure scenarios 

including direct contact, consumption of sprayed vegetation, consumption of drinking water adjacent 

to a spray operation, and consumption of fish in water adjacent to a spray operation. Accidental 

exposures including drinking water from a pond contaminated by a large spill were also considered. 

No reportable spills have occurred on similar projects in the Alaska Region. A requirement for usage 

of herbicides in this project is a District-level Herbicide Safety Plan which prevents spills from 

occurring or becoming large.

Direct Contact: Exposure is quantified from direct spray and contact with sprayed vegetation 

scenarios. At the maximum application rates proposed in any alternative, low risk to human health are 

indicated from direct contact. No scenarios for direct spray or contact with sprayed vegetation 

resulted in HQs greater than 1. One Project Design Feature (PDF) for hydrology includes specific 

notification and posting requirements for administrative and recreation sites to further reduce the 

possibility of inadvertent direct spray of a member of the public.

Indirect Contact: Quantitative estimates of exposure were conducted for an adult female swimming 

for 1 hour in water contaminated by runoff from a treated 10-acre slope. All herbicides had HQs 

orders of magnitude below 1 for this scenario, indicating no plausible risk to the public from this 

exposure.

Eating Contaminated Vegetation or Fruit: The public could be exposed to herbicide if they eat 

contaminated vegetation or fruit after spraying, such as berries, mushrooms, or other plants. Directly 

sprayed plant materials would likely show signs of either death or herbicide damage, reducing the 

likelihood they would be consumed. Non-target berries or mushrooms could also be contaminated by 

drift or uptake from the soil, which would result in lower herbicide residues than direct spraying. The 

risk assessments considered both one-time acute exposure (eating 1 pound) and chronic 90 day 

consumption scenarios for eating contaminated vegetation and fruit. These scenarios also 

approximate the effects of eating other contaminated products, such as mushrooms. Only under the 

highest exposure scenario for eating contaminated vegetation (a highly implausible scenario) did HQ 

exceed 1 for glyphosate (HQ 1.4). All other calculated HQs were many orders of magnitude below 

the threshold of concern.

Drinking Contaminated Water: Acute and long-term exposures from consumption of contaminated 

water were evaluated in the risk assessments. Risks from drinking contaminated water were evaluated 

for an accidental spill as well as water contaminated by runoff. The risk assessments also evaluated an 

accidental exposure scenario where a small child drinks 1 liter of water from a quarter-acre pond, into 

which the contents of a 200-gallon tank that contains herbicide solution is spilled, immediately 

following a spill. The District-level Herbicide Safety Plan is the mechanism which prevents spills 

from occurring or becoming large.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 79

No herbicides resulted in HQs greater than 1 for drinking contaminated water in either acute or 

chronic scenarios at typical exposures. Only under the highest exposure scenario for a child drinking 

contaminated water (a highly implausible scenario) did the HQ exceed 1 for glyphosate (HQ 2.0). All 

other calculated HQs were many orders of magnitude below the threshold of concern.

Consuming Contaminated Fish: Both acute and long-term exposure scenarios involving the 

consumption of contaminated fish were evaluated using the herbicide concentrations in the 

contaminated water scenarios described above. Acute exposure was based on the assumption that an 

angler consumes fish taken from contaminated water shortly after an accidental spill into a pond. 

Chronic exposures were assumed to occur over a lifetime of eating contaminated fish. People who 

subsist on fish (for example Alaska Native residents, rural communities) could have higher exposure 

rates than recreational anglers. However, based on a lifetime of subsistence fish consumption, no HQ 

values greater than 1 are associated with the herbicide use proposed in any alternative.

Glyphosate and Cancer: Many recent articles have circulated announcing that in March 2015, the 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has categorized glyphosate as “probably 

carcinogenic to humans.” This is not based on new studies; the studies that were used in IARC’s 

designation have been out a long time. The SERA 2011a Glyphosate Risk Assessment thoroughly 

discusses the carcinogenic, mutagenic, and genotoxic potential for glyphosate, using many of the 

same studies reviewed by the IARC.

In 2014, EPA reviewed over 55 epidemiological studies conducted on the possible cancer and noncancer effects of glyphosate. Their review concluded that this body of research does not provide 

evidence to show that glyphosate causes cancer, and it did not warrant any change in EPA’s cancer 

classification for glyphosate.

Glyphosate is currently approved for use under 36 CFR 220.6 (d) (3) and (6) for administrative and 

recreation sites for Alternatives 1, 2 and 5. Best available science indicates that glyphosate proposed 

for use in this project would not increase anyone’s risk of cancer with any of the alternatives.

Endocrine Disruption: The potential for the proposed herbicides to cause endocrine disruption effects 

was addressed in each risk assessment. Based on the chronic bioassays and several additional subchronic bioassays in mice, rats, dogs, and rabbits, there is no basis for asserting that Aminopyralid 

would cause adverse effects on the immune system or endocrine function (SERA 2007 (Durkin 

2007)).

The glyphosate risk assessment (SERA 2011a (Durkin 2011)) stated that “some recent studies raise 

concern that glyphosate and some glyphosate formulations may be able to impact endocrine function 

through the inhibition of hormone synthesis, binding to hormone receptors, or the alteration of gene 

expression” (all references as cited in SERA 2011a). Evaluation of the studies indicates that endocrine 

disruption effects were indicated for surfactants in the formulations rather than glyphosate itself. A 

commercial surfactant would be added to glyphosate when preparing the solution for application, but 

the surfactant type of choice is methylated seed oil/crop oil concentrate, which is typically a corn oil 

derivative and not implied in causing endocrine effects. No polyoxyethyleneamine (POEA) or 

nonylphenol polyethoxylate-based (NPE) surfactants would be used – these being the culprit in 

terrestrial glyphosate formulations.

In the review of the mammalian toxicity data on Imazapyr, U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs 

concluded that “there was no evidence of estrogen, androgen and/or thyroid agonistic or antagonistic 

activity shown.” SERA found that this conclusion was reasonable, based on their review of current 

information in the 2011b Imazapyr risk assessment.
3 – Environment and Effects

80 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

While the potential for the proposed herbicides to cause endocrine disruption effects is a current data 

gap, the potential for these effects to actually occur are greatly reduced by measures such as required 

use of proper protective equipment, public notification, use of licensed applicators, and limited 

application rates (PDF).

Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: The following information was adapted from USDA 2012, Gypsy 

Moth Management in the United States, a Cooperative Approach. Some people feel that they suffer 

from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), which is sometimes referred to as Idiopathic 

Environmental Intolerances (IEI). In general, individuals with MCS report that they experience a 

variety of adverse effects as a result of very low levels of exposure to chemicals (including 

herbicides) that are generally tolerated by individuals who do not have MCS.

Forest Service risk assessments incorporate an uncertainty factor of 10 to account for sensitive 

individuals, which may or may not eliminate risk that an individual may suffer symptoms. However, 

the uncertainty factor for sensitive individuals addresses variability in tolerances within a normal 

population.

Individuals reporting MCS assert, either explicitly or implicitly, that they are atypically sensitive. 

There is no current consensus on the diagnosis and cause of MCS. Until the etiology and pathogenesis 

of MCS has been clarified, an organic cause of the MCS-associated symptoms and symptom 

complexes cannot be entirely ruled out. The Forest Service has no way to resolve concerns for MCS 

at the project level.

Cumulative Effects

Workers and the public may be exposed to herbicides used to treat invasive plants under Alternative 3 

in this project. Cumulative doses are possible within the context of this project, or when combined 

with herbicide use on adjacent lands or home use by a worker or member of the public. However, the 

risk is very small that a person would receive additive exposures during the time period in which the 

herbicide remained in their body.

The SERA Risk Assessments evaluated chronic exposure scenarios that would involve the public, 

including repeated drinking of contaminated water, repeated consumption of contaminated berries, 

and repeated consumption of contaminated fish.

The potential for cumulative human health effects from any herbicide use proposed in this project, 

combined with other potential herbicide applications in the project area, would be encompassed in the 

health risks estimated for chronic exposure scenarios. These herbicides do not bio-accumulate in 

people and are rapidly eliminated from the body. Chronic (daily over 90 days) worker exposure was 

considered in SERA. Risk Assessments did not result in HQ values greater than 1 for any “central” 

estimate. Of the known herbicide use on adjacent lands, some may pose greater risk to workers or the 

public than the herbicide use proposed for this project, especially on State Highways. However, the 

State of Alaska Highway Division in Southeast Alaska is not currently using herbicides for vegetation 

management along road corridors. Therefore, the potential contribution to cumulative pesticide use by 

any alternative is not significant. The small and scattered nature of the infestations make it unlikely 

that exposures exceeding a level of concern would occur from simultaneous herbicide treatments on 

Forest Service and other lands.

The Forest Service Region 6 2005 FEIS, (Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program 

Preventing and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement) considered the 

potential for synergistic effects of exposure to two or more chemicals: “Combinations of chemicals in 

low doses (less than one-tenth of Reference Dose) have rarely demonstrated synergistic effects”. 

Review of the scientific literature on toxicological effects and toxicological interactions of 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 81

agricultural chemicals indicate that exposure to a mixture of pesticides is more likely to lead to 

additive rather than synergistic effects. The Region 6 FEIS based their analysis on the limited data 

available on chemical combinations involving the twelve herbicides considered in their FEIS and 

concluded that it is possible, but unlikely, that synergistic effects could occur as a result of exposure 

to the herbicides considered in their analysis. Synergistic or additive effects, if any, are expected to be 

insignificant.” (USDA Forest Service 2005, R6 2005 FEIS p. 4-3).

To avoid the synergism between glyphosate and adjuvants, Alternative 3 proposes only aquatically 

labeled formulations of glyphosate (e.g., Aquamaster®) and low-risk aquatically approved surfactants 

(e.g., Agri-Dex®, Class Act® NG®, Competitor®). This feature would eliminate potential impacts 

from surfactants that have high levels of POEA, since high levels of this chemical also have adverse 

effects to aquatic wildlife species.

Cumulative effects from the use of herbicides on human health include the potential use of herbicides 

proposed on non-National Forest System lands. At this time, there is no weed management plan for 

the Prince of Wales communities, but a plan could be developed in the future. However, workers and 

the general public within the project area could use some of the proposed herbicides outside the 

project area for personal activities (e.g., treating weeds on their own property).

Glyphosate likely has the highest risk for cumulative effects because it is the most common herbicide 

sold to the general public to treat weeds.

Overall, herbicide use associated with Alternative 3, even at full implementation, would contribute no 

measurable effects when combined with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future activities. To further minimize the cumulative risk of herbicide use on human health and safety,

PDFs have been developed and would be implemented as necessary.

Herbicide Treatment Conclusions

The types of herbicide proposed for use are considered to have low toxicity levels and consequently 

the inherent level of health risk is minimal and readily mitigated through full compliance with worker 

training requirements, herbicide label stipulations, and PDFs for safe herbicide storage, 

transportation, use, and disposal.

While herbicide use in Alternative 3 does carry a greater risk of effects to human health than 

Alternatives 1, 2, or 5, it provides an effective form of treatment for many weed populations.

Combining the EDRR treatment strategy with herbicide use while populations are small and scattered 

is expected to reduce overall treatment costs with less chemical use over the life of the project, and 

less disturbance due to fewer entries than may be necessary with manual and mechanical treatments.
3 – Environment and Effects

82 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Issue 2: Subsistence

Issue statement: Proposed actions, particularly timber harvest and road construction, combined with 

past and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest, would affect subsistence resources and 

lifestyle.

Background: Title VIII of ANILCA addresses the legal context of subsistence use. ANILCA, Section 

801, provides for “...the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of 

Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands...” ANILCA Section 803:

“the customary and traditional uses by Alaska residents of wild renewable resources for direct, 

personal, or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the 

making and selling of handicraft articles out of non-edible byproducts of fish and wildlife 

resources taken for personal or family consumption; for barter, or sharing for personal or family 

consumption; and for customary trade.”

Subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering activities are a major focus of life for many 

residents on Prince of Wales Island. Reasons given for the participation in subsistence activities 

include the ability to provide food or supplemental income, the perpetuation of cultural customs and 

traditions, and the importance of values associated with self-reliance (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 

3-417).

The effects of landscape changes caused by timber harvest and road construction and improvement on 

the availability of subsistence resources are important because the harvest of resources is an important

cultural practice and food source. Timber harvest may influence the abundance and distribution of 

subsistence resources through changes in suitable habitat, access to subsistence resources (through 

changes in habitat and through road development or management), and competition for subsistence 

resources (through changes in resource abundance or access).

Commenters expressed concerns about timber harvest and road construction effects to subsistence use 

in the project area, especially deer. Concerns also included impacts to the harvest of salmon, berries, 

and mushrooms, and firewood gathering. The cumulative effects of the proposed activities on 

subsistence resources and associated habitats from past and future activities on both NFS and nonNFS lands were noted concerns.

The Forest Plan FEIS (p. 3-545) determined that 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 Forest Plan alternatives.

Deer are considered an “indicator” for potential subsistence resource effects concerning the resources 

associated with old-growth forest habitat, and they are the largest terrestrial component of subsistence 

food resources; therefore, they are addressed in detail in this analysis. The units of measure used for

effects to deer as a subsistence resource are the same as the units of measure used in Issue 5, with the 

addition of the use of the deer harvest data from ADF&G.

Units of Measure

• Effects to aquatic resources (see Issue 4 in this chapter).

• Effects to deer habitat (see Issue 5);

• Relative changes in access to subsistence resources by road density;
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 83

• Percentage of deer harvested based on ADF&G information of the estimated deer habitat 

capability (DHC) by federally qualified subsistence users (direct and indirect effects) and all 

users (cumulative effects) by WAA.

Methodology

In order to determine if the project poses a significant possibility of significant restriction on 

subsistence resources, the magnitude of effects from project activities were analyzed and compared 

using the units of measure mentioned above. For aquatic subsistence resources, the conclusions from 

the aquatic resources effects analysis (see Issue 4 in this chapter) were used to analyze the effects of 

the project on the distribution and abundance of, access to, and competition for aquatic subsistence 

resources in the project areas. Wildlife subsistence resources were analyzed using the above units of 

measure and ADF&G deer harvest data.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the effects to aquatic subsistence resources are watersheds and 

near shore areas within the project area. Watersheds were used because they are the boundaries of a 

drainage basin in which aquatic effects are contained. Near shore areas were used because some 

aquatic species harvested for subsistence use are located in these areas.

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the effects to wildlife subsistence resources are at the WAA and 

GMU scales. These were used because the ADF&G analyzes and regulates wildlife at these scales.

While ADF&G does not manage deer at the WAA scale, the harvest data is collected by WAA. 

ADF&G manages deer at the GMU scale.

See the temporal boundaries for Watershed Function (Issue 4) and Wildlife Habitat (Issue 5) for their 

respective analyses. The subsistence analysis for deer uses an additional temporal scale of the last 10 

years for harvest trend data.

Affected Environment for Subsistence Species other than 

Aquatic Resources and Deer

Past harvest activities on both NFS and non-NFS lands have resulted in acres of old-growth forested 

stands being converted into young-growth stands. Old-growth harvest in general reduces the quality 

of habitat for most wildlife species. The conversion of old-growth stands into the stand initiation 

stage of stand development can provide forage opportunities to deer in the short term, but over the 

long term the habitat capability is reduced as these stands move into the stem-exclusion stage. In 

untreated stands, the stem-exclusion stage can last for many years until the stand is 100 to 150 years 

old or older. Overall the project area currently has about 42,579 acres of young growth that is older 

than 50 years.

Distribution and Abundance of Resources

Subsistence food plants occur in many locations within the project area including along roads, in 

previously harvested areas, and near beach and estuarine areas. Many species occur throughout the 

project area year-round, including upland gamebirds such as spruce grouse and ptarmigan; however,

waterfowl like the Vancouver Canada goose occur primarily during spring and fall migration and 

primarily on lakes and estuaries. Marine mammals occur in the marine waters adjacent to the project 

area. Additional information on the abundance and distribution of marine mammals and identified 

critical habitat is included in the Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) in the project 

record.
3 – Environment and Effects

84 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Access to Resources

Road networks provide access to subsistence resources to the Prince of Wales Island portion of the 

project area, affecting subsistence both positively and negatively. Some of the outer islands, such as 

Kosciusko, Suemez, and Heceta also have NFS roads, but these roads are not connected to the Prince 

of Wales Island road system and, except for the road system on Kosciusko Island, are not connected 

to any communities. Some outer islands also contain roads that are not on federally owned lands. 

Roads and road building associated with timber harvest can provide access to previously inaccessible 

areas, providing greater opportunities for subsistence harvest, disperse hunting and fishing pressure,

and also create the potential for increased competition for favored hunting areas among communities 

connected by the existing road system, including from non-resident hunters (USDA Forest Service 

2016c, pp. 3-418 to 419). Changes in access can also affect the level of effort required, time involved, 

and the effectiveness of the hunt (USDA Forest Service 2009). The existing road network is described 

in the Transportation section. Road closures in the project area are scheduled under the Prince of 

Wales Access and Travel Management Plan (POW ATM; see the Transportation section); the 

proposed road closures in the POW ATM would reduce access to some areas. If roads are determined

to remain open for some set period of time, then for that timeframe that could result in a positive

effect to subsistence users by allowing users access to new areas, but it could also result in a negative 

effect by increasing competition between subsistence users, as many users access the same new area 

or areas.

Competition for Resources

Competition for subsistence resources may occur when access is available to local and non-local 

communities. Increased competition can occur between different subsistence user groups, as well as

between subsistence hunters and sport hunters. The existing road system in most of the project area 

has created relatively large areas that are easily accessed. Boat access is also widely used to access 

outlying islands, saltwater, and shoreline. The ferry system and small planes allow relatively easy 

access from off-island communities, both rural and non-rural. Under ANILCA, in times of resource 

scarcity or when demand exceeds biologically sound harvest levels, subsistence harvest (rural) has 

priority over other use of resources, including non-rural harvest. Proposed recreation structures could 

increase opportunities for subsistence users by providing shelter in subsistence use areas. These same 

shelters could also result in increased competition as more users may want to use these new sites.

Subsistence Communities

There are numerous communities that either currently or historically used the project area for 

subsistence use, including Coffman Cove, Craig, Edna Bay, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, 

Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, Naukati Bay, Petersburg, Point Baker, Port Protection, Saxman, Thorne 

Bay, Whale Pass, and Wrangell. Of these communities, all but Saxman, Metlakatla, Meyers Chuck, 

Petersburg, and Wrangell are located in the project area. There are records of use of the project area 

by other communities. Some communities that report use of the project area do not qualify as federal 

subsistence communities, such as Ketchikan. Recent Federal Subsistence Board action may result in 

all rural residents of GMUs 1 through 5 becoming eligible to harvest deer under the Customary and 

Traditional use determination.

Environmental Effects

Subsistence resources other than aquatic species and deer include food plants and personal use timber, 

upland gamebirds and waterfowl, furbearers, and marine mammals.

The effects of landscape changes caused by timber harvest on the availability of wild game are 

important when the harvest of wild game is a critical cultural practice, food source, and recreational 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 85

activity. Timber harvest may influence the abundance and distribution of subsistence resources 

(through changes in suitable habitat), access to subsistence resources (through changes in habitat and 

through road development or management), and competition for subsistence resources (through 

changes in abundance and/or access).

Direct and Indirect Effects

All action alternatives propose both old-growth and young-growth harvest as well as the 

precommercial treatment of young-growth acres. Road building associated with timber harvesting can 

provide greater access to areas previously not accessible and can affect subsistence both positively 

and negatively by providing access, dispersing hunting and fishing pressure, and creating the potential 

for increased competition for favored hunting areas among communities connected by the existing 

road system.

Food Plants, Firewood, and Personal Use Timber

None of the alternatives are expected to adversely affect the abundance or distribution of subsistence

food plants because these resources are generally abundant along roads and in previously harvested 

areas. Food plants are expected to increase in harvested stands in the short term during the early 

successional stage, declining thereafter. Herbicide use is not allowed under Alternatives 2 or 5. This 

would have the short-term benefit of not exposing herbicides to food plants; however, it could result 

in a long-term effect of fewer food plants if invasive species are not contained or eliminated. See 

Issue 1 for information on herbicide use. Project design features described in Activity Card 35 address 

issues related to subsistence food and plants, and outline specific measures to mitigate short- and 

long-term negative effects on these resources.

The project would not preclude Alaska residents from obtaining personal use timber, including 

firewood. New roads under Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 may temporarily increase access to areas where 

food plants and personal use timber may be gathered. Some roads may be closed to public use for 

safety reasons during active timber harvesting, but any reduction in access would be both temporary

and localized. Temporary roads may remain open for a set period of time post-activities. These roads 

could provide increased access for subsistence users to food plants, firewood, and personal use 

timber.

Given the positive effect to the abundance and distribution of food plants, and that the effects to 

access would be both temporary and distributed throughout the project area over time, no changes in 

competition for food plants or personal use timber would be expected.

Upland Game Birds and Waterfowl

All action alternatives would reduce upland game bird habitat (HPOG) and have the potential to 

increase vulnerability to harvest associated with increased access. The presence of old-growth 

reserves in the project area and implementation of Forest Plan direction that maintains connectivity

within matrix lands would help sustain local populations.

No measurable effects to waterfowl are expected to occur, given that most species occur in the project 

area only during migration and on lakes and estuaries, except the Vancouver Canada goose which 

uses forested wetlands, and would be minimally affected by project-related activities. See Wetlands 

section of Chapter 3 for discussion on effects to habitat used by the Vancouver Canada goose.

No significant changes in the abundance or distribution of upland game birds and waterfowl are 

anticipated under any of the alternatives. The number of hunters may temporarily increase in the 

project area due to increased access along project roads, but competition would likely remain about 

the same because upland birds and waterfowl do not contribute a large percentage of the foods for the 
3 – Environment and Effects

86 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

subsistence communities. Harvest activities proposed in the POW LLA Project would affect HPOG 

habitat used by upland gamebirds; however, this effect does not result in a significant possibility of a 

significant restriction for upland gamebirds. Alternative 2 would likely have the greatest effect to 

HPOG habitat as it harvests the most old-growth acres overall, followed by Alternative 3 and then 5. 

See effects to Prince of Wales spruce grouse habitat in Issue 5.

Furbearers

Estuary, riparian, and forested coastal habitats receive the greatest use by furbearers, such as river 

otters and ermine, and are included in the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy. Therefore, the project is 

not likely to affect the abundance or distribution of these species.

The Forest Plan allows young-growth harvest in areas used by furbearers including the beach fringe 

and riparian management areas (RMA) outside of TTRA buffers in development Land Use 

Designations (LUD) and the Old-growth Habitat LUD.

The intent is that determinations of prescriptions and opening sizes of young-growth treatments in the 

beach fringe consider spatial and temporal conditions of adjacent landscapes. It is expected that 

treatment prescriptions facilitate a more rapid recovery of the late-seral (successional) forest 

characteristics, while also producing commercial timber byproducts (Forest Plan p. 5-5).

Some furbearers seem to show a preference for habitat near water, both fresh and salt (see Issue 5). 

Activities in these areas, such as along streams or in the beach buffer, could affect some furbearers’ 

habitat. The potential effect to this habitat could be mitigated because commercial young-growth 

harvest in the beach and estuary fringe is limited to a one-time only entry and in the first 15 years 

unless best available scientific information shows that additional entries are: a) warranted, and b) 

meet the LUD objectives. Additionally, the created opening for commercial timber harvest in beach 

and estuary fringe must not exceed 10 acres, and a maximum removal of up to 35 percent of the acres 

of the original harvested stand is allowed. Commercial thinning is limited to 33 percent of the stand’s 

basal area. A combination of the two treatments may be used, with no more than 35 percent of the 

total stand removed in either basal area and/or acres. Commercial harvest within the beach and 

estuary fringe is not allowed within a minimum 200-foot forested buffer beginning at mean high tide 

(that is, a no commercial harvest buffer), that does not preclude wildlife enhancement projects and 

providing access to timber harvest units as long as process group objectives can be met in the RMA.

The limited harvest in the beach buffer and along streams will likely mitigate effects to furbearers.

Timber harvest with removal of POG, and the associated fragmentation and road building which 

increases access, could affect the local distribution and abundance of marten and wolves. Marten and 

wolves become more vulnerable to harvest due to increased access. This could increase competition 

among local communities, particularly if increased access in currently accessible areas results in

overharvest of furbearers. These effects could be somewhat mitigated through road access 

management. However, this effect would not result in a significant possibility of a significant 

restriction for marten and wolves. Alternative 2 would likely have the greatest effect to furbearer 

habitat as it harvests the most acres of old growth overall, followed by Alternative 3 and then 5. See 

discussion in Issue 5 for effects to marten habitat and wolves.

Marine Mammals

Marine mammals have the potential to be exposed to disturbance and noise associated with marine 

access facilities (MAF) activity, potential collisions with vessels, and fuel or oil spills associated with 

vessel traffic. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 have the potential to result in a minor increase in activity, 

including vessel and the rafting of logs, at the existing and proposed MAFs and in association with 

the export of logs. However, this activity would be infrequent, and would be spread over 15 years.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 87

Vessels used to transport logs are not likely to affect the abundance or distribution of marine 

mammals around the project area, given the transient nature of these species and the fact that such 

vessels typically operate at low, constant speeds. This gives the marine mammal species time for 

avoidance, and vessels would operate at infrequent intervals. Additionally, it is assumed that all 

vessels operating on behalf of the project would adhere to the requirements of the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

guidelines for approaching marine mammals, as required under the Forest Plan. Therefore, no change 

in abundance and distribution, access to, or competition for, marine mammals would occur as a result 

of the project. Affects to marine mammals are included in the Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation in the project record.

None of the project alternatives would present “a significant possibility of a significant restriction” of 

subsistence uses for most subsistence resources (food plants, personal use timber, upland game birds 

and waterfowl, furbearers, and marine mammals).

Cumulative Effects

Since the project would have no significant direct or indirect effect to the abundance or distribution 

of, access to, or competition for most waterfowl, furbearers, food plants, personal use timber and

marine mammals, the project would make no contribution to cumulative effects to these species.

Exceptions are the Prince of Wales spruce grouse (upland gamebird), and marten and wolves

(furbearers) which may be affected by reductions in upland POG habitat and/or increased road 

densities and related effects associated with increased human access under all the action alternatives. 

Alternative 2 would likely have the greatest effect to habitats used by the species listed above as it 

harvests the most old-growth acres overall, followed by Alternative 3, then 5. While the proposed 

activities may have an effect on habitat used by these species, the effect would not result in a 

determination of a significant possibility of a significant restriction for these species. All alternatives 

propose to build a similar amount of road, resulting in little difference between alternatives. See Issue 

5 for effects to marten and spruce grouse habitat and wolves.

Conclusion

None of the project alternatives would present “a significant possibility of significant restriction” of 

subsistence uses for food plants, personal use timber, upland game birds and waterfowl, furbearers, 

and marine mammals.

Affected Environment for Aquatic Subsistence Resources 

(salmon, other fin fish, seaweed, and marine invertebrates)

Aquatic subsistence resources that could be affected by project activities include salmon, other 

finfish, seaweed and beach greens, and marine invertebrates. Refer to the Affected Environment for 

Aquatics (Issue 4) in this FEIS.

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No POW LLA Project activities would occur in this alternative, so there would be no direct or 

indirect effects to aquatic subsistence resources and the user groups who rely on them.
3 – Environment and Effects

88 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects

POW LLA Project activities that might help offset adverse effects from past land management 

practices would not occur. Cumulative effects to aquatic subsistence resources would remain similar 

to the present condition in this alternative.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the project area could affect aquatic 

subsistence resources and their users. Previous land management practices like harvesting riparian 

trees, yarding logs in streams, and building roads in floodplains have had adverse effects to water 

quality, fish habitat, and the capability of habitat to support aquatic subsistence resources like salmon.

Timber harvest and road building on state, private, and federal land in the project area contribute to 

changes in peak flow rates which can affect the capability of habitat to support aquatic subsistence

resources. Road paving on Prince of Wales Island may have increased competition for aquatic 

subsistence resources in some communities. Upgrading and paving the road from the Neck Lake turnoff to the Whale Pass boat launch may increase competition for aquatic subsistence resources in 

Whale Pass.

Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Distribution and Abundance

All action alternatives include fish passage improvement at road–stream crossings and riparian 

thinning. These activities would address fish habitat fragmentation and improve fish habitat, and 

therefore improve the distribution and abundance of salmon for subsistence use.

All action alternatives allow for some amount of fish habitat improvement including bioenhancement, 

and some amount of instream restoration. These activities would improve water quality, fish habitat, 

and/or access to fish habitat, and therefore improve the distribution and abundance of salmon for 

subsistence use. Alternative 2 allows for fish habitat improvement and bioenhancement activities like 

lake fertilization, egg incubation boxes, fry stocking, and barrier modifications. Alternative 3 only 

allows for barrier modification. Alternative 5 only allows barrier modification and lake fertilization. 

Alternatives 2 and 5 allow for 200 miles of stream restoration, and Alternative 3 allows for only 80 

miles of stream restoration.

All action alternatives include the use and improvement of at least 13 existing LTF sites and the 

construction of two new LTF sites, as well and the development or improvement of up to 70 other 

MAF sites. Effects to the distribution and abundance of aquatic subsistence resources would be 

minimized by following direction in the LTF and MAF Activity Cards (Appendix A), which outline 

required BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and require identification of site-specific mitigations during 

implementation planning.

All action alternatives allow for some amount of timber harvest and road construction, reconstruction, 

and maintenance. Alternative 3 proposes up to 49,684 acres of timber harvest, followed by Alternative 

5 with 43,035 acres, and then by Alternative 2 with 42,635 acres (Table 38). Direct and indirect 

effects to the abundance and distribution of aquatic subsistence resources would be minor because noharvest buffers along fish streams preserve the riparian portion of the stand needed for shade, nutrient 

input, and habitat complexity. Effects would be further minimized by following Activity Card 

direction which outlines required BMPs and Forest Plan direction, and requires identification of sitespecific mitigations during implementation planning.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 89

Roads can directly affect water quality, fish habitat, and access to fish habitat, especially if roads are 

built on steep slopes or within 300 feet of a fish stream. Alternative 5 proposes to build the most new 

roads with 229 miles, followed by Alternative 3 with 223 miles, and then Alternative 2 with 164 miles

(Table 2). Alternatives 2 has the most existing and potential roads on steep slopes at 187 miles, 

followed by Alternatives 3 and 5 with 185 miles (Table 29). Alternatives 2 and 3 have the most 

existing and potential roads within 300 feet of a fish stream with 907 miles, followed by Alternative 5 

with 903 miles (Table 29).

Adverse effects of project activities to the abundance and distribution of aquatic subsistence resources 

from roads are minimized by following Activity Card guidance, which includes BMPs and Forest 

Plan direction. Any new fish stream crossing structures will provide for fish passage, and any 

instream work will occur during species’ specific timing windows which are designed to avoid 

spawning adults, eggs and alevins in the gravel, and autumn high water.

Access

None of the action alternatives would directly limit the use of public lands for gathering aquatic 

subsistence resources. There may be some temporary and localized disruptions during the 

construction and maintenance of roads, trails, recreation and MAF sites, and while logging is 

occurring. There may also be some short-term disruptions from young-growth harvest in the beach 

fringe for subsistence users who use a boat as a primary method of access.

Subsistence use patterns may change slightly from the development of new trails, MAF sites, and 

roads. Nearly all new roads would be closed or decommissioned following harvest so they would not 

be accessible by highway vehicles or high-clearance vehicles, but they could be accessed by other 

methods, such as foot, bicycle, ATV, or snowmachine, and affect subsistence use patterns.

Competition

Competition for aquatic subsistence resources is affected by many factors. For this analysis, it is 

assumed that:

• Demand for aquatic subsistence resources would increase slightly or remain constant if habitat 

capability declines or remains the same over time.

• Competition would increase if access from surrounding or off-island communities increases.

• Competition would increase if resource populations decrease from overharvest or loss of habitat.

• Project activities and protection measures should maintain or improve habitat capability for 

salmon, and therefore the demand for aquatic subsistence resources should decrease or remain 

constant.

• Restoration activities are intended to bring impaired channels back to a properly functioning state, 

which would improve its capability to support fish and other aquatic organisms over time.

• Fish habitat improvement and bioenhancement activities are intended to improve wild sockeye

salmon runs in areas that historically produced more salmon.

• For barrier modification activities, ADF&G regulations already prohibit fishing within 300 feet of 

a fish ladder or similar structure. Additionally, proposed fish passes are intended to 

improve/provide Pacific salmon access to spawning and rearing habitat.

• Fish passage improvement activities at road crossings would increase access to habitat that is 

currently inhibited by Red crossings, or crossing structures that are not passable to fish at all 

flows.
3 – Environment and Effects

90 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

• No-harvest buffers, BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and other requirements listed in the Activity 

Cards will further minimize the effects of timber harvest and road building on the capability of 

fish habitat.

• New roads, trails, and MAF sites like boat launches might increase access to fishing locations, 

and could disperse competition for aquatic subsistence resources within the project area.

• While there would be new road construction, most of those roads are temporary, which means 

subsistence users would have to use methods other than highway vehicles or high-clearance 

vehicles to access new fishing locations once a road is closed.

Given the above assumptions, effects to the competition for aquatic subsistence resources would be 

minor. POW LLA Project activities are not expected to result in the over-harvest of aquatic 

subsistence resources. POW LLA Project activities like stream restoration, fish habitat improvement 

including bioenhancement, riparian thinning, and fixing fish passage at roads may improve the habitat 

capability; however, there still may be concerns about over-harvest and the subsequent effects on 

competition for aquatic subsistence resources on Prince of Wales Island. These can be addressed by 

working with the State of Alaska, and the Federal Subsistence Board through the Southeast Alaska 

Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (SEASRAC). The State of Alaska manages populations and 

harvest limits for commercial, sport, and state-run subsistence fisheries, and the Federal Subsistence 

Board establishes federal subsistence regulations for NFS land within the project area. POW LLA 

Project subsistence hearings, Project Implementation Plan public meetings, as well as SEASRAC

meetings provide opportunities for local residents to express concerns about the effects of project 

activities on the distribution and abundance of, access to, and competition for aquatic subsistence 

resources.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative adverse effects to distribution and abundance of, access to, and competition for aquatic 

subsistence resources would increase slightly in each of the action alternatives.

Alternative 2 presents a greater risk of adverse effects compared to Alternatives 3 and 5. During the 

implementation process, careful consideration of watershed-specific activities and characteristics will 

be necessary to ensure that fish habitat and water quality will not be degraded, and capability of 

habitat to support aquatic subsistence resources like salmon would be maintained. Alternatives 3 and 

5 require that timber harvests be planned so no watersheds have peak flow rate increases.

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the project area could affect aquatic 

subsistence resources and their users.

Previous land management practices like harvesting riparian trees, yarding logs in streams, and 

building roads in floodplains have had adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and the capability 

of habitat to support aquatic subsistence resources like salmon. Timber harvest and road building on 

state, private, and federal land in the project area contribute to changes in peak flow rates which can 

affect the capability of habitat to support aquatic subsistence resources. Past and present road 

improvement for highway vehicle access on Prince of Wales Island may have increased competition 

for aquatic subsistence resources in some communities. Upgrading and paving the road from the Neck 

Lake turn-off to the Whale Pass boat launch may increase competition for aquatic subsistence 

resources in Whale Pass.

POW LLA Project activities may help offset adverse effects from previous land management 

practices. Stream and karst restoration, riparian thinning, fish habitat improvement activities 

including bioenhancement, and fixing fish passage issues at road crossings can all help improve 

habitat capability to support aquatic subsistence resources.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 91

Direction in Activity Cards outline BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and other protections so that adverse 

effects to aquatic resources from project activities are minimized.

Conclusion

None of the project alternatives would present “a significant possibility of significant restriction” of 

subsistence uses for salmon, other fin fish, seaweed, and marine invertebrates.

Affected Environment for Sitka Black-tailed Deer

The conversion of an old-growth forest stand into a stand at the stem initiation stage of development 

results in a temporary increase in deer forage availability and deer habitat capability; however, this is 

a relatively short-term increase (about 25 years post-harvest) and then the deer habitat capability 

(DHC) declines through the stem exclusion stage, which is more long term (years 26 to about 150) 

and generally has less forage availability than the original old-growth stand. Road construction can 

also affect subsistence by providing subsistence hunters with ready access to areas that may have 

been previously inaccessible. This effect may be perceived as either positive, providing increased 

access to a new area, or negative, 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.

In the first 20 to 30 years following timber harvest, deer habitat capability tends to increase due to 

more available forage. However, after this timeframe, populations tend to decline due to forage 

availability as the canopy in even-aged managed stands closes, resulting in lower habitat quality (less 

forage). Reductions in habitat quality in these young-growth stands can be mitigated to some extent 

through management activities such as thinning. Deer may indirectly benefit as stands become older 

and move into the stem exclusion stage, as deer become harder to see in these stands, making them

less visible to hunters.

Effects to deer habitat are discussed below in Abundance and Distribution and in Issue 5. Research 

has identified deer winter range as the likely limiting habitat for deer (see Issue 5 for more 

information).

Abundance and Distribution

Hunter harvest data for the number of deer taken from 2006 to 2016 were used in this analysis. The 

deer harvest data were obtained from ADF&G and are included in the project record. This likely 

underestimates actual number of deer harvested as it does not include hunters who were not 

successful in taking any deer or took fewer deer than they desired. The analysis of direct and indirect 

effects uses deer harvest by federally qualified users only and the cumulative effects analysis includes 

all users. The ADF&G data do not differentiate between NFS and non-NFS lands in WAAs so the 

analysis for the POW LLA Project is done at the scale of all lands.

A deer population at carrying capacity is assumed to support a sustainable hunter harvest equal to 

approximately 10 percent of the deer habitat capability while also providing a reasonably high level 

of hunter success in the WAA (USDA Forest Service 2008b, p. 3-576). Populations may be nearing 

carrying capacity in portions of Game Management Unit 2 and managers are concerned that in some 

drainages a severe winter could result in a substantial die-off (ADF&G: Deer Management Report of 

Survey-Inventory Activities, 1 July 2012–30 June 2014). Hunter success can be expected to decline,

through reduced hunter efficiency and the moderate difficulty in obtaining deer in areas (WAAs) 

where harvest equates to between 10 and 20 percent of habitat capability. If harvest exceeds 20 

percent of habitat capability, the harvest of deer by hunters may be directly affected either through 
3 – Environment and Effects

92 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

restriction in seasons and bag limits or indirectly through reduced hunter efficiency and increased 

difficulty in obtaining deer relative to historical rates (USDA Forest Service 2008b, p. 3-428).

Table 8 shows the percent of reported deer harvested of the estimated deer habitat capability, and the

five WAAs of concern are 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318 and 1420. These WAAs are near the communities 

of Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, Hollis and Klawock. Road densities are discussed in the Wolf 

Mortality section of Issue 5.

Table 8. Estimated percent harvest of estimated DHC by year and WAA by Federally-qualified 

subsistence users

WAA Current DHC 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

901 1659 1.5 2.9 1.7 2.0 4.5 6.5 5.8 4.0 5.1 2.1

902 4471 0.8 2.1 2.3 2.8 2.2 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.0 0.6

1003 1692 2.1 2.1 1.2 3.0 2.1 1.7 2.0 0.9 2.2 2.0

1105 4782 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.1 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.9

1106 318 4.7 1.3 2.8 3.5 0.6 1.9 1.6 3.8 2.2 1.9

1107 4343 1.5 2.3 2.3 3.1 4.1 4.1 2.0 2.6 1.7 1.1

1108 2909 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0

1209 2929 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1

1210 2445 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 1.1 0.3

1211 1413 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.7

1212 897 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0

1213 881 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.6

1214 1028 16.5 11.8 12.4 14.7 13.3 10.6 13.5 13.4 12.4 9.3

1315 1436 14.8 12.4 17.8 16.4 14.3 11.0 13.1 14.4 15.0 13.0

1316 920 0.4 1.6 3.3 0.3 2.5 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.2 1.2

1317 1004 7.5 7.5 8.4 8.4 15.6 13.6 11.1 11.6 12.4 9.1

1318 1046 13.5 17.6 15.7 19.3 19.4 19.0 19.5 16.3 22.1 15.2

1319 2543 7.6 6.7 5.2 5.5 6.2 7.0 7.2 8.5 8.1 5.3

1323 1480 0.9 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.6 1.4 0.5 0.8 1.9 1.4

1332 1718 5.0 4.2 4.0 6.2 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.0 3.2 3.1

1420 747 19.7 18.1 16.9 20.3 24.9 18.7 20.2 26.2 19.9 20.5

1421 2403 3.5 3.5 3.7 2.5 4.4 2.0 2.9 4.5 3.7 2.9

1422 3148 7.1 7.6 8.3 8.4 6.6 5.5 6.5 6.0 8.7 8.5

1524 470 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1525 1333 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.8 0.5 0.8

1526 2198 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.5

1527 995 0.7 1.7 2.0 1.0 0.7 1.7 0.2 0.3 1.7 1.2

1528 446 3.6 4.3 5.2 8.1 6.3 2.9 10.8 6.5 9.9 9.4

1529 2089 3.3 4.1 3.2 3.9 2.3 2.9 2.4 4.9 4.9 7.1

1530 1408 3.8 4.7 2.2 3.8 5.3 3.9 5.3 9.4 6.9 8.1

1531 967 2.0 2.7 2.1 2.4 4.4 3.6 0.8 1.0 3.7 1.2

*Shaded values indicate where estimated percentage exceeded 10 percent more than five times within this 10-year period.

See Issue 5 for effects to non-winter, average snow, and deep snow deer habitat.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 93

Access

Conditions in unmanaged young-growth stands can reduce access to deer, increase undesirable habitat 

for deer hunting (Brinkmann et al. 2009) and make them harder to see in these stands and therefore 

less visible to hunters. This could be perceived as a negative effect, by reducing access for hunters.

Roads in the project area provide access to subsistence resources. Young growth and road densities 

are discussed in Issue 5 under Wolves.

Competition

Hunter efficiency and success may decrease in the five WAAs of concern and there is the potential for 

increased competition for deer in areas where habitat capability, and potentially deer abundance, is 

higher.

Proposed roads can affect subsistence both positively and negatively by providing access to areas 

previously not accessible, dispersing hunting pressure, and creating the potential for increased 

competition for favored hunting areas among communities connected by the existing road system 

(USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-418 to 419).

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Distribution and Abundance

There would be indirect effects to deer habitat or the deer habitat capability over time, as existing 

harvested stands move from the stand initiation stage into the stem-exclusion stage, reducing the 

amount of forage for deer. Conditions in unmanaged young-growth stands can reduce access to deer 

and increase undesirable habitat for deer hunting (Brinkmann et al. 2009). Thus, over time, reductions 

in habitat capability for deer may reduce deer abundance, or increase abundance by decreasing hunter 

success.

The decrease in deer habitat capability from current by WAA is shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Decrease in DHC from current by WAA for Alternative 1

WAA Location % Decrease

901 Suemez Island 5

1003 Heceta Island 2

1211 Cholmondeley Sound 3

1214 Twelvemile Arm 5

1315 Thorne Bay 8

1317 Hollis 2

1318 Klawock 3

1319 West of Thorne Bay 2

1420 Coffman Cove 5

1421 West of Coffman Cove 3

1422 Naukati 4

1527 Calder Bay 3
3 – Environment and Effects

94 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Hunter success can be expected to decline, through reduced hunter efficiency and the moderate 

difficulty in obtaining deer, in WAAs where hunter deer harvest equates to between 10 and 20 percent 

of the estimated deer habitat capability (WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420; see Table 10). 

Alternative 1 may result in negligible changes to this table due to the indirect effects of changes in 

DHC and access.

Access

Under Alternative 1, no new roads would be constructed; however, current access may be reduced as 

existing roads would continue to be closed under the POW ATM. Road closures would result in a

change in access and may affect competition by concentrating hunters in the remaining accessible 

areas.

Competition

Reductions in deer habitat capability at stem exclusion is primarily the result from the progression of 

previously harvested stands transitioning into the stem exclusion stage. As hunter efficiency and 

success decrease in areas that transition into stem exclusion, there is the potential for increased 

competition for deer in areas where habitat capability, and potentially deer abundance, is higher.

Cumulative Effects

Since Alternative 1 does not result in any significant effects to abundance and distribution, access or 

competition, it would not have significant contribution to the cumulative effects.

Distribution and Abundance

The cumulative effects analysis for subsistence includes the estimated effect to deer by all hunters.

When considering the impact of all hunters on deer, WAA 1422 is added to the list of WAAs where 

there has been more than 10 percent harvest of the estimated DHC (see Table 10).

It is assumed that both old-growth and young-growth timber harvest would continue to occur on nonNFS lands. The old-growth timber harvest would result in the conversion of old-growth stands into 

the stand initiation stage of development. In the short term, these acres would provide habitat for deer, 

especially in the summer and mild winters. Over the long term, if these acres are not treated, they 

would transition into the stem exclusion stage that provides limited habitat and would result in a 

reduction of deer habitat capability. The harvest of young-growth stands would likely result in an 

increase in deer habitat capability due to the conversion of stands currently in the stem exclusion 

stage (that provide limited habitat) back into the stand initiation stage (that provides forage habitat at 

least during summer and mild winters). See Issue 5 for effects to deer habitat (non-winter, average

snow, and deep snow habitat).

Access

Road building on non-NFS lands would result in an increase in access to subsistence resources. These 

road networks provide greater access to areas previously not accessible and can affect subsistence 

both positively and negatively by providing access, dispersing hunting and fishing pressure, and 

creating the potential for increased competition for favored hunting areas among communities 

connected by the existing road system (USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-418 to 419).

Competition

As hunter efficiency and success decrease in areas that transition into stem exclusion, there is the 

potential for increased competition for deer in areas where habitat capability, and potentially deer 

abundance, is higher.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 95

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects to deer habitat have been addressed by looking at effects to habitat: non-winter, average snow,

and deep snow habitat. While research has not identified any thresholds for these habitat types for 

deer in Southeast Alaska, effects to these habitat types are discussed in Issue 5. Research has 

identified deep snow habitat as the likely limiting habitat for deer (see Issue 5).

Distribution and Abundance

WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated deer habitat capability (DHC) include 

WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420. These WAAs have potential subsistence harvest concerns.

All the WAAs, except 1214, with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated deer habitat 

capability (DHC) receive some timber harvest mitigation in Alternative 2. Alternative 2 includes 

wildlife prescription treatments, generally uneven-aged harvest (see Issue 5 for definition) for both 

old-growth and young-growth harvest within 5 miles of a subsistence community in the project area. 

This would occur in WAA 1107 (Hydaburg), WAA 1315 (Thorne Bay), WAA 1317 (Hollis), WAA

1318 (Craig/Klawock), WAAs 1420 and 1421 (Coffman Cove), WAAs 1422 and WAA 1525 (Edna 

Bay), WAA 1529 (Port Protection and Point Baker), WAA 1530 (Whale Pass), and WAA 1531 

(Naukati). The wildlife-centric prescriptions should help mitigate effects to or lead to short-term 

benefits to deer habitat.

All the WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated DHC receive some timber 

harvest mitigation in Alternatives 3 and 5. Alternative 3 allows only single-tree selection (STS) for 

old-growth harvest on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation. Alternative 5 would allow no 

old-growth harvest on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation in these WAAs. Maintaining 

acres in these locations helps to mitigate the overall effects to deep-snow deer winter habitat in these 

WAAs.

Of the WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated DHC, WAAs 1214, 1315, 

1317, and 1420 would have both the timber harvest restriction measures discussed above as well as

include the VCUs in which the Forest Plan Legacy Standard and Guideline would be applied. Both 

help to mitigate the effects to deep snow habitat. Additionally, Alternatives 3 and 5 include peak flow 

rate mitigations in WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420.

Alternative 2 would likely result in the greatest negative effect to deer habitat in that it harvests the 

most acres of old growth. Long-term, Alternative 3 would have less of a negative effect to deer 

habitat in that it harvests about half the acres of old growth than what is proposed in Alternative 2, 

and about 75 percent of those acres are proposed for uneven-aged harvest treatments. The old-growth 

harvest proposed in Alternative 5 is fewer acres than proposed in either Alternative 2 or 3, about half 

(49 percent) of the acres proposed in Alternative 3 and a quarter (27 percent) of the acres proposed in 

Alternative 2; however, a smaller percentage of Alternative 5’s proposed acres would include unevenaged harvest prescriptions. Overall, Alternative 5 would probably have the least negative impact to 

deer habitat compared to Alternative 2 and 3, mostly due to fewer acres proposed for old-growth 

harvest, and of those acres almost a third are proposed for uneven-aged harvest. The negative effects 

of Alternative 3 would likely be more than Alternative 5 (more acres of old-growth harvest) but less 

than Alternative 2. The higher number of old-growth harvest acres proposed in Alternative 3, relative 

to Alternative 5, are mitigated somewhat due to about 75 percent of those acres being harvested using 

uneven-aged harvest prescriptions. Alternative 2 would have the greatest negative impact to deer 

habitat relative to Alternatives 3 and 5 due to both more overall old-growth acres proposed for harvest 
3 – Environment and Effects

96 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

and the small percentage of those acres harvested using uneven-aged prescriptions (see Table 38 in 

Issue 5).

Even-aged harvest of both old- and young-growth may result in a short-term increase in deer

availability, but may decrease over the long term in the absence of any further treatments. Unevenaged harvest would result in less of an increase in deer habitat in the short term, but also less of 

decrease over the long term. Even-aged timber harvest could increase access to deer over the short 

term, due to the clearing of vegetation which makes them more visible to hunters.

The abundance and distribution of deer may be affected in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, mostly due to the 

loss of deep snow habitat (loss of available forage in winter) in some WAAs (see Issue 5). This 

potential loss of deep snow habitat increases the importance of treating the young-growth acres on 

south-facing low-elevation stands to try to offset the effect that a severe winter may have to deer in 

these areas. The change in abundance and distribution of deer could have an effect on competition 

because as hunter efficiency and success decrease in areas that transition into stem exclusion, there is 

the potential for increased competition for deer in areas where habitat capability, and potentially deer 

abundance, is higher.

The Forest Plan estimates that with full implementation of the Forest Plan, WAAs 1420 and 1421 in 

the project area may retain 50 percent or less of the estimated deer habitat capability. The Forest Plan 

estimates that with full implementation of the Forest Plan that the North Central Prince of Wales 

Province (#14) is predicted to retain between 52 and 55 percent of the estimated 1954 DHC; the 

Southern Outer Islands Province (#16) about 80 to 82 percent DHC; Dall Island and Vicinity (#17) 

about 66 percent DHC, and South Prince of Wales (#18) about 81 to 82 percent DHC (Table 3.10-16 

Forest Plan FEIS p. 3-288).

Access

All action alternatives would include road construction.

Road building would result in an increase in access to subsistence resources. These road networks 

provide greater access to areas previously not accessible and can affect subsistence both beneficially 

and adversely by providing access, dispersing hunting pressure, and creating the potential for 

increased competition for favored hunting areas among communities connected by the existing road 

system (USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-418 to 419). The effect of the proposed road building 

would be expected to be similar across all action alternatives.

New road construction is likely to result in the development of new use patterns around some 

communities, but these changes are not likely to lead to a significant possibility of a significant 

restriction of subsistence access to the resources. New use patterns may, however, favor some 

subsistence groups and disadvantage others (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-428).

Roads remaining open could provide increased access for subsistence users to deer. This effect may 

be perceived as either positive, providing increased access to a new area, or negative, 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.

Alternative 2 proposes about 35 miles of NFS road construction and 129 miles of temporary road

construction, totaling 164 miles; Alternative 3 proposes about 48 miles of NFS road construction and

175 miles of temporary road construction, totaling 223 miles; and Alternative 5 proposes about 49

miles of NFS road construction and 180 miles of temporary road construction, totaling 229 miles.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 97

Competition

If hunter efficiency and success decrease in areas that transition into the stem exclusion stage, there is 

the potential for increased competition for deer in areas where habitat capability, and potentially deer 

abundance, is higher. All alternatives include the clearcut harvest of old-growth acres. In the short 

term (about 25 years) the clearcut acres result in a stand with more forage availability for deer, and 

the area being more open and the deer being more visible to hunters. This could result in an increase 

in both hunter efficiency and success in the short term. In the long term, as these stands move from

stand initiation stage into the stem exclusion stage, hunter efficiency and success could decrease. 

Treatments of the young-growth stands that postpone the stem exclusion stage or at least open the 

stand enough to both increase forage availability to deer and visibility to hunters could help mitigate 

the effect to both deer and hunters.

Cumulative Effects – Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

The estimated future POG harvest on non-NFS lands is about 101,272 acres. It is unknown how much 

young-growth harvest would occur on non-NFS land. It is estimated that about 566 miles of road 

building could occur on non-NFS lands. For this analysis it is assumed that all acres on non-NFS land 

would be harvested. Cumulative effects includes the analysis of all hunters on deer.

Abundance and Distribution

The cumulative effects analysis for subsistence includes the estimated effect to deer by all hunters 

(data provided by ADF&G; ADF&G harvest data does not differentiate between NFS and non-NFS 

lands in a WAA).

When considering the impact of all hunters on deer, WAA 1422 is added to the list of WAAs that 

exceed the 10 percent harvest of the estimated DHC. See Table 10 below.

Table 10. Number of years harvest in WAA was between 10 to 20 percent or exceeded 20 percent* of DHC 

from 2007 through 2016

WAA Federally Qualified Subsistence Users All Users

10-20 % >20% 10-20% >20%

1214 9 0 1 10

1315 11 0 1 10

1317 5 0 9 1

1318 9 1 2 7

1420 5 6 0 11

1422 0 0 7 0

*Some WAAs had years that were less than 10 percent. WAAs that remain less than 10 percent are not included in this 

table.

Access

It is assumed that road building will occur on non-NFS lands to facilitate timber harvest. Additional 

roads may increase the access for both subsistence and non-subsistence users to subsistence 

resources. These road networks provide greater access to areas previously not accessible and can 

affect subsistence both positively and negatively by providing access, dispersing hunting pressure, 

and creating the potential for increased competition for favored hunting areas among communities 

connected by the existing road system (USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-418 to 419). The 

cumulative effect of the potential road building on all lands would be expected to be similar across all 

alternatives.
3 – Environment and Effects

98 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Competition

It is expected that under all alternatives, the combination of activities on both NFS and non-NFS 

lands may result in a short-term increase in deer availability, but may result in a long-term decrease in 

the overall deer availability based on habitat.

Hunter success would be expected to remain high in most WAAs (all lands) included in the project 

area, because the estimated hunter take would remain below 10 percent of the estimated DHC. Hunter 

success could be directly or indirectly reduced through harvest restrictions or difficulty obtaining deer

in the WAAs that exceed the 10 percent value. Hunter success rates may be lower in WAAs 1214, 

1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420 due to the estimated deer harvest exceeding 10 percent of the estimated 

DHC (see Table 11).

If hunter efficiency and success decrease in areas that transition into the stem exclusion stage of stand 

development, there is the potential for increased competition for deer in areas where habitat 

capability, and potentially deer abundance, is higher.

The ADF&G data do not differentiate between NFS and non-NFS lands in WAAs so the analysis for 

the POW LLA Project is done at the scale of all lands.

Table 11. Estimated percent harvest of Deer Habitat Capability by all user groups for Cumulative effects

WAA Current 

DHC 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

901 1659 2.9 1.7 3.4 1.7 4.8 4.8 7.5 6.9 4.8 5.5

902 4471 0.9 0.8 2.5 3.0 3.6 2.8 2.0 1.2 1.7 1.2

1003 1692 2.2 2.7 3.3 1.8 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.8 1.5 3.3

1105 4782 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.9 2.8 3.8 3.2 2.4

1106 318 6.3 8.2 8.8 4.1 11.0 7.2 6.3 1.6 4.4 4.1

1107 4343 1.8 1.8 3.5 3.2 4.1 4.9 5.2 3.2 3.5 2.9

1108 2909 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.2 1.3 0.0 1.7 0.3

1209 2929 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.3 1.2

1210 2445 1.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.1 2.3 3.8 4.3 4.9

1211 1413 0.1 0.7 1.1 1.2 3.5 4.2 5.2 6.2 4.5 2.3

1212 897 0.9 0.4 1.2 2.1 2.1 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.9 2.0

1213 881 4.1 3.2 2.3 2.3 4.9 0.9 4.5 2.2 0.3 1.7

1214 1028 16.4 22.7 23.4 26.3 31.6 26.9 26.8 29.0 21.8 24.1

1315 1436 23.7 25.6 22.4 25.6 26.3 23.9 19.5 24.9 29.7 29.7

1316 920 3.0 1.6 4.0 4.8 2.8 5.4 1.6 2.2 1.1 2.0

1317 1004 11.9 9.1 11.1 13.0 14.5 19.9 17.3 17.8 15.9 19.2

1318 1046 9.9 15.9 21.8 20.7 23.7 25.1 23.0 23.7 19.7 27.0

1319 2543 10.9 9.4 8.7 7.2 7.9 8.4 8.3 9.0 10.1 10.5

1323 1480 1.1 1.3 2.2 1.8 0.5 0.6 1.4 0.5 0.8 1.9

1332 1718 4.0 5.2 4.7 5.1 7.5 4.0 4.4 4.7 3.4 4.1

1420 747 66.4 31.5 36.7 38.8 43.8 47.3 34.4 41.6 50.2 44.2

1421 2403 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.2 4.0 5.4 2.5 3.6 5.1 4.5

1422 3148 14.2 10.8 13.1 13.4 13.8 11.4 7.8 8.8 8.6 12.6

1524 470 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 99

WAA Current 

DHC 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

1525 1333 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.4

1526 2198 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.5 1.6 0.5 1.2 2.2 1.1

1527 995 5.7 0.8 1.7 2.6 4.3 1.1 2.0 0.5 0.3 2.3

1528 446 11.9 4.7 4.5 5.4 8.3 8.1 3.6 11.4 6.5 10.3

1529 2089 8.6 7.9 6.8 7.1 6.8 4.1 4.4 4.3 6.3 7.2

1530 1408 9.1 9.2 8.8 6.7 9.4 8.5 6.8 9.2 15.9 13.6

1531 967 4.0 3.1 5.3 5.8 4.2 8.2 4.3 1.0 1.0 3.9

Data for 2006 was not included in information received from ADF&G for all users.

Shaded values indicate where estimated percentage exceeded 10 percent more than five times within this 10-year period.

Conclusion

There is a significant possibility of a significant restriction for the use of deer. The risk of hunting 

restrictions could be reduced somewhat, through management (thinning) of the existing and future 

closed-canopy, young-growth forests. Indirect effects associated with increased competition for deer 

in subsistence use areas could also occur under all alternatives if hunters from other communities 

were displaced due to timber harvest activity (USDA Forest Service, 2016c, pp. 3-418 to 419).

Alternative 1 would have negligible direct impacts to subsistence because it would result in a 

negligible indirect reduction in deer habitat capability and no new road building. This could result in 

changes to access due to no road building. As young-growth stands age and move into the stem 

exclusion stage, deer may become harder to see, and therefore hunters could have harder time seeing 

the deer. Acres currently in the stand initiation stage would continue to move into the stem exclusion 

stage over time. Alternative 1 would benefit from the improvement in deer habitat quality resulting 

from young-growth treatments on NFS lands that would likely continue to occur under other NEPA 

decisions. Under Alternative 1, there may be slight changes to the abundance and distribution of, 

competition for, and access to subsistence resources on NFS lands due to the slight decrease in the 

DHC as well as no new roads. The effects of activities on non-NFS lands could result in a change to 

abundance and distribution of, competition for, and access to subsistence resources.

The abundance and distribution of deer may be affected in Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, mostly due to the 

loss of deep snow habitat in some WAAs (see Issue 5). This potential loss of deep snow habitat 

increases the importance of treating the young-growth acres on south-facing low-elevation stands to 

try to offset the effect that a severe winter may have on deer in these areas. The change in abundance 

and distribution of deer could have an effect on competition because as hunter efficiency and success 

decrease in areas that transition into stem exclusion, there is the potential for increased competition 

for deer in areas where habitat capability, and potentially deer abundance, is higher.

All WAAs with deep snow habitat concerns (less than 50 percent remaining) have at least one

mitigation measure (relating to subsistence, legacy, or peak flow rates) that would be applied. These 

measures would reduce the effects to deep snow habitat in these WAAs.

All action alternatives would include road construction. Roads provide greater access to areas 

previously not accessible and can affect subsistence both positively and negatively by providing 

access, dispersing hunting pressure, and creating the potential for increased competition for favored 

hunting areas among communities connected by the existing road system (USDA Forest Service 

2016c, pp. 3-418 to 419). Alternative 2 proposes to build about 164 miles of road, Alternative 3 about 

223 miles of road, and Alternative 5 about 229 miles of road. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have a 
3 – Environment and Effects

100 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

similar effect on the access to subsistence resources, while Alternative 2 would be slightly less than 

Alternatives 3 and 5.

Mitigation measures limit old-growth harvest in Alternatives 3 and 5, including in WAAs with deep 

snow habitat concerns. For Alternative 3 old-growth harvest would be more limited with more partial 

harvest prescriptions, and in Alternative 5 no old-growth harvest would occur in deep snow habitat,

which is south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation. Alternative 2 includes wildlife-centric, 

uneven-aged harvest prescription in proposed harvest areas within 5 miles of a subsistence

community within the project area. These measures would limit the effects to deer habitat capability 

(Alternatives 3 and 5) or both limit the effects to deer habitat capability and increase availability of 

deer in the vicinity of subsistence communities (Alternative 2).

It is unknown to what degree the amount of timber harvest of deep snow habitat will be on non-NFS 

lands; however, it can be assumed that most of the remaining deep snow habitat on these lands would

be impacted. If so, the loss of deep snow habitat in some WAAs would likely result in an effect to 

deer habitat that may result in these areas not being capable to support deer in winter. This potential 

loss of deep snow habitat increases the importance of treating the young-growth acres on south-facing 

low-elevation stands to try to offset the effect that a severe winter could have to deer in these areas. 

Mitigation measures include limiting old-growth harvest to partial harvest prescriptions in Alternative 

3 or no old-growth harvest in Alternative 5 for deep snow habitat which is south-facing stands below 

800 feet in elevation. Alternative 2 includes uneven-aged harvest prescription in proposed harvest 

areas within 5 miles of a subsistence community within the project area.

Subsistence Findings

The direct and indirect effects from all alternatives associated with the project, as well as the potential 

cumulative effects associated with implementing the Forest Plan through the entire rotation period

(including implementing Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 5 of this project) do not present a significant 

possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence uses of fish and marine invertebrates, food plants, 

personal use timber, upland game birds and waterfowl, furbearers, or marine mammals.

The direct and indirect effects and cumulative effects associated with any of the action alternatives for 

this project may present a significant possibility of a significant restriction of subsistence use of deer

due to potential effects on abundance and distribution, and on competition.

The 2016 Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS (USDA Forest Service 2016c) included a cumulative 

effects analysis of resource development on subsistence resources. The finding was that full 

implementation of the Forest Plan “may result in a significant restriction to subsistence use of deer

due to the potential effects of projects on the abundance and distribution of these resources, and on 

competition for these resources.” (Forest Plan ROD: USDA Forest Service 2016b, p. 43). For this 

reason, timber harvest activities cannot completely avoid cumulative landscape effects to subsistence

uses.

Section 810 (a)(3) of ANILCA requires that when a use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands 

may result in a significant possibility of a significant restriction, a determination must be made 

whether (1) such a restriction is necessary, consistent with sound management principles for the 

utilization of public lands, (2) the proposed activity involves the minimum amount of public lands 

necessary to accomplish the purposes of the use, and (3) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize 

adverse impacts on subsistence uses and resources resulting from the actions.

Necessary and Consistent with Sound Management of Public Lands: The alternatives proposed in 

this EIS have been examined to determine whether they are necessary and consistent with sound 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 101

management of public lands. In this regard, the National Forest Management Act, the Alaska National 

Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Tongass Timber Reform Act, the Wilderness Act, the 2016

Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS, and the Alaska State Forest Resources and Practices Act have 

been considered.

National Forest land management plans are required by the National Forest Management Act and 

must provide for the multiple-use and sustained yield of renewable forest resources in accordance 

with the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960. Multiple-use is defined as “the management of all 

the various renewable surface resources of the National Forest System so that they are utilized in the 

combination that will best meet the needs of the American people” (36 CFR 219.3). The alternatives 

presented herein represent different ways of managing Tongass National Forest resources in 

combinations that are intended to meet the needs of the American people. The potential restrictions 

associated with each alternative are necessary and consistent with the sound management of public 

lands.

Amount of Public Land Necessary to Accomplish the Proposed Action: The amount of land 

necessary to implement each alternative is, considering sound multiple-use management of public 

lands, the minimum necessary to accomplish the purpose of that alternative. The entire forested 

portion of the Tongass is used by at least one rural community for subsistence purposes for, at a 

minimum, deer hunting. It is not possible to avoid all of these areas in implementing resource use 

activities, such as timber harvesting and road construction, under any alternative, and attempting to 

reduce effects in some areas can mean increasing the use of others. The current Forest Plan direction

and LUD prescriptions provide for management or limit activities in many of the area’s most 

important for subsistence uses, such as beaches and estuaries, and areas with high fish and wildlife 

habitat values.

Reasonable Steps to Minimize Adverse Impacts to Subsistence Uses and Resources: Subsistence 

use and subsistence resources are addressed specifically in Forest Plan direction for wildlife, fish, 

riparian areas, and biological diversity, among others. Fish and wildlife habitat productivity would be 

maintained at the highest level possible under all alternatives, consistent with the overall multiple-use 

goals of the current Forest Plan.
3 – Environment and Effects

102 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Issue 3: Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economics

Issue statement: The proposed quantity and quality of old-growth and young-growth timber volume 

offered by the Forest Service and the logging costs associated with both the logging systems and 

silvicultural prescriptions would affect local operators’ ability to contribute to local economy.

Background: Project design affects the viability of potential sales and the ability to offer them. 

Flexibility over the life of the project would provide for optimizing volume and net return on timber 

harvest and the ability to offer economically viable timber sales across fluctuating market conditions. 

The amount of timber available for sale from national forests and the stability of supply affects local 

employment and revenues. It is also critical to match the size of sales offered to meet the various 

needs of industry operators. Operators need economical timber to stay in business and the loss of 

those operators would have an adverse impact on local economies.

Units of Measure

Measures used to compare the alternatives for the amount of timber supply from potential timber 

harvest and to estimate financial efficiency for both old growth and young growth include:

• Timber volume (old growth and young growth) in million board feet (MMBF) for life of the 

project (15 years);

• Cost of harvest, including logging, camp, and haul cost per thousand board feet (MBF) by timber 

analysis area;

• Transportation cost per MBF; and

• Number of annualized direct jobs supported for both domestic processing and Region 10 limited 

export policy for old growth and 100 percent export for young growth (15 years).

This section is an analysis of the project’s timber available for harvest and the financial efficiency of 

implementing the action alternatives. The analysis tiers to the effects analyses conducted for the 1997 

Forest Plan Revision Final EIS, 2003 Forest Plan Supplemental EIS, 2008 Forest Plan Amendment 

Final EIS, and the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS.

The POW LLA Project proposes commercial old-growth and young-growth timber volume to be 

made available for future harvest to result in a supply of timber to purchasers for the next 15 years. 

The amount of timber volume potentially available for both old-growth and young-growth varies by 

alternative, giving a range of volume that would be available for commercial timber offerings.

Management objectives identified by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) include:

• Provide a predictable level of forest products for the next 15 years

• Provide an estimate of the financial efficiency of timber harvest in various areas of the project 

area

• Provide for an old-growth small sale strategy to supply smaller mills. This strategy was designed 

to ensure harvestable old-growth timber is available for small operators and is available for this 

use during and beyond the 15-year timeline of this project. The volume designated would be 

available from any of the harvest polygons identified in the project LSTA that meet the criteria of 

the Old Growth Small Sales Strategy described in the Methodology section below. The Old 

Growth Small Sales Strategy would not be included in any sale offer exceeding 10 MMBF.

• Meet the Forest Plan direction for other resources, including soils, watershed and aquatics, 

wildlife habitat, sensitive plants and scenery characteristics.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 103

Further detailed reconnaissance, logging plan development, and an appraisal would be completed 

prior to offering timber for bid during the implementation phase of this project.

Methodology

Inventory and Analysis Methods

The suitability for timber production is determined at the Forest Plan level using a two-step process

described in the Forest Plan, Appendix A considering legal and technical factors and the compatibility 

of timber production. Following this process, a Logging System and Transportation Analysis (LSTA) 

plan was developed for National Forest System lands within the project area layer using information 

from the Forest GIS library, aerial photos, and the Forest Service Activity Tracking System database 

(FACTS). This plan identifies potential stands for timber harvest and the associated transportation 

network that would be needed. Following the Implementation Plan (Appendix B, and Appendix 2 in 

the ROD), the LSTA would be used to identify those stands and roads most likely to offer 

economically positive opportunities for harvest for the duration the POW LLA Project. No alternative 

would harvest all potential stands identified within the LSTA. Only the acreage needed to meet the 

harvest level for the selected alternative would be harvested. Not all roads in the LSTA would be 

constructed, only those needed to harvest the selected stands. See Chapter 2 for harvest levels by 

alternative.

During the development and analysis of project alternatives, every reasonable effort is made to make 

the best estimate of potential economic timber sale harvest volume and acreage. This includes 

evaluating differences in past projects and utilizing that knowledge to refine our future estimates. As 

the project moves into implementation, volume estimates may change as harvest areas continue to be 

refined through additional analysis field reconnaissance. When “falldown” occurs, it can be the result 

of additional resource concerns being identified on the ground that require protection according to 

Forest Plan direction. The use of 50 percent reduction factor in the uninventoried old-growth stands 

was based in part on the falldown experienced from the data collected during the inventory of oldgrowth stands.

Extensive young-growth inventory data in stands 40 years in age or older have been collected in the 

project area over the past several years. Two inventories have been conducted. Stands that are 55

years and older were inventoried under the Challenge Cost Share Agreement (CCSA) plot intensity of 

one plot for every 2.5 acres. Stands that are 40-54 years old were inventoried under the Common 

Stand Exam (CSE) protocol with a plot intensity of one plot for every 5 acres. This data, combined 

with past inventories, are being incorporated into the Forest Planning and Projection System database 

(FPS). The FPS program allows data from inventoried stands to be extrapolated into non-inventoried 

stands with similar characteristics. FPS also allows stands to be ‘grown forward’ using a Tongass 

calibrated growth and yield model. For more information see the Young Growth Inventory Portal at:

https://usfs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=e748ce92139c4100a65ad8b12510d

620#.

Information on the vegetation in old-growth stands has been collected using walk-through inventory 

to stratify potential harvest polygons based on the vegetation series (DeMeo et al. 1992) of the 

polygon and a net standing timber volume estimate (Schroeder, 2017a). An intensive plot inventory 

was then conducted on each representative stratum (Schroeder, 2017b). These plot data have been 

entered into an FPS database and extrapolated to the remainder of the inventoried stands in the same 

vegetation series and volume strata. Areas that do not have plot data or a walk-through inventory use 

data from Tongass National Forest GIS library, aerial photos, and extrapolation of plot data collected 

during inventory for the project.
3 – Environment and Effects

104 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

To allow for more site-specific analysis, the project area was subdivided into 18 Timber Analysis 

Areas (TAA) for this project. These sub-analysis areas were determined based on the island, road 

system, timber characteristics, and preliminary estimated costs (see Figure 3). This allows for 

analyzing which areas would provide the best opportunities for economic timber sale offerings. The 

timber volume and costs were analyzed and estimated for each TAA. No commercial timber harvest is 

proposed in this project in five of the TAAs as there is no suitable timber available under the current 

Forest Plan. These are Devilfish Bay, Outer Islands, Sukkwan, Kassa Inlet, and Dall Island/South 

POW. For young growth, two additional TAAs have no stands determined to be “near term operable”. 

These are the Greater Suemez and Cholmondeley/Moira TAAs.

Old Growth Small Sale Strategy

This strategy was designed to ensure harvestable old-growth timber is available for small operators 

during the 15-year project timeline and beyond. For Alternative 2, an amount of old growth equal to 

25 percent of the planned harvest volume from each old-growth sale over 10 MMBF must be 

identified and designated for use in small sale offerings. For Alternative 3, an amount equal to 60 

percent of the planned harvest volume from each old-growth sale over 10 MMBF must be identified 

and designated for use in small sale offerings. The small sale volume counts towards the alternative 

design criteria volume; it is not additional to the total. The volume designated would be available 

from any of the potential old-growth stands identified in the project LSTA that generally meet the 

criteria below:

• Be generally within 1⁄4 mile of existing or planned road, attached to the road system on POW or 

Kosciusko Islands, unless other areas are identified through public input.

• Contain green old-growth timber with volume, species composition, and economic viability 

suitable for small operators.

• Compatible with yarding systems in use by and available to small operators, generally ground 

based and short span cable systems.

• Offerings from this designation would generally contain less than 3 MMBF per offer and strive to 

meet the harvest and milling capacities of small operators.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 105

Figure 3. Timber Analysis Areas
3 – Environment and Effects

106 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Logging Systems and Transportation Analysis (LSTA) Development

The LSTA created for this project identified the location of old-growth and young-growth stands that 

potentially could have commercial timber harvest within the next 15 years and are shown on the 

Commercial Vegetation Map. These stands were identified through a combination of GIS information, 

aerial photography interpretation and field inventory.

For this analysis, TAAs that have old-growth inventory completed used the inventoried and 

extrapolated plot data to predict likely potential harvest stands. “Potential harvest stands” in oldgrowth refers to those stands identified during reconnaissance to contain over 8,000 board feet net 

volume per acre and are over 5 acres in size and represent a sub-set of stands identified in the project 

LSTA. Old-growth stands without inventory use information extrapolated from the inventoried 

stands, corporate GIS data and information from past area projects. A reduction of 50 percent was

applied to the gross acreage from the LSTA stands to estimate un-inventoried old-growth potential 

harvest stands to account for falldown in acreage and the resultant volume. This reduction is based on 

project inventoried data, comparing the gross LSTA to those potential old-growth harvest stands and 

applying this reduction. See Table 13 for further information.

For young-growth stands not yet inventoried, the volume can be averaged and extrapolated from 

inventoried stands of a similar age class and site index. The following assumptions are used for 

young-growth stands in the project LSTA the purpose of this analysis:

• An average projected growth of 1 MBF annually per acre will occur in young-growth stands.

• Stands within the 1,000-foot beach and estuary fringe buffer and Old-Growth Habitat LUD will 

be considered 30 percent operable which is a more conservative estimate than the 35 percent

harvest allowed by the Forest Plan.

• Stands outside the 1,000-foot beach and estuary fringe buffer and Old-Growth Habitat LUD and 

unassociated with karst were considered to be 80 percent operable. Stands outside these areas but 

associated with karst will be 75 percent operable.

• A 33 percent volume reduction factor across all lands within the suitable land base outside the 

Old-Growth Habitat LUD and the 1,000-foot beach and estuary buffer is used to estimate

potential unmapped moderate vulnerability karst areas.

Young-growth stands estimated to reach minimum volume per acre thresholds (see Chapter 2) within 

the next 15 years are defined as “near term operable”. For young-growth harvest in Alternative 2, an 

estimated average of 25 MBF per acre will be used to determine which stands could potentially be 

treated. This gives a conservative estimate on the volume per acre needed to reach an economical 

offering, but does reduce the acreage and volume available in the earlier portions of the project time 

line. For Alternatives 3 and 5, an estimated average of 22 MBF per acre will be used to determine 

which stands could potentially be treated. This will allows for increased acreage and volume in the 

earlier portions of the project timeline. This will allow a faster transition to young growth in 

Alternatives 3 and 5 while still striving to meet the minimum volume per acre for economical younggrowth timber offerings. See Table 14 for further information.

As described in the Implementation Plan (Appendix B), at the time a commercial timber offer is 

planned, further refinement of the LSTA would be made and a logging plan developed. Until the 

actual units for a timber sale offering (selected from the LSTA) are defined, located, and fieldreviewed, reductions in acreage and volume cannot be accurately quantified.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 107

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The spatial boundary for the direct and indirect effects analysis for timber supply and economics are

the timber analysis areas (TAA).

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the cumulative effects to timber supply are 1) Tongass National 

Forest System lands, since the Tongass timber program is managed on a forest basis and 2) all 

forested lands within the project area since the timber demand analysis for the Forest Plan included 

timber from other lands other than National Forest System lands.

The temporal boundary for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is 15 years to align with the 

timeline of the project.

Affected Environment

POW LLA Project and the Tongass Timber Program

Across the Tongass National Forest there has been a lack of timber volume available for the Forest 

Service to offer. This is due to the fact that much of the volume available to offer that has gone 

through environmental analysis, and has a decision (NEPA), may not be offered at this time because

these projects were created during better market conditions and are anticipated to appraise negative. 

Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, timber sales that do not appraise positive using the 

current Region 10 RV appraisal cannot be offered. This project is needed at this time because it is 

anticipated that positive timber contracts can be created from the alternatives analyzed.

The Tongass uses a five-year timber sale plan for planning and scheduling purposes, which is 

consistent with Forest Service Manual 2430. This five-year plan is based on completed and ongoing 

environmental analyses, and provides a plan that can be adjusted in response to changing market 

conditions and the NEPA public involvement process on projects. Volume on outlying timber sales are 

estimates and may adjust considerably over time. The Tongass National Forest posts the five-year 

plan on the public website at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/tongass/.

For fiscal year 2018, the annual demand goal for volume of timber to be offered is 58 MMBF for the 

Tongass. This goal is not intended to represent actual timber purchases. Rather, it reflects the 

estimated volume of timber the Forest Service needs to offer to replace the volume expected to be 

harvested and to help build a 3-year supply of timber under contract. This allows the industry to 

respond to market fluctuations. However, the actual volume of timber offered in any given year 

reflects a combination of factors, including final budget appropriations, completing the NEPA 

process, the statutory requirement that timber sales offered in the Alaska Region appraise positive, 

and volume affected by litigation. Due to these factors, the actual amount of timber that is offered and 

sold may be substantially less than the predicted timber purchases in the annual demand calculations. 

Grewe, 2018 displays the most recent annual demand calculation and the factors used in these 

calculations in the document Briefing Paper April 2018 FY18 Annual TNF Timber Demand-GreweFinal which is located in the project record. Notably, the planned annual timber volume offer could 

include a combination of new, previously offered, and reconfigured timber sales. Both old- and 

young-growth green timber and salvage sales are components of this program.

The project area, which includes Prince of Wales Island and other associated islands, offers many 

reasons based on location to include potential timber harvest within the project. Some of these 

include: the project area’s extensive existing road systems, which could be used to access potential 

timber stands; existing log transfer facilities, which could be used to aid moving timber to the mill or 

export facility; other timber harvest infrastructure; and an experienced and available workforce. The 
3 – Environment and Effects

108 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

project area also includes the one remaining medium-size mill in Southeast Alaska, which could 

process a larger timber sale, as well as at least 21 smaller operators and mills.

Annual Market Demand

The annual market demand forecast is based on a methodology used to set the short-term goals for the 

Tongass Timber Program and the volume the Tongass National Forest plans to offer in the current 

year, pending sufficient funding and sufficient NEPA-cleared volume.

The formulas and procedures used in forecasting annual market demand are described in a Forest 

Service report titled Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber (Morse 2000). These 

procedures, which have become known as the “Morse Methodology,” are based on the premise that:

• Forest product markets are volatile, especially in the short-term.

• Timber purchasers in Southeast Alaska have few alternative suppliers of timber if they cannot 

obtain it from the Tongass National Forest. Oversupplying this market has relatively few adverse 

economic effects; undersupplying it can have much greater negative economic consequences.

• It takes years to prepare National Forest System timber for sale, including completion of 

environmental impact statements.

• It is difficult to estimate demand for timber from the Tongass National Forest, even a year or two 

in advance.

• Industry must be able to respond to rapidly changing market conditions in order to remain 

competitive.

Timber Supply

Within the project area LSTA, estimated old-growth tree species composition by volume in potential 

harvest stands is: western and mountain hemlock (50 percent), Sitka spruce (20 percent), Alaska 

yellow-cedar (9 percent), western redcedar (20 percent), shore pine and red alder (each less than 1 

percent). For potential young-growth harvest stands the estimated species composition by volume is:

western and mountain hemlock (54 percent), Sitka spruce (33 percent), western redcedar (10 percent), 

red alder (3 percent), Alaska yellow-cedar, and shore pine (each less than 1 percent).

The LSTA for old-growth timber is confined to the Developments LUDs with no harvest allowed in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas, Tongass 77 VCUs, The Nature Conservancy/ Audubon Conservation 

Priority Areas or Phase II or Phase III of the Tongass Adaptive Management Strategy as described in 

the Forest Plan Appendix A.

Forest Plan direction that would affect harvest area within the potential old-growth stands include the 

implementation of the Legacy standard and guideline and the Forest Plan direction for old-growth 

buffers around goshawk and other raptors nests, great blue heron nests, and wolf dens. Since animals 

move around and create new home habitats, the actual acreage and volume that could be impacted 

would not be known until implementation. Other standards and guidelines affect only young-growth 

harvest such as those that pertain to young-growth harvest in the Old-Growth Habitat LUD, harvest 

within RMAs, and harvest within the 1000 foot beach buffer.

One factor that may reduce the amount of timber volume that could be harvested is to meet the Scenic 

Integrity Objectives (USDA Forest Service 2016a, pp. 4-54 to 4-60). In order to meet these 

objectives, either partial harvest may need to be prescribed or the size of even-aged management units

may need to be smaller. These effects on harvest are greatest in the Scenic Viewshed LUD.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 109

The Legacy standard and guideline will be implemented, when required by the Forest Plan, for evenaged old-growth harvest in units over 20 acres in size. For further information on the Legacy standard 

and guideline, see pages 4-86 to 4-87 in the Forest Plan. The amount of impact from Legacy on the 

availability of acreage and volume for potential harvest within each TAA cannot be quantified until an 

actual timber offer is planned and harvest units have been delineated. All of the project’s TAAs 

contain acreage and volume that can expect to see reductions for implementation of the Legacy

standard and guideline, except Greater Suemez Island TAA and Cholmondeley/Moira TAA.

The Legacy standard and guideline does not apply to young-growth harvest.

Environmental Effects

The amount of timber volume that could be offered within the next 15 years varies for each of the 

action alternatives. Each alternative proposes differing amounts of old-growth and young-growth 

timber for harvest as displayed in Table 5. Proposed timber harvest would include both large and 

small sales. Timber offered for sale does not necessarily represent the projected actual timber harvest

during that time period. When timber harvest occurs depends partly on the length of the contract, the 

purchasers’ operation plan, and weather conditions.

Each alternative proposes different criteria that would affect the availability of some of the potential 

timber stands to be considered for harvest during any given time. See Chapter 2, Comparison of 

Alternatives. Other anticipated constraints that can reduce the amount or economics of a proposed 

timber offer are:

• For Alternatives 3 and 5, timber harvest and roads would be scheduled, located, and designed to 

prevent detectable increases to peak flow rates according to Grant et al. 2008 criteria. This will 

constrain the amount of harvest in some watersheds and may limit the harvest that could occur

over 800 feet in elevation.

• To maintain connectivity of old-growth between Port Protection and Calder Bay, in Alternative 3, 

only partial harvest of old growth would be allowed in VCU 5280. No old-growth harvest would 

be allowed in VCU 5280 for Alternative 5 (see Table 13 and Table 15 for estimate of effects).

Alternative 2 would follow Forest Plan direction.

• For Alternative 3, WAAs with greater than 10 percent estimated subsistence deer harvest of the 

estimated deer habitat capability (DHC), allow only 25 percent removal of old-growth using 

single-tree selection in south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation and in Alternative 5, allow 

no harvest in these areas (see Table 13 for estimate of effects).

• In Alternatives 3 and 5, WAAs with greater than 10 percent estimated subsistence deer harvest of 

the estimated deer habitat capability all young-growth treatments on south-facing slopes below 

800 feet in elevation will be treated with uneven-aged management prescriptions (see Table 15

for estimate of effects).

• Guidelines from the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program would be incorporated 

partly in Alternative 3 and fully in Alternative 5. Alternative 2 would follow the Forest Plan

direction for wolves. Several of the recommendations included in this document would affect 

either the amount of suitable young-growth or old-growth timber available for offer. These 

constraints cannot be quantified until implementation and are not part of the reduction factors in 

Table 13 and Table 15. Some of these recommendations are:

♦ Design commercial young-growth treatments such as variable-density thinning, thinning 

favoring dominant trees, creating small gaps and narrow openings.
3 – Environment and Effects

110 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

♦ Incorporate leave strips of intact canopy in young-growth stands, especially along ridgelines, 

to promote elevational movements.

♦ In Alternatives 3 and 5, old-growth buffers with a slope of less than 25 percent around 

“major” lakes and streams would be increased to 330 feet. Major lakes are defined in the 

Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program as Class I lakes (lakes with anadromous 

fish or with high value resident fisheries) and Class II lakes (lakes with lower value resident 

fisheries) that are greater than 3 acres.

♦ Wolf den buffers for Alternatives 3 and 5 would be increased to 2,400 feet in radius or about 

0.5 mile.

The volume, acreage, species composition, and potential harvest stands for old-growth and near term 

operable young-growth were determined using the methodology and assumptions stated above, under 

the Affected Environment, and further documented in the following documents (by record number)

from the project record: 833_0642, 833_0646, 833_0649, 833_0651, 833_0746, 833_0747, 

833_0748, 833_0750, 833_0752, 833_0758, 833_0759, 833_0761, 833_0762, 833_0765 and 

833_0766. Table 12, Table 13, Table 14, and Table 15 describe the estimated acreage, volume, and 

species composition for old-growth and young-growth from within the project LSTA. Young growth 

acreages displayed in the tables represent that acreage identified in the project LSTA and do not 

include the potential “falldown” in harvestable acreage. The estimated falldown in volume is reflected

for those factors that can be quantified as noted in tables. Near term operable stands represent those 

stands that are deemed to be of sufficient size and volume during the project time line to be 

potentially commercially harvested, and represents the estimated maximum potential volume 

available within the project time line. The volume estimates reflect the volume “falldown” as 

described above. Old growth and young-growth acreage only includes stands contained in the project 

LSTA.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 111

Table 12. Project Level Old-growth (OG) Acreage and Volume Estimated for each TAA for Alternative 2

Timber Analysis 

Area

LSTA

OG 

Acres1

OG

potential 

harvest 

stands

Acres2

Sitka 

Spruce 

volume 

(21%) 

MBF

Hemlock 

volume 

(50%) 

MBF

Western 

Redcedar 

(20%) 

MBF

Alaska 

Yellowcedar

(9%) 

MBF

Estimated 

total OG 

potential 

stands

Volume 

(MBF)

North 20 2,031 1,599 5,482 13,054 5,221 2,350 26,107

Calder Red Bay 7,177 3,858 11,024 26,248 10,499 4,725 52,496

Whale Pass 5,897 3,637 12,329 29,355 11,742 5,284 58,710

El Cap 1,030 518 1,565 3,726 1,490 671 7,451

Kosciusko Island 1,050 355 1,113 2,650 1,060 477 5,299

Orr and Marble 

Island 1,557 671 2,436 5,799 2,320 1,044 11,599

Coffman Cove 3,457 2,756 8,039 19,141 7,656 3,445 38,281

Heceta Island 3,729 1,800 6,305 15,012 6,005 2,702 30,024

Greater Staney 7,295 5,267 17,575 41,845 16,738 7,532 83,689

Thorne Bay 2,371 2,226 6,334 15,082 6,033 2,715 30,163

Harris Twelve Polk 8,613 3,766 10,664 25,390 10,156 4,570 50,779

Greater Suemez 

Island 1,030 274 722 1,720 688 310 3,439

Cholmondeley Moira 3,413 1,507 5,251 12,502 5,001 2,250 25,004

Total 48,650 28,233 88,838 211,520 84,608 38,074 423,040

Based on project LSTA of potential harvest stands. 1 Harvest stand acreage identified in LSTA before “falldown”

2 Estimated potential harvest acres after “falldown” for quantifiable factors; see methodology and environmental effects in 

the sections above.

Table 13. Project Level Old-growth Acreage and Volume estimated for Alternative 3 and Alternative 5

including the reductions for the Alternative Design criteria

Timber Analysis 

Area

OG

potential 

harvest 

stands

Acres1

Acreage 

impacted 

to meet 

wildlife 

concerns

Acreage 

impacted 

by 

avoiding 

Peak 

Flows

Volume 

(MBF) 

impacted 

by 

avoiding

Peak 

Flows

Volume 

(MBF) 

impacted 

to meet

wildlife

concerns

Alt 3

Volume 

(MBF) 

impacted 

to meet

wildlife 

concerns

Alt 5

Estimated 

total OG 

volume

(MBF)

potential 

stands 

Alt 3

Estimated 

total OG 

volume

(MBF)

potential 

stands 

Alt 5

North 20 1,599 0 0 0 0 0 26,107 0

Calder Red Bay 3,858 0 312 4,762 0 0 47,734 47,734

Whale Pass 3,637 0 229 3,169 0 0 55,541 55,541

El Cap 518 0 0 0 0 0 7,451 7,451

Kosciusko 355 0 6 96 0 0 5,203 5,203

Orr Marble 

Islands 671 0 193 3,431 0 0 8,168 8,168

Coffman Cove 2,756 8 80 744 81 108 37,456 37,429

Heceta Island 1,800 0 82 1,466 0 0 28,558 28,558

Greater Staney 5,267 0 2,023 33,610 0 50,079 50,079

Thorne Bay 2,226 137 208 2,630 1,383 1,844 26,150 25,689
3 – Environment and Effects

112 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Timber Analysis 

Area

OG

potential 

harvest 

stands

Acres1

Acreage 

impacted 

to meet 

wildlife 

concerns

Acreage 

impacted 

by 

avoiding 

Peak 

Flows

Volume 

(MBF) 

impacted 

by 

avoiding

Peak 

Flows

Volume 

(MBF) 

impacted 

to meet

wildlife

concerns

Alt 3

Volume 

(MBF) 

impacted 

to meet

wildlife 

concerns

Alt 5

Estimated 

total OG 

volume

(MBF)

potential 

stands 

Alt 3

Estimated 

total OG 

volume

(MBF)

potential 

stands 

Alt 5

Harris Twelve 

Polk 3,766 772 227 2,735 7,806 10,408 40,238 37,636

Greater Suemez 

Island 274 0 0 0 0 0 3,439 3,439

Cholmondeley 

Moira 1,507 0 91 1,050 0 0 23,954 23,954

Total 28,233 917 3,451 53,693 9,720 38,467 360,077 330,881

1 Estimated potential harvest acres after “falldown” for quantifiable factors; see methodology and environmental effects in 

the sections above.

Note: Wildlife design criteria reductions are for subsistence/wildlife WAAs of concern where partial harvest is required in 

Alternative 3 and no old-growth harvest in Alternative 5.

In Alternative 3, old-growth harvest in the North 20 TAA would be limited to small sales generally under 3 MMBF, and no 

old-growth harvest would be allowed in Alternative 5.

Reductions in acreage and volume for alternative design criteria is not anticipated for Alternative 2.

Table 14. Project Level Young-growth Acreage and Volume Available by Alternative – Alternative 2

Timber Analysis 

Area

Total

LSTA YG 

acres1

Total YG 

acres 

near-term 

operable2

Sitka 

Spruce 

volume 

(32%) 

MBF

Hemlock 

volume 

(54%) 

MBF

Western 

Redcedar 

(10%) 

MBF

Alaska 

Yellowcedar

(1%) MBF

Red Alder 

(3%) MBF

Total YG 

estimated 

average 

volume

(MBF)

3

North 20 634 464 2,768 4,672 865 87 260 8,651

Calder Red Bay 566 393 2,314 3,904 723 72 217 7,230

Whale Pass 9,388 4,562 27,939 47,147 8,731 873 2,619 87,310

El Cap 1,292 661 4,112 6,938 1,285 128 385 12,849

Kosciusko 6,844 3995 24,061 40,603 7,520 752 2,255 75,191

Orr Marble Island 2,296 1,925 9,739 16,435 3,044 304 913 30,435

Coffman Cove 8,460 3,282 21,762 36,724 6,801 680 2,040 68,007

Heceta Island 6,686 2,920 18,265 30,822 5,708 571 1,712 57,078

Greater Staney 12,933 8,316 45,474 76,738 14,211 1,421 4,263 142,107

Thorne Bay 19,629 12,456 50,246 84,790 15,702 1,570 4,711 157,019

Harris Twelve Polk 7,735 6,167 35,939 60,647 11,231 1,123 3,370 112,310

Total 77,529 45,141 242,620 409,421 75,819 7,582 22,746 758,187

1Total YG acres identified in LSTA

2Total acres in project LSTA estimated to be near term operable during project. Acreage does not include projected 

“falldown”. 3 Estimated maximum available volume @ 25 MBF per acre.

For further information see the young-growth operability volume discussion under methodology section above.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 113

Table 15. Project Level Young-growth Acreage and Volume Available by Alternative – Alternatives 3 and 

5

1 Total acres in project LSTA estimated to be near term operable during project. Acreage does not include projected 

“falldown”. 2 Wildlife design criteria reductions are for subsistence/wildlife WAAs of concern. 3This is the estimated maximum available volume @ 22 MBF per acre.

Factors Affecting the Economics of Timber Offers

Specific timber sale activities will be developed during implementation and no specific sale design is 

being analyzed. For the purpose of this analysis, the Timber Analysis Areas were developed to 

establish a relative comparison between alternatives in relation to logging and transportation costs and 

the volume of timber available in each area. For this analysis the project LSTA was used to determine 

the potential timber harvest stands and any needed infrastructure improvements. This provides a 

means to estimate the potential transportation and logging systems that may be utilized at the 

landscape level. More detailed information that supports this analysis is in the project record. An 

appraisal using the latest Residual Value (RV) Appraisal bulletin or the current appraisal method will 

be done during implementation.

There are many factors that can influence the cost of timber harvest, adding economic risks for 

potential purchasers and affecting the ability of the Forest Service to offer timber sales. Road 

construction, helicopter yarding, complex silvicultural prescriptions, setting size and other factors 

may increase costs, which would then decrease the timber value for the offering. The value of the 

timber offered must be sufficient to cover costs and offer a percent of profit to purchasers. Because 

markets fluctuate, volume made available with the POW LLA Project should allow the Forest Service 

to better respond to these conditions when preparing to offer timber sales. Alternative design 

including the mitigation for other resources and volume levels affect the flexibility for offering the 

most economically viable timber sale. Also, the larger the timber sale volume, the greater the ability 

an operator has to respond to market conditions with the volume they have under contract.

Timber 

Analysis Area

Total YG 

acres 

near-term 

operable1

Acreage 

impacted to 

meet Alt.

design 

wildlife

concerns2

Acreage 

impacted 

by Alt.

design by 

avoiding 

Peak Flow

Total YG 

estimated 

average 

volume

Volume 

(MBF)

2

impacted by 

Alt. design 

to meet 

wildlife

concerns

Volume 

(MBF)

impacted by 

Alt. design

by avoiding

Peak Flow

Estimated 

average 

total YG 

volume 

(MBF)

3

Available

North 20 464 0 0 8,672 0 0 8,672

Calder Red 

Bay 393 0 0 6,386 0 0 6,386

Whale Pass 4,562 0 660 77,156 0 10,890 66,266

El Cap 661 0 0 11,356 0 0 11,356

Kosciusko 3995 0 0 66,608 0 0 66,608

Orr Marble 

Island 1,925 0 0 30,617 0 0 30,617

Coffman Cove 3,282 416 0 60,107 601 0 59,506

Heceta Island, 2,920 0 0 51,419 0 0 51,419

Greater 

Staney 8,316 0 1,109 138,333 0 18,482 119,851

Thorne Bay 12,456 2,868 573 182,811 10,969 10,085 161,757

Harris Twelve 

Polk 6,167 1,616 337 109,654 7,676 5,748 96,230

Total 45,141 4,900 2,679 743,119 19,246 45,205 678,668
3 – Environment and Effects

114 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Analysis of Costs

Stump to Truck Logging Costs – These costs include the felling, limbing, bucking, yarding, 

decking, and loading trucks at a landing along an existing or proposed road. Three logging methods 

were considered – cable, shovel, and helicopter. Of these, helicopter logging is the most expensive 

with a range across the timber analysis areas of $362 per MBF to $395 per MBF for old growth. It is 

assumed no helicopter yarding would occur in young growth. Shovel and cable logging are both 

considered to be conventional logging systems and will be analyzed for even-aged management. A 20

percent increase in young-growth logging costs has been considered to account for the harvest of 

stands before reaching Culmination of Mean Annual Increment (CMAI). A range of cost between 

$303 per MBF and $393 per MBF is predicted for cable systems in old growth. A range in cost of 

$166 per MBF to $182 per MBF was estimated for ground based systems in old growth. In young

growth, the costs for cable and shovel yarding are estimated to be $203 per MBF for cable and $155

per MBF for ground-based systems.

The increased cost of applying partial harvest silvicultural systems was considered due to needing to 

avoid damaging the residual trees from logging activity. While some uneven-aged management can 

be done with shovel logging and even with uphill cable logging, in order compare the alternatives 

prior to identifying harvest units, all uneven-aged management units for old growth were considered 

to be logged by helicopter and therefore the increased costs of doing partial harvest is factored into 

the cost of helicopter logging of old growth.

For young growth all harvest is assumed to be even-aged because the amount of partial harvest will 

not be known until implementation of a young-growth timber offering and silvicultural prescriptions 

are determined. However it is estimated that partial-harvest prescriptions in young growth will 

increase logging costs by $5 per MBF for two-aged openings 20 acres in size or less and by $15 per 

MBF for uneven-aged management with openings of 2 acres or less. If young-growth partial harvest 

is not adjacent to a haul road, it is estimated logging costs will increase an additional $5 per MBF to 

$15 per MBF per acre, increasing with distance. The Official R10 Logging Cost Calculator was used 

to predict the cost for each TAA assuming all the volume available in each TAA would be offered at 

one time. For further description of the methodology and assumptions used in the cost determinations,

see the project record.

Infrastructure Costs – The estimated cost for transportation infrastructure across the alternatives is 

described in the table below. In some years, public works funds are available to pay for all, or a 

portion of, NFS road construction or reconditioning costs for roads that would be used for a timber 

sale as well as the long-term administration of the national forest. See the Transportation section for 

additional information.

Table 16. Transportation infrastructure costs per MBF

Transportation Infrastructure costs per MBF1

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

$50.78 $68.23 $74.37

1Includes road construction, road reconditioning, road reconstruction, and maintenance and LTF development

Haul Costs – These include all costs of transporting the logs from the landing to a mill or export yard 

that is capable of handling that amount of timber. This may differ depending on the size of the sale. In 

order to compare haul costs by alternative for this analysis, the sawmill and adjacent export yard in 

Klawock, Alaska was chosen as the single point of delivery, even though some smaller sales could be 

handled by other mills on Prince of Wales Island and may be closer to the proposed Timber Analysis 

Area.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 115

For this analysis, haul costs are estimated at the TAA level and includes truck haul, marine transport 

via barge or log raft, or a combination of the two. TAAs connected to the Prince of Wales Island 

transportation system consider road hauling only and TAAs on other islands or not connected to the 

Prince of Wales Island transportation system include water transport costs in addition to any 

associated road haul. The haul costs are predicted to range from $44 per MBF to $117 per MBF 

across the TAAs. For a description of the methods used for the determination and further assumptions 

see the haul cost calculation spreadsheets in the project record.

Camp Costs – Camp costs were predicted for each TAA with harvest for either full or partial camp or 

a combination of both based on volume and location. All helicopter harvest is considered to require a 

full camp due to the infrastructure needed for these operations. Camp costs are predicted to range 

between $6 per MBF and $41 per MBF across the TAAs. For a description of the methods used for 

the determination and further assumptions see log cost and camp cost spreadsheets in the project 

record.

Table 17. Logging Costs per MBF for all Alternatives

Timber Analysis 

Area

OG 

Logging 

costs 

stump to 

truck 

Short 

Span 

Cableevenaged

harvest

OG 

logging 

costs 

stump to 

truck 

Shovelevenaged

harvest 

Net MBF 

removed

OG 

Logging 

costs 

stump to 

truck 

helicopter 

Partial 

harvest 

Net MBF 

removed

YG 

Logging 

costs 

stump to 

truck 

Short 

span 

cable

YG 

Logging 

costs 

stump to 

truck 

shovel

Adjusted 

YG 

Logging 

costs for 

harvest 

before 

CMAI add 

20% 

short 

Span 

Cable

Adjusted 

YG 

Logging 

costs for 

harvest 

before 

CMAI add 

20% 

shovel

Haul 

costs/

road and 

tow Net 

MBF 

removed

Camp 

costs Net 

MBF 

removed

North 20 $314.00 $170.00 N/A $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $103.00 $28.00

Calder Red Bay $320.00 $174.00 $380.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $105.00 $27.00

Whale Pass $316.00 $170.00 $364.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $75.00 $31.00

El Cap $323.00 $178.00 $393.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $86.00 $30.00

Kosciusko $319.00 $167.00 $365.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $88.00 $29.00

Orr Marble 

Island $306.00 $174.00 $379.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $75.00 $30.00

Coffman Cove $303.00 $174.00 $371.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $63.00 $6.00

Heceta Island $316.00 $170.00 $362.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $96.00 $30.00

Greater Staney $306.00 $169.00 $378.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $49.00 $6.00

Thorne Bay $322.00 $176.00 $390.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $44.00 $6.00

Harris Twelve 

Polk $325.00 $176.00 $380.00 $168.90 $128.90 $202.68 $154.68 $49.00 $6.00

Greater 

Suemez Island $331.00 $182.00 $395.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $65.00 $43.00

Cholmondeley 

Moira $310.00 $166.00 $386.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $117.00 $33.00

Note: Logging costs are anticipated to remain the same across all the action alternatives except in Alternative 3 for the North 

20 TAA old-growth stump to truck cost would change due to the small sale design criteria. Those costs are $128.90 per 

MBF for shovel and 168.90 for cable.

N/A is used for costs that are not anticipated to occur in these TAAs

Logging costs do not include profit and risk factors which will be included at implementation and time of appraisal. 

Numbers were derived from cost calculators located in the project record with the following PDF Hyperlinks: 833_0643-

833_0645, 833-0647-833_0650, 833_0718-833_0744, 833_749-833_0752 and 833_0760.
3 – Environment and Effects

116 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Manufacturing Costs – Average manufacturing costs by species are from the Official Residual Value

Update Bulletin, July 4, 2017. An average foreign market (export) manufacturing cost of $77.75 per 

MBF is assumed for all young growth. An average foreign market manufacturing cost of $89.19 per 

MBF is assumed for Alaska yellow-cedar and 50 percent of the old-growth spruce and hemlock.

Average domestic (sawn) manufacturing costs by species is assumed for western redcedar and the 

remaining 50 percent of old-growth spruce and hemlock.

End Product Selling Value –The average end product selling values ($ per MBF) from the current 

Residual Value Update Bulletin are shown in the table below to represent a value comparison between

species and whether it is expected to be processed in Alaska or exported (foreign market).

Table 18. Timber value from current Residual Value Update Bulletin

Species product 

Tongass EndProduct Selling 

Value ($/MBF)

Tongass NF 

Manufacturing 

Costs ($/MBF)

Sitka spruce Old-growth Domestic Sawn $1,307.58 $223.10

Western hemlock Old-growth Domestic Sawn $533.83 $360.50

Western redcedar Old-growth Domestic Sawn1 $1,183.24 $424.86

Sitka spruce Old-growth Foreign market Log Sales $491.77 $89.19

Western hemlock Old-growth Foreign market Log Sales $503.27 $89.19

Alaska yellow-cedar Foreign market Log Sales2 $644.17 $89.19

Sitka spruce Young-growth Foreign market Log Sales $559.28 $77.75

Western hemlock Young-growth Foreign market Log Sales $487.86 $77.75

1All western redcedar is assumed to be processed in Alaska. 2 All Alaska yellow-cedar is assumed to be surplus and exported.

Projected Employment and Income

Direct employment and income likely to result from timber harvest is estimated by converting board 

feet to jobs and income. The amount of timber volume would have an effect on employment as shown 

in Table 19, which displays the estimated direct employment that would result from volume if timber 

sales were offered from this project. The direct employment and income displayed assume the total 

maximum design criteria of potential volume for each alternative would be harvested, thus reflecting 

the totals for the 15-year timeline of the POW LLA Project.

Table 19 displays estimated direct logging, transportation, and sawmilling-related employment and 

income based on old-growth volume. The number of jobs supported and related income shown in 

Table 19 and Table 20 reflect the difference in domestic processing as compared to differing export 

percentages for a relative comparison of the alternatives. The number of jobs supported are based on 

cost collection data from the Alexander 2012 report and may not represent actual jobs supported over 

time. Table 19 is based solely on old-growth volume and compares the limited export policy and 

domestic processing (with the exception of Alaska yellow-cedar). The current limited export policy 

allows 100 percent export of Alaska yellow-cedar, plus the export of western hemlock and Sitka 

spruce equal to 50 percent of the total net saw log volume. Western redcedar is assumed to be sawn in 

Alaska due to Section 410 in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. It is unknown whether this 

will be the case for the next 15 years but for this analysis that was the assumption used. Younggrowth-volume is assumed to be 100 percent export because there is currently no established market 

for domestically sawn young-growth (see Table 20). This was assumed to be true for the life of this 

project since the amount of young-growth estimated to be available would not be enough to warrant 

the construction of a mill especially designed to be able to handle young-growth logs. Recent younggrowth contracts with domestic processing have not been fully successful for the purchasers due to a 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 117

lack of local markets for sawn young-growth. Contracts where export of young-growth was allowed 

have been more successful for purchasers. Past log export and interstate shipments are reported 

annually on the public website: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r10/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?cid=fsbdev2_038785

The figure below (Figure 4) shows the total volume of timber harvested from the Tongass and the 

volume exported as logs to demonstrate the variation in the proportion of exports over time. This 

includes both international and domestic exports to the lower 48. With the exception of 2016, the 

majority of timber harvested from the Tongass has not been exported in log form and remained instate for processing. Timber harvest data were collected from the cut and sold reports that are also 

available on the Forest Management Reports and Accomplishments page on the Alaska Region 

website. While this shows past export volume, it gives no indication of the amount of volume that 

may be exported in the future.

Figure 4. Tongass National Forest timber harvest volume and proportion of harvest exported in log form, 

2011-2017.

The jobs per MBF used for this estimate are based on annualized employment data from sawmill 

surveys and the Alaska Department of Labor. Annualized jobs are considered to be all the Alaska jobs

(excluding indirect jobs) supported by offered timber volume. Actual annualized jobs may vary by 

timber sale purchaser and specific business practices. Total jobs generated depends on the amount of 

volume offered from sales that appraise positive at time of advertisement. In other words, deficit 

value timber sales cannot be offered under current law and would support “zero jobs”. Some TAAs 

may not appraise positive due to higher costs associated with some areas, and poorer quality of 

timber.

Alternative 1 would not support timber-related jobs since no timber would be offered. The action 

alternatives would have indirect impacts to the economies of the local communities. See the 

Socioeconomics section for additional information. Alternative 2 could offer enough old-growth 

timber to support the local industry for at least the first 5 years but then this possibility may change as 

less old-growth is offered and limited young-growth markets make it difficult to appraise positive. 

Alternative 3 may support smaller operators but may cause the last remaining mid-sized sawmill to 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Timber volume (MMBF)

Tongass log export volume Tongass harvest not exported

Year

Tongass log 

export 

volume (%)

Tongass 

harvest not 

exported (%)

2001 22 78

2002 8 92

2003 8 92

2004 24 76

2005 39 61

2006 10 90

2007 18 82

2008 21 79

2009 49 51

2010 36 64

2011 49 51

2012 42 58

2013 25 75

2014 38 62

2015 24 76

2016 56 44

2017 33 67
3 – Environment and Effects

118 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

reduce the number of employees or the length of time of operation, such as closing for part of the 

year. This may cause some employees to seek work elsewhere. The design criteria of Alterative 3 may 

also reduce the desirability of timber contracts to potential timber purchasers. Alternative 5 offers the 

least amount of old-growth and may have an immediate effect on the timber industry on Prince of 

Wales Island if operators are unable to secure enough old-growth timber under contract and do not 

have resources to retool their operations for young-growth harvest. Predicted jobs from young-growth 

harvest have the best chance of being realized after the first 7 years as young-growth timber grows 

larger and is more likely to provide economic timber sales. Assuming young-growth timber is 

exported, offered volume must be sufficient (greater than 4 MMBF) to warrant the arrival of an 

export ship to come to a port for the wood. Although log export does not provide sawmilling jobs, it 

does result in other jobs supported such as stevedoring for export ships which helps provide a 

diversity of employment opportunities.

Table 19. Annualized Timber Industry and Associated Jobs Supported by Alternative for Old growth

Projected 

Alaskan 

Employment 

Income

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

No 

Action

Current 

Export 

policy

*100% 

domestic 

Processing 

of Sitka 

spruce and

Hemlock

Current 

Export 

policy

*100% 

domestic 

Processing 

of Sitka 

spruce and 

Hemlock

Current 

Export 

policy

*100% 

domestic 

Processing 

of Sitka 

spruce and 

Hemlock

Local Jobs 

Related To 

Logging

0 531 531 260 260 169 169

Local Jobs 

Related To 

Sawmill and 

Export Mfg.

0 258 573 126 280 82 183

Transportation 

and other 

Services related 

to Alaska 

domestic 

manufacturing

0 60 133 29 65 19 42

Transportation 

and other 

Services related 

to export

0 212 32 104 16 68 10

Total Jobs 0 1061 1269 519 621 339 405

Direct Income 0 $146,620,933 $145,869,614 $144,242,238 $143,874,474 $135,364,521 $135,124,748

*Assumes all young growth is 100 percent export

Source: FASTR employment spreadsheets located in the project record with the following PDF Hyperlinks: 833_709-833-

_0714, 833_0716-833_0717.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 119

Table 20. Annualized Timber Industry and Associated Jobs Supported by Alternative for Young Growth

Projected Alaskan Employment 

Income

Alt 1

No Action Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

100% Export 100% Export 100% Export

Local Jobs Related To Logging 0 951 1,196 1,196

Transportation and other Services related 

to export 0 644 809 809

Total Jobs 0 1,596 2,005 2,005

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No timber would be offered from this alternative. This may affect the amount of timber available for 

purchasers involved in timber industry within the project area and other parts of Southeast Alaska. 

These effects in turn may indirectly affect those communities where residents rely on timber. If their 

livelihood decreases this may result in less expenditures on community goods and resources. 

However, at this scale, these cannot be estimated (Alexander 2012).

Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, no timber would be offered from this project, and therefore no cumulative 

effects would occur. Potential purchasers would have to rely on timber from other landowners or from 

other Forest Service projects.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

The stump-to-truck logging costs are predicted to remain similar across the alternatives and the 

project TAAs. Logging equipment mobilization costs would also be similar across the alternatives 

with the exception of reduced mobilization cost associated with the small sale design criteria for 

Alternative 3 for the North 20 TAA. The largest factors determining the logging costs of a TAA are 

distance from the mill and whether the TAA is connected to the existing road system accessing the 

mill. The Greater Staney, Thorne Bay, Coffman Cove, and Harris/Twelvemile offer the lowest haul 

and camp costs, and offer access to a growing paved transportation system. The highest cost TAAs 

are on the outer islands and areas not directly connected to the road system accessing the mill. To 

illustrate the difference, the Greater Staney TAA has a haul cost of $49 per MBF and a camp cost of 

$6 per MBF, while the Cholmondeley/Moira TAA has a haul cost of $117 per MBF and camp cost of 

$33 per MBF. The Greater Staney TAA is a higher volume TAA with shorter hauls, extensive road 

system, direct access to the mill, and partial camp costs, while the Cholmondeley/Moira TAA is not 

connected to the road system accessing the mill, requires truck, water haul and truck haul again, as 

well as full camp costs. TAAs on the northern portion of the project have higher costs even though 

they are connected to the road system with direct access to the mill due to the long haul distances. 

These northern TAAs also require full camp costs due to their distance from nearby towns. The TAAs 

with the best opportunities for economically positive timber offers are also those TAAs that have had 

some of the highest past harvest and road densities.

The TAAs that appear to have the most economic opportunities for proposing old-growth timber sales 

are: Staney Creek, Coffman Cove and Harris/Twelvemile/Polk. These areas were identified based on:
3 – Environment and Effects

120 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

inventory, past harvest, local knowledge, favorable species composition under current markets, 

relatively short hauls, less infrastructure needs to be constructed, reconstructed or maintained, and 

they contain enough volume to support operation costs. Conversely, the areas that appear to have the 

least likely prospects to be able to produce an economic old-growth offering are:

Cholmondeley/Moira, Greater Suemez, and Calder/Red Bay. This is due to their distance from mill, 

haul costs that includes truck haul and marine transport via barge or log raft, and overall increased 

costs of operations due to the distance to communities and other services.

The TAAs that appear to have the best opportunities for proposing positive appraising young-growth 

timber sales are: Greater Staney, Thorne Bay, and Harris/Twelvemile/Polk, and Whale Pass. These 

areas were identified based on: inventory, past harvest and local knowledge. They also have a 

concentration of suitable young-growth timber, require less infrastructure, and have areas of favorable 

ground based logging systems. Conversely, the TAAs that appear to have the least likely prospects for 

economical young-growth offers are Orr/Marble Islands, Calder/Red Bay and North 20 due to their 

higher haul costs and lack of concentrated available young-growth volume. These TAAs also contain 

portions of the volume that will require the additional expense and operational difficulty associated 

with yarding previously beach-logged stands that cannot be economically roaded.

The size of both old-growth and young-growth timber offerings will be determined during 

implementation. It is anticipated that potential timber offerings from this project would be offered in 

variety of sizes to meet market conditions and industry demand for the 15-year project timeline. At 

this time, individual sales offered would likely be exclusively old-growth or young-growth timber.

This, however, may change over time. Heceta Island TAA has a combination of both young-growth 

and old-growth volume that could be offered together in a single offer, when market conditions 

permit, to help offset the increased smaller island operating costs.

The proposed timber salvage activities associated with this project would provide greater 

opportunities for salvaging dead, dying, and damaged timber than can be salvaged from under the 

current Roadside EA Decision Notice (2003). This is due to things such as the expansion of locations 

available for salvage to correspond to Forest Plan LUD guidelines, the inclusion of dying trees, as 

well as trees leaning greater than 45 degrees. For further information see Activity Card 15 (Appendix 

A).

Cumulative Effects

Past timber sales have contributed to the development of the existing roaded infrastructure that would 

be used for each action alternative. Timber harvest has been conducted in the project area for more 

than 70 years. Industrial-scale logging activity began in the mid-1950s.

The POW LLA Project is an important component of the Forest Service’s plan to meet the goals of 

the Forest Plan and provide an orderly flow of timber to local industry. Sawmill employment in 

Southeast Alaska has historically been supported by Forest Service timber sales, with a smaller

contribution from state timber harvest (USDA Forest Service 2012b). Much of the timber from nonNational Forest System lands is exported. Since most sawmills within the project area rely on oldgrowth timber, the timber from this project is considered necessary to maintain these mills.

Present and reasonably foreseeable future timber management projects within the project area,

identified for the cumulative effects analysis, are summarized in Appendix C of this document.

Identified projects on NFS lands include the volume under contract for sales in this area. Future

projects include microsales, an estimated 18 MMBF of old-growth, mostly as small sales generally 

less than 1 MMBF within Phase 2 lands, and 15 MMBF of young growth from the Big Thorne 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 121

Project. The Soda Nick Project, currently under litigation, could provide an additional 3 MMBF

depending on the court’s ruling.

Other Forest Service projects on the Tongass that may provide timber are the Central Kupreanof, 

Kuiu, Overlook, Traitors Cove, Scott Peak, Backline, and Navy projects which provide an estimated 

40 MMBF of old-growth timber if they appraise positive. On May 24, 2018 a decision was signed for 

The Vallenar Young Growth Project which proposes 3 MMBF of young-growth harvest. The Central 

Tongass Landscape Level Analysis has preliminarily identified 150 MMBF in the Notice of Intent 

August 9, 2018. The South Revilla Integrated Resource Project Notice of Intent was in the Federal 

Register on August 8, 2018 and proposes 60 MMBF of timber volume.

The State Department of Forestry, University of Alaska, and Alaska Mental Health Trust timber 

harvest projects identified in the 2018 Land Owners Group 5-Year schedule (available in the project 

record) within the area are estimated to provide 137 MMBF of old-growth timber and 29 MMBF of 

young-growth timber for the next 5 years. Timber from Alaska native lands has been estimated at 

approximate 304 MMBF of old-growth timber and 10 MMBF of young –growth timber for the next 5 

years. These numbers are estimated to remain relatively the same by landowner or slightly increase 

for the years 2022 to 2030 (Daniels et al. 2016).

While there is current, proposed legislation for additional land exchanges, the amount of old-growth 

timber to be offered from various land owners is not expected to drastically increase in the next 15 

years. Young-growth timber harvest may increase if harvesting and utilization techniques improve 

economically.

In the absence of a multiple-year stable supply of economic timber of the desired type and species 

from the POW LLA Project or elsewhere, the future viability of existing mill operators could be 

negatively affected. Most of the operators on the island currently sell old-growth and may not be 

interested in young-growth timber since it does not fit their operations. Closure of one or more mills 

could result in a further reduction in jobs in the logging and sawmilling industries and could also 

affect local businesses that provide goods and services to these industries.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber to be offered for purchase is expected to total a maximum of 235 MMBF of old-growth 

timber and 421 MMBF of young-growth timber for a total volume of 656 MMBF over 15 years over 

the entire project area. The old-growth volume offered during the last 5 years of the project will be 

based on an evaluation of the amount of old-growth timber remaining to determine if economical 

offerings are still available from the suitable timber land base. This evaluation would be conducted 

using the Implementation Plan process. Based on this evaluation up to a maximum of 10 MMBF of 

old-growth timber may be offered for years 10 and 11 of the project and up to a maximum of 5 

MMBF of old growth timber for the final 3 years. This alternative will provide the largest amount of 

old-growth timber proposed for harvest. A smaller amount of young-growth timber is proposed under 

this alternative compared to the other action alternatives (529 MMBF).

Alternative 2 would offer the best flexibility for the Forest Service to provide a variety in the range of 

timber products made available and the size of potential timber offers to meet industry demands, 

market conditions, and local needs identified through public involvement. This is because it contains 

the largest old-growth volume harvest potential, as well as 421 MMBF of young-growth volume. For 

Alternative 2 the old-growth small sale strategy would have a maximum effect of 30 MMBF of oldgrowth volume that would be potentially subject to being offered in contracts under 3 MMBF. 30
3 – Environment and Effects

122 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

MMBF affected by the small sales strategy is the same amount as in Alternative 3, but represents a 

smaller percentage of the overall old-growth volume.

Alternative 2, having the most old-growth harvest, will be subject to the most effects from Forest Plan

direction for such things as the implementation of the Legacy standards and guidelines on the total 

alternative design criteria volume as compared to the other action alternatives. This is because the 

higher old-growth harvest would require more volume from TAAs that are most impacted by these 

effects. The larger old-growth volume in Alternative 2 may also require the harvest of old-growth 

stands with lower volume per acre and lower value due to species composition as compared to the 

other alternatives. Alternative 2 may also necessitate the combining of volume from the TAAs with 

better economic potential with the volume of TAAs with lesser economic opportunities to help 

package offerings that appraise positive throughout the life time of the project. The total amount of 

young-growth volume potentially available reduces the effect of alternative design and Forest Plan 

direction by allowing offers to be spread out across the landscape both spatially and temporally.

Overall, this alternative appears that it would best respond to the issue of timber supply and 

economics for a variety of reasons. First, it has the potential to supply the highest amount of timber 

volume, which in turn will have the greatest positive economic effect. The larger old-growth volume 

associated with Alternative 2 would also support the most current local manufacturing and milling 

jobs when compared to Alternative 3 and Alternative 5. It also offers the highest direct income. This 

larger old-growth volume would allow local manufacturing, milling, and logging operations the most 

time under their current old-growth business practices to expand into young-growth. This move 

towards young-growth operations, and local manufacturing would be necessary to fully utilize the 

project areas growing young-growth timber resource. This alternative also gives industry the most 

time under current practices to develop markets for the project area’s extensive young-growth which 

should become commercial during the late 2030s (USDA Forest Service 2016c, p. 3-515).

The young-growth volume potentially offered under Alternative 2 is less than Alternative 3 and 

Alternative 5. Alternative 2 would still provide enough young-growth volume for potential larger 

offerings that may prove an incentive for industry to invest in young-growth businesses other than 

export. The young growth under this alternative is analyzed to potentially be utilized at a larger size 

from Alternative 3 and Alternative 5. The volume design criteria for Alternative 2 is lower in the first 

7 years of the project timeline and the young-growth-stands continue to add volume. Under this 

alternative, there is potential to allow for increased volume per acre harvests of young-growth stands 

offered.

Alternative 2 has the best opportunity to supply the current industry with the old-growth timber it 

needs to supply the existing mills. It also has the best chance at successfully allowing the timber 

industry to begin to develop a young-growth industry by supplying enough timber to maintain the 

industry.

Cumulative Effects

Under this alternative, these cumulative effects would be expected to contribute 656 MMBF over the 

next 15 years on National Forest System lands. An additional 150 MMBF is estimated from the 

Central Tongass LLA Project, also on National Forest System lands located on the Wrangell and 

Petersburg Ranger Districts to the north. The current estimate for Alaska Native lands is 50 MMBF a 

year which would be an additional 750 MMBF. The volume from the State may be less given their 

budget uncertainties but an estimated 189 MMBF of old-growth and 30 MMBF of young-growth 

volume may occur based on their predictions for the next 5 years. See the Effects Common to All 

Action Alternatives, Cumulative Effects in this section.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 123

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber to be offered for purchase is expected to total 115 MMBF of old-growth timber and 529 

MMBF of young-growth timber for a total volume of 644 MMBF over 15 years. This alternative 

would provide a similar combined total amount of potential young-growth and old-growth volume 

compared to Alternative 2 (656 MMBF), while proposing approximately half of the old-growth 

harvest of Alternative 2 and increased young-growth harvest. Alternative 3 proposes the same 

potential young-growth volume as Alternative 5.

Alternative 3 would offer opportunities between Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 for the Forest Service 

to be flexible in providing a range of timber products as well as the size of potential timber offers to 

meet industry demands, market conditions, and local needs identified through public involvement. 

This is because it proposes a smaller amount of old-growth harvest when compared to Alternative 2 

but more old-growth harvest than Alternative 5, with the same young-growth as Alternative 5. For 

Alternative 3, the old-growth small sale strategy would have a maximum effect on 30 MMBF of oldgrowth volume that would be potentially subject to offers of sales under 3 MMBF. This 30 MMBF 

affected by the small sales strategy is the same amount as in Alternative 2, but in this alternative it 

represents a larger percentage of the overall design criteria volume.

The lesser old-growth harvest of Alternative 3will lessen the effects from Forest Plan direction for 

such things as the implementation of the Legacy standard and guideline on the total alternative design 

criteria volume as compared to Alternative 2. While the effects on potential volume due to design 

criteria measures will be greater in Alternative 3 than Alternative 2, the lower volume allows that 

volume to be spread out over the landscape. This lessens those effects when compared to Alternative

2. The potential harvest of Alternative 5 has the ability to even further spread out the harvest when 

compared to Alternative 3. The lower design criteria volume of Alternative 3 may potentially provide 

for more of the alternatives design volume to come from the TAAs with the best potential for offers 

that may appraise positive. In addition it potentially offers stands with higher volume and value when 

compared to Alternative 2, especially in old growth. The total amount of young-growth volume 

potentially available reduces the effect of alternative design and Forest Plan direction on young

growth by allowing offers to be spread out across the landscape both spatially and temporally.

Overall, Alternative 3 appears to fall between Alternative 2 and Alternative 5 in responding to the 

issue of timber supply and economics for a variety of reasons. First, it has the potential to supply an 

amount of timber volume which appears to have the second most positive economic effect. The oldgrowth volume design criteria associated with Alternative 3 would provide the second most local 

manufacturing and milling job opportunities and the second highest direct income when compared to 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 5. The young-growth volume potentially offered under Alternative 3 is 

less than Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would provide enough young-growth volume for potential larger 

stable offerings that may prove an incentive for industry to invest in young-growth businesses. The 

young growth under this alternative is analyzed to potentially be utilized at the same size as 

Alternative 5, but at a smaller potential size from Alternative 2. This will allow a larger pool of 

potential harvest stands in the first 7 years of the project timeline when compared to Alternative 2. 

The total amount of young-growth volume potentially available reduces the effect of alternative 

design and Forest Plan direction by allowing offers to be spread out across the landscape both 

spatially and temporally.

This alternative has a fair opportunity to supply the current industry with the old-growth timber it 

needs to supply the existing mills. However, by applying the wildlife and watershed constraints, the 

timber offerings may be less economic since more partial harvest would be applied more often and 
3 – Environment and Effects

124 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

the timber harvest units may be spread out over a wider area requiring more expensive transportation 

or timing restrictions. It may be successful by supplying enough old-growth timber to maintain the 

industry while moving towards young growth business operations.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative can be expected to contribute 644 MMBF over the next 15 years on National Forest 

System lands. An additional 150 MMBF is estimated from the Central Tongass LLA project, also on 

National Forest System lands located on the Wrangell and Petersburg Ranger Districts to the north. 

The current estimate for Alaska Native lands, is 50 MMBF a year which would be an additional 750 

MMBF. The volume from the State may be less given their budget uncertainties but an estimated 189 

MMBF of old-growth and 30 MMBF of young-growth volume may occur based on their predictions 

for the next 5 years. See the Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, Cumulative Effects in this 

section.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Timber to be offered for purchase is expected to total 75 MMBF of old-growth timber and 529 

MMBF of young-growth timber for a total volume of 604 MMBF over 15 years. This alternative 

would provide the least amount of old-growth volume compared to the other action alternatives (75

MMBF). It proposes the same young-growth volume (529 MMBF) as Alternative 3 and more young

growth compared to Alternative 2 (421 MMBF).

Alternative 5 would offer the least flexibility for the Forest Service to provide a range of timber 

products as well as the size of potential timber offers to meet industry demands, market conditions, 

and local needs identified through public involvement, when compared to the other action 

alternatives. This is because it proposes the smallest amount of old-growth harvest when compared to 

Alternative 2 or Alternative 3. For Alternative 5 no old-growth small sale strategy is designed for and 

potential offers can be of any size as long as they do not exceed the alternative design criteria volume 

of an average 5 MMBF annually for the 15 years of the project and sales are offered every year.

Alternative 5, having the least old-growth harvest of the action alternatives, will also be affected least 

from Forest Plan direction on the total alternative design criteria volume. The effects on potential 

volume due to design criteria measures will be similar to Alternative 3, except mainly the full 

implementation of the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program: Recommendations for Game 

Management Unit 2. The lower alternative old-growth volume design criteria may allow the volume 

to be spread out across the potential harvest stands lowering the effects of design criteria on oldgrowth timber harvest activities as compared to the other action alternatives.

The lower design criteria volume of Alternative 5 may potentially provide for more of the 

alternative’s design criteria volume to come from the TAAs with the best potential for offers that may 

appraise positive, as well as stands with higher volume and value when compared to Alternative 2.

This alternative is similar to Alternative 3 in this regard. The total amount of young–growth volume 

potentially available reduces the effect of alternative design and Forest Plan direction on young

growth by allowing offers to be spread out across the landscape both specially and temporally.

Overall, this alternative appears to be the least responsive to the issue of timber supply and economics 

for a variety of reasons. First, it has the least potential to supply potential old-growth timber volume 

and will have the least positive economic effect. The old-growth volume design criteria associated 

with Alternative 5 would provide the least benefit to local manufacturing and milling job

opportunities and the least direct income when compared to Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 125

Alternative 5 would provide enough young-growth volume for potential larger offerings that may 

prove an incentive for industry to invest in young-growth businesses. The young growth under this 

alternative is analyzed to potentially be utilized at the same size as Alternative 3 but at a smaller 

potential size from Alternative 2. This will allow a larger pool of potential harvest stands in the first 7 

years of the project timeline compared to Alternative 2. The total amount of young-growth volume 

potentially available reduces the effect of alternative design and Forest Plan direction by allowing 

offers to be spread out across the landscape both spatially and temporally.

Cumulative Effects

This alternative can be expected to contribute 604 MMBF over the next 15 years from National 

Forest System lands. An additional 150 MMBF is estimated from the Central Tongass LLA project, 

also on National Forest System lands located on the Wrangell and Petersburg Ranger Districts to the 

north. The current estimate for Alaska Native lands is 50 MMBF a year from Sealaska, which would 

be an additional 750 MMBF. The volume from the State may be less given their budget uncertainties 

but an estimated 189 MMBF of old-growth and 30 MMBF of young-growth volume may occur based 

on their predictions for the next 5 years. See the Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, 

Cumulative Effects in this section.
3 – Environment and Effects

126 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Issue 4: Watershed Function

Issue statement: Proposed logging and road building activities in watersheds that have been 

impacted by past management may have adverse effects to water quality and fish habitat, and could 

reverse progress made by previous restoration efforts.

Background: Concern was expressed regarding the amount of past harvest and road construction in 

the project area, and the potential cumulative effects on watersheds and fish associated with 

additional harvest. The project area includes a number of streams with high fisheries value.

Units of Measure

The effects of project activities on aquatic resources like water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms are analyzed using both quantitative units of measure and qualitative discussion, depending 

on the activity.

Quantitative Units of Measure

The quantifiable units of measure for comparing effects of project alternatives on aquatic resources 

are listed below.

• Number of watersheds with past restoration that could experience increased peak flow rates in 

response to potential timber harvest and road construction.

• Miles and percent of roads traversing slopes greater than 50 percent by 6th level HUC4

watershed;

• Number of watersheds that could experience increased peak flow rates as a result of past (30 year 

moving window) and proposed harvested and roaded area by 6th level HUC watershed;

• Total existing and proposed road miles within 300 feet of Class I and Class II streams and lakes

by 6th level HUC watershed;

• Number of new fish stream crossings;

• Miles of existing and proposed trails;

• Miles of proposed stream restoration;

• Total existing and proposed road miles and area by 6th level HUC watershed; and

• Total acres of harvest in the past 30 years and proposed vegetation management by 6th level 

HUC watershed.

Qualitative Discussions

Some project activities will require a qualitative analysis, and the amounts of these activities would 

be unknown until Implementation Plan development. However, because the following activities could 

still have an effect on Aquatic Resources, the effects of doing or not doing these activities will be 

discussed in the Environmental Effects section.

• Fish Passage

 4 Hydrologic units (HUCs) are watershed boundaries organized in a nested hierarchy by size from the largest 

(regions) to the smallest (cataloging units), and can be viewed as the “address” of a particular watershed. 

Watersheds are spatially located landscape features uniformly mapped for the entire United States at multiple 

scales. The 6th level HUC is the scale commonly used to determine the potential effects of management 

activities.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 127

• LTF/MAF/Temporary Barge Beach Access Points

• Thinning

• Fish Habitat Improvement

• Timber Salvage

• Karst Flow Restoration

• Road and Recreation Related Activities

Methodology

The level of effects to aquatic resources from project activities are estimated using the following 

qualitative descriptors. These descriptors account for how measurable the effect would be, how 

widespread the effect is likely to be, how long it is likely to last, and whether it is likely to require 

mitigation. Exceptions to these descriptors are noted as applicable, since they are not a perfect fit for 

all effects.

• Negligible: Neither water quality, water yield, nor fish habitat would be affected, changes would 

be either non-detectable or if detected, would have effects that would be considered slight, local, 

and last less than a day.

• Minor: Changes in water quality, water yield, or fish habitat would be measurable, although the 

changes would be small, last less than a week, and the effects would be localized to the affected 

channel segment. No mitigation measures beyond routine BMPs implementation would be 

necessary to maintain water quality.

• Moderate: Changes in water quality, water yield or fish habitat would be measurable, but would 

be local to the subwatershed scale and last more than a week. Site-specific mitigation measures 

associated with water quality or hydrology would be necessary.

• Major: Changes in water quality, water yield, or fish habitat would be readily measurable, would 

last for years or have substantial consequences, and would be noticed on a subwatershed scale. 

Mitigation measures would be necessary. High-value fish habitat would be affected.

The aquatic resources analyzed for each alternative include Water Quality, Fish Habitat, and Aquatic 

Organisms. The Essential Fish Habitat determination will be discussed separately. The use of 

herbicides for invasive plant treatments and its potential effects to aquatic and other resources is 

analyzed in Issue 1, and will not be discussed further in this Aquatics section.

Geographic Information Systems were used as the primary data source to analyze location, hydrology, 

road density, culvert and bridge information, and harvest. Field surveys have been completed 

throughout the project area and will continue prior to project implementation to determine fish 

presence or absence, stream class, stream type, and stream location to ensure proper layout of stream 

buffers and road crossing structures. To date approximately 200 stream miles have been field assessed 

to prepare for potential projects since 2015. Standard procedures are used for field inventory and 

updating GIS layers.

Estimates of logging and road building locations are provided in the LSTA (in the project record) and 

the intensity of these activities are described for each alternative. Several of the units of measure 

described above are location dependent. For these metrics, a pool of potential logging units and roads 

will be used to illustrate effects.

Appendix A includes the Activity Cards for all proposed project activities. These activities cards were 

divided into Project Activities groups according to how they would be analyzed. Some activities will 
3 – Environment and Effects

128 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

have negligible effects to aquatic resources and will not be analyzed in further detail for aquatics.

Other activities will be grouped according to how they will be used to calculate the quantitative units 

of measure. The remaining activities that can’t be captured using quantitative units of measure, but 

still could have effects to aquatics resources, will be discussed individually.

Project Activity Groups

Activities with Negligible Effects to Aquatics

As described by the Activity Cards, the following activities will have negligible effects to aquatic 

resources and will not be analyzed in further detail:

• Girdling

• Pruning

• Slash Treatment

• Tree planting and inter-planting

• Cone collection

• Wildlife Trees

• Prescribed Burning

• Invasive Plant Treatments Manual and Mechanical

• Harvesting Wood for Stream Restoration Needs

• Signage

• Access Points Kayak Launch

• Viewshed Improvements

• Outhouses

• Campground or Campsites

• Cabins Three Sided Shelters

• Cabin Decommissioning

• Soil Restoration

Activities with Quantitative Units of Measure

Roads

The following activities will be used to calculate the Roads units of measures:

• NFS Road Construction

• NFS Road Reconstruction

• Temporary Road Construction

• Stream Crossing Structures

• Road Maintenance

• Quarry Development
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 129

Trails

The following activities will be used to calculate the Trails units of measures:

• Miles of Trails

• Number of Stream Crossing Structures

Timber Harvest

The following activities will be used to compute timber harvest units of measure (Even-aged 

management assumes 100 percent canopy removal and uneven-aged and two-aged management 

assumes 50 percent canopy removal):

• Young Growth Even-aged Management

• Young Growth Two-aged Management

• Young Growth Uneven-aged Management

• Old Growth Even-aged Management

• Old Growth Uneven-aged Management

Peak Flow Rate

The following activities will be used to compute the Peak Flow Rate unit of measure:

• Young-growth Even-aged Management

• Young-growth Two-aged Management

• Young-growth Uneven-aged Management

• Old-growth Even-aged Management

• Old-growth Uneven-aged Management

• Quarry Development

• NFS Road Construction

• Non-NFS Road Construction

• NFS Road Reconstruction

• Temporary Road Construction

Restoration

Stream Restoration activities will be used to compute restoration units of measure. See Watershed 

Improvements and Restoration Treatments map at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla for 

locations.

Activities with Qualitative Discussions

Fish Passage

The Improve Fish Passage activity will be used for qualitative discussion.
3 – Environment and Effects

130 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

LTF/MAF

These facilities are separated out into their own category so that the effects on Essential Fish Habitat 

can be analyzed and compared by alternative. The following activities will be used for qualitative 

discussion:

• Log Transfer Facilities (LTF)

• Marine Access Facilities (MAF)

• Temporary Barge Beach Access Points

Thinning

• The following activities will be used for qualitative discussion:

• Commercial Thinning Young Growth

• Precommercial Thinning

• Riparian Thinning

• Wildlife Thinning

Fish Habitat Improvement

The Fish Habitat Improvement activities will be used for qualitative discussion.

Timber Salvage

The following activities will be used for qualitative discussion:

• Salvage of Dead Dying Damaged Timber

• Wood Energy Product Commercial Salvage

Karst Flow Restoration

The Restore Karst Flows activity will be used for qualitative discussion.

Road and Recreation Related Activities

The following activities will be used for qualitative discussion:

• Road Storage

• Road Decommissioning

• Convert Roads to Trails

• Winter Sport Access Improvements for Over-the-snow Vehicle Use

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The 6th level HUC is the watershed scale used to determine the potential effects of management 

activities in the project area; a Watershed map showing the locations of the 136 HUCs in the project 

area is available at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla. Watersheds are topographical 

boundaries that contain surface flows therefore effects within one watershed typically do not 

contribute effects to another watershed. However, within karst landscapes extensive subsurface 

connections create flow networks underneath surrounding watersheds. Near shore areas were used as 

a spatial boundary for analyzing effects on marine and estuarine species from LTFs, MAFs, and other 

activities that may contribute to habitat or water quality degradation.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 131

Management activities have a temporal component associated with recovery of natural processes and 

environments to pre-management conditions. These timeframes can vary, depending on the activity. 

For example, hydrologic recovery following clearcut timber harvest is relatively long-term, expected 

to require between 10 and 30 years (in the Pacific Northwest) to allow sufficient vegetation regrowth 

(Hicks et al. 1991; Jones 2000; Moore and Wondzell 2005), whereas replacing a culvert is expected to 

have short-term water quality effects lasting from hours to days.

Affected Environment

Water quality and properly functioning watersheds are important for aquatic ecosystems and the 

services they provide. A coarse assessment following national protocols (USDA FS-977 and FS-978, 

2011) concluded that all project area watersheds on NFS lands are properly functioning. Many project 

area watersheds are in near-natural condition and have not been impacted by past land management. 

However, about thirty watersheds may be at risk for maintaining ecological function due to past 

management practices; these watersheds need restoration to prevent further decline in function. 

Degraded watershed condition in the project area resulted from timber harvest and road building prior 

to 1990. The Tongass Timber Reform Act (1990) and subsequent Forest Plans (1997, 2008, 2016) 

greatly increased protection measures for watershed condition and aquatic habitat.

Since 1995, emphasis on stream and watershed restoration has increased with significant funding 

support from conservation organizations and state and federal partners. Restoration has been 

substantially completed (or is underway) in the following project area watersheds (Table 21).

Table 21. Watersheds with past or ongoing restoration or improvement projects

6th Level HUC HUC-Name

Anadromous Waters 

Catalog (AWC) Number

of Mainstem

Restoration Project

190101030307 Eagle Creek 106-10-10300 Luck Creek

Large woody debris

190101030502 Hatchery Creek 106-30-10670 Hatchery Creek Fish Pass

190101030502 Indian Creek-Harris 

River

102-60-10820 Harris River

Barrier falls modification and Large 

woody debris

Fubar (Gàndlaay Hàanaa) large 

woody debris

190101030304 Neck Lake 106-30-10750 Neck lake

Fish stocking

190101030309 Slide Creek-Frontal 

Clarence Strait

106-10-10040 Sal Creek

Large woody debris

190101031003 Staney Creek 103-90-10310 Large woody debris

190101030501 Twelvemile Creek 102-60-10720 Twelvemile Creek

Large woody debris

190101031401 Dog Salmon Creek 103-60-10570 Dog Salmon Creek

Large woody debris

190101031402 190101031402 103-60-10770-2002 Snipe Creek

Large woody debris
3 – Environment and Effects

132 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Properly functioning watersheds achieve the Forest Plan desired condition, goals, and objectives for 

healthy aquatic habitat and rapid recovery from floods and other catastrophic events. Restoration 

projects completed to date in these watersheds include road storage and decommissioning, removal 

and remediation of fish barriers at road–stream crossings, riparian young growth forest treatments, 

landslide stabilization, and large wood placement to restore floodplain and stream function that 

provide spawning and rearing habitat (USDA Forest Service 2016f). Restoring watershed function 

prepares for the likely effects of climate change (EcoAdapt, 2014, Sloat et al. 2016). Monitoring 

reports (available in the project record) provide a means to track restoration efforts.

Water Quality

Drinking Water Protection Areas

The Forest Service recognizes areas defined by the State of Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC) Drinking Water Program (Table 22) to meet the requirements of the 1996 Safe 

Drinking Water Act. Watersheds serving the Community Water System category, including 

Provisional Protection Areas will be managed under 2016 Forest Plan direction (see Chapters 4 and 5 

of the 2016 Forest Plan). While most of the public water systems across the Forest have LUDs that do 

not allow timber harvest and road construction under any alternative, some watersheds and the 

associated stream network that supply water may be in a LUD that allows development. Regardless of 

the activity being proposed, be it one with longer term effects such as imposed by timber harvest or 

road construction (decades to indefinite), or short term effects such as imposed by culvert 

replacement, stream restoration, or recreational facilities construction (days to weeks), the effect on 

water supply in a particular watershed can only be estimated during project implementation planning. 

The 2016 Forest Plan, Appendix C, requires the Forest Service to conduct a watershed analysis and 

consult with the ADEC, as well as with owners and operators of public water systems, prior to 

authorizing management activities in source watersheds for public water systems. The Forest Plan (p.

4-63) prohibits authorization of activities that may cause or allow the pollution or contamination of a 

public water system. Activities in any of the watersheds listed in Table 22 will be clearly identified 

during the implementation process, to ensure protection of public water supplies.

Table 22. Location and type of drinking water system (ADEC)

6th Level HUC Name Water System Name Water System 

Type

190101030906 Port Protection-Frontal Sumner Straight Port Protection Community 

190101031104 Jinhi Bay-Frontal El Capitan Passage El Capitan Lodge Non-community 

190101031004 Tuxekan Passage-Frontal Tonowek 

Bay Naukati School Non-transient noncommunity

190101030309 Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence Strait Coffman Cove Community

190101030311 Tolstoi Bay-Frontal Clarence Strait City of Thorne Bay Community

190101030507 Kina Creek-Kasaan Bay Kasaan Community

190101030504 Twelvemile Arm-Frontal Kasaan Bay Hollis School Non-transient noncommunity

190101031401 Port Saint Nicholas-Frontal Bucareli 

Bay Craig Public Works Community

190101031306 Klawock River City of Klawock Community

190101031405 Port Refugio-Frontal Ulloa Channel Waterfall Resort Non-community 

190101031502 Hydaburg River-Frontal Sukkwan Strait Hydaburg Community
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 133

6th Level HUC Name Water System Name Water System 

Type

190101030404 McKenzie Inlet-Frontal Skowl Arm McKenzie Inlet Logging 

Camp

Non-transient noncommunity

190101030405 Skowl Arm-Frontal Kasaan Bay Sportsman’s Cove 

Lodge Non-community

190101031202 Iphigenia Bay-Frontal Pacific Ocean Steamboat Bay Lodge Non-community

190101030801 Clover Bay-Frontal Clarence Strait Clover Bay Lodge Non-community

Impaired Waterbodies and Contaminated Sites on National Forest System Land

Several creeks in the Sweetwater drainage remain listed on the EPA’s 303d list of impaired 

waterbodies; however, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has 

determined that these creeks are no longer water quality impaired (ADEC 2018, 

http://dec.alaska.gov/water/water-quality/integrated-report/) and EPA concurrence is pending 

(personal communication ADEC 8/23/2017). Salt Chuck Bay remains listed as 303(d). Thorne Bay

LTF remains listed as a Category 4a impaired waterbody but is not 303(d) listed. Fubar Creek (also 

known as Gàndlaay Hàanaa), was formerly recommended as Category 4 impaired, but now 

recommended as attaining water quality standards due to restoration actions (EPA 2012).

Table 23. Impaired waterbodies

6th level HUC Name Impacted area Listing type

190101030103 Sweetwater Lake Several creeks Awaiting 303(d) delisting

190101030506 Karta Bay-Frontal Kasaan Bay Salt Chuck Bay 303(d)

190101030310 Thorne Bay-Frontal Tolstoi 

Bay Thorne Bay LTF Category 4a

190101030502 Indian Creek-Harris River Fubar Creek(Gàndlaay 

Hàanaa)

Awaiting Category 4b

delisting

Acid rock drainage (ARD) is created when iron pyrite, oxygen, and water combine and produce 

acidified water that dissolves metal compounds resulting in elevated metal concentrations in the 

water. This is why there were 303d listings in the Sweetwater Lake watershed. The ARD acronym is 

used for rock containing sulfides such as iron pyrite that break down and produce acidified water. The 

Descon Formation is an Ordovician to Silurian aged black, thin-bedded shale and/or chert. The use of 

this pyritic material in roads constructed in the Sweetwater drainage resulted in the generation of 

ARD which negatively impacted water quality and aquatic environments downstream of the 

construction. This problem has been mitigated.

Approximately 15 percent (336,840 acres) of the POW LLA project area is underlain by the Descon 

Formation containing pyrite. However, no other problems have been observed with other roads or 

associated quarries with a Descon Formation component (Baichtal personal comm. 2011, as cited in 

Barnhart and Hitner 2013). Further issues are not anticipated.

Stream Flow, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen

Salmon and trout have optimum temperature ranges for rearing, spawning, and adult migration. 

Generally, salmonid require cool stream temperature (approximately 45 – 68 degrees F, depending on 

species) to thrive in most stream conditions (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). While very cool water 

conditions can be a limiting factor to salmon and trout survival and production, warmer temperatures 

are most often the more limiting condition within most of the range of Pacific salmon. However, in 

much of Southeast Alaska, increased summer temperature is much less of a concern than for more 
3 – Environment and Effects

134 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

southerly regions due to the normal cool climatic conditions (Murphy and Milner 1997). Heating of 

streams reduces the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, which can be detrimental to salmonid 

production and survival (Sergeant et al. 2017). Low stream flows can affect salmonid survival by 

reducing the amount of habitat at the stream margins, increasing the risk of predation, increasing the 

temperature and subsequently decreasing the amount of dissolved oxygen, and can increase the 

amount of sediment on spawning gravels (Riley et al. 2009, Hakala and Hartman 2004).

Sediment

Sediment includes both the coarse (gravel, cobble, bolder, bedrock) and fine (sand, silt) substrate 

composition in the stream channel. The relative composition affects many factors in stream 

production, including spawning areas and spawning success for salmon and trout, and benthic 

organism composition, which is an important food resource for fish. The amount of coarse sediment 

affects available spawning habitat and influences pool filling and bank stability (Spence et al. 1996). 

High levels of fines also affect pool filling, but also greatly influence survival of eggs and fry in 

spawning nests of salmon and trout (Chapman and McLeod 1987; Chapman 1988; Iwamoto et al.

1978; Gregory and Bisson 1997; McNeil 1964). Generally, the greater the portion of fines in 

spawning areas, the lower the survival of eggs and fry (McNeil 1964; Koski 1972; Chapman 1988). 

Increased fines in streams also reduce interstitial spaces in large substrate that are important habitat 

for many common cool water mountain stream aquatic insects.

Roads

There are approximately 4,008 miles of road in the project area. Long-term sediment introduction 

from roads is influenced by the type of structure at the road–stream crossing, proximity of the 

drainage structures to streams, road slope, age, maintenance condition, time since last graded, 

seasonal timing of maintenance activities, amount of traffic, rock quality, weather, hillslope length, 

soil depth, and cutbank depth (Croke et al., 2005; Wemple and Jones, 2003; Kahklen and Hartsog, 

1999; Reid and Dunne, 1984).

Acres of Timber Harvest

There has been an estimated 585,643 acres of timber harvest in the project area of which 136,256 

acres have been harvested within the past 30 years (cumulative effects analysis tables are located in 

the project record). This may have changed the amount and timing of peak flow rates in some

watersheds. Elevation, precipitation, climate and many other watershed-specific factors contribute to 

this change in peak flow rates when associated with timber harvest. The specific scenario of concern 

would be snow accumulation in a large clearcut in a small watershed followed by a rainstorm which

melts the snow, leading to excess surface runoff. Models have estimated that 25 percent peak flow 

rate increases have increased depth and frequency to streambed scour, causing up to 15 percent added 

mortality on salmonid embryos (Tonina et al. 2008).

Aquatic Organisms

Fish and aquatic resources on the Tongass National Forest are highly valued for subsistence, sport, 

and commercial fishing as well as for cultural and traditional uses. Abundant rainfall and watersheds 

with high stream densities provide an unusual number and diversity of freshwater habitats. These 

abundant freshwater systems on the Tongass National Forest provide spawning and rearing habitat for 

most of the fish produced in Southeast Alaska.

Species in the Project Area

There are a variety of aquatic ecosystems within the project area that are shaped by the physical 

characteristics of the habitat as well as the composition of organisms that live there. Aquatic 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 135

organisms in the project area include vertebrates (fish and amphibians), invertebrates (insects, 

zooplankton, mollusks, and worms), plants (riparian species and macrophytes [rooted and floating 

plants]), and microorganisms (algae, protozoa, fungi, and bacteria).

Fish are a major component of the biodiversity of Southeast Alaska. The annual migrations of 

anadromous fish for spawning are necessary for the function of many plant and animal communities. 

Anadromous fish mature and spend much of their adult life in the ocean, returning to inland waters to 

spawn. Resident fish do not undertake migrations like anadromous fish, and many can complete their 

entire life cycle in fresh water. Some of the fish species in the freshwaters of Prince of Wales have 

both anadromous and resident populations, and some of the island’s resident populations also utilize 

estuarine habitats. Table 24 lists the fish species that can be found in the freshwaters on Prince of 

Wales Island.

Table 24. Fish species found in the freshwaters of Prince of Wales Island

Genus and Species Common Name Anadromous Resident

Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho salmon X

Oncorhynchus nerka Sockeye salmon X

Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Pink salmon X

Oncorhynchus keta Chum salmon X

Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead X

Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout X

Salvelinus malma Dolly Varden char X X

Oncorhynchus clarki Cutthroat trout X X

Gasterosteus aculatus Threespine stickleback X X

Cottus spp. Sculpin X X

Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) were introduced to the high alpine lakes Mellen and Marge on 

Prince of Wales Island in the 1960s and 1970s, but current information on these populations is limited 

(phone conversation with Craig Schwanke ADFG).

Two cave obligate amphipod species are being specifically considered in this project: one is 

Stygobromus quatsinensis, described in 1987 (Holsinger and Shaw 1987), and the other is an 

undescribed species of the same genus (Holsinger et al. 1997). These amphipods are being 

specifically considered in this project because they are thought to be rare and a majority of their 

documented occurrences are within the project area. Stygobromus quatsinensis was initially 

discovered in caves on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and a majority of its documented 

occurrences have been in the project area in springs and caves on Heceta, Dall, Baker, Suemez, and 

Coronation islands. Stygobromus n sp. is only known to occur in El Capitan, Lower El Capitan, and 

Starlight cave systems on Prince of Wales Island. These cave dwelling species have specific karst

habitat requirements and are sensitive to changes in water quality, especially temperature and pH 

(Holsinger et al. 1997).

Species with special status (e.g., Threatened and Endangered Species) and components of fish habitat 

are discussed in detail in the 2016 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest Service 2016c).

A Biological Assessment was completed for this project and includes effects to threatened or 

endangered fish species. A determination of “Not likely to adversely affect” was found for listed fish 

species. The Biological Assessment is included in the project record.
3 – Environment and Effects

136 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Effects of Forest Management Practices on Salmonid Fish Stocks

The 2016 Tongass Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 

Forest Service 2016c) provides a comprehensive analysis of the effects of past forest management 

practices on salmonid stocks in Southeast Alaska. Overall trends in Southeast Alaska commercial 

harvests from 1960 to 2016, including for coho, pink, chum, and sockeye salmon, do not indicate 

specific downward trends in these populations, or specific trends that could be correlated with 

amounts of timber harvest activity. Forest management is thought to have a greater impact on the 

abundance of coho and sockeye salmon than pink and chum salmon. Since juvenile coho and sockeye 

normally spend 1 or 2 years in freshwater, juvenile survival is potentially affected by changes in the 

quality of stream and lake habitat. It is generally believed that pink and chum salmon abundance is 

controlled by several factors including stream freezing and the cyclical productivity of the marine 

environment. Quality of the freshwater habitat, mainly the infiltration of fine sediment into salmon 

redds, is also important and may be affected by forest management, but is likely overshadowed by the 

influence of winter freezing and ocean productivity. Effects of forest management practices on 

salmonid fish stocks are not further discussed in this document; however, potential impacts to fish 

habitat are discussed below.

Important Components of Fish Habitat

Salmonids use a variety of different stream habitats throughout their life cycle in order to satisfy the 

demands of spawning, incubation, rearing, and overwintering. Important habitat components include 

water quality components (discussed above), large woody debris (LWD), food sources, and habitat 

access and passage.

Large Woody Debris

Large woody debris (LWD) in stream channels includes entire trees, rootwads, and larger branches. 

LWD is an important component of good trout and salmon habitat, especially in heavily wooded 

regions (Swanson et al. 1976; Bisson et al. 1987; Naiman et al. 1992; Beechie and Sibley 1997; 

Spence et al. 1996; Murphy et al. 1986). LWD provides channel complexity, cover, and is especially 

important in the formation of pools (Bisson et al. 1987; Sullivan et al. 1987; Benda et al. 2003). LWD 

has been found to form over 70 percent of all pools in a typical Alaskan valley bottom stream (Heifetz 

et al. 1986). The benefits of LWD in streams include critical sediment retention (Keller and Swanson 

1979; Sedell et al. 1988), structural diversity (Ralph et al. 1994), gradient modification, nutrient 

production (Cummins 1974), and protective cover from predators. Its presence is often critical for 

overwinter habitat for various salmon and trout (Murphy and Milner 1997; Murphy et al. 1985). 

Wood controls sediment movement downstream, minimizing the risk of debris flows in small 

headwater streams. In large streams, coarse sediment accumulated behind LWD often provides 

spawning gravels (Bilby and Bisson 1998; Montgomery et al. 2003). LWD has been found to increase 

spawning habitat and use for both coho salmon and steelhead (House and Boehne 1985). Newly 

entered LWD plays an important role in streams by providing inputs of leaf litter and needles and, as 

it ages, enhances nutrient dynamics. Where floodplain systems have been degraded from past 

management activities, projects that reintroduce LWD can improve floodplain complexity and benefit 

anadromous salmonids (Bellmore et al. 2013).

Food Sources

Food sources for stream fish can originate directly within the stream or enter from the adjacent 

terrestrial environment, upstream aquatic environment, or returning salmon. The main sources are 

from leaf and litter deposits from the adjacent riparian vegetation, algae growth and production on the 

stream bottom, and from returning salmon carcasses. This is ultimately the food base for smaller 

aquatic organisms (e.g., aquatic insects) that become food sources for stream fish. Detrital input is the 

main source from heavily shaded small- and medium-sized streams (Richardson 1992; Gregory et al.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 137

1991). Larger streams in contrast derive much more of their food sources from algae production. 

Nutrient and organic input from returning salmon are also important but highly variable (Wipfli et al.

1998; Tiegs et al. 2009; Ruegg et al. 2011; Janetski et al. 2009).

Habitat Access and Passage

Fish passage and access to suitable habitat in streams and lakes is critical to fish stocks. Natural falls 

and barriers in systems have been found in some areas to prevent and/or limit the use of suitable fish 

habitat especially for anadromous stocks. Man-made barriers in the form of dams, diversions, and 

road crossing structures have been common partial or complete barriers to fish movement in much of 

the developed areas where fish are present. Road crossings (e.g., culverts) over much of the range of 

salmonids in the Pacific Northwest have often reduced or eliminated access to substantial portions of 

habitat to migratory fish use.

Fish Passage at Road Crossings

Crossings by Passage Category

Stream crossing structures on project area roads have been evaluated for their ability to meet juvenile 

fish passage standards. Structures that meet fish passage standards at all flows are categorized as 

Green, and structures that do not meet fish passage standards at all flows are categorized as Red.

Other passage categories include Gray, Black, and Yellow. Gray crossings are those where the 

structure measurements need to be run in FishXing software to determine fish passage status. Black 

crossings are those where additional information is missing for determining fish passage status.

Yellow crossings are structures on a watch list, where conditions are assumed to be adequate for fish 

passage and to meet State of Alaska juvenile fish passage flow standards. However, the potentially 

insufficient depth of bedload material in the bottom of the culvert elevates concerns about the ability 

of the bedload to be retained. These culverts are on a more frequent inspection schedule to assure that 

bedload is retained

In the POW LLA project area, there are 754 Green crossings, 447 Red crossings, 64 Gray crossings, 

104 Black crossings, and 7 Yellow crossings.

The watersheds with the most Red crossings include Eagle Creek (HUC 190101030307) with 34 Red 

crossings, Slide Creek (HUC 190101030309) with 32 Red crossings, and Marty Mountain (HUC 

190101030204) with 21 Red crossings.

The Watershed Improvement and Restoration Treatments map on the project webpage 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla shows the locations of Red crossings within the project 

area.

Upstream Habitat

The 447 Red crossings in the project area are inhibiting access to approximately 29,000 meters (18

miles) of Class I upstream habitat, and 114,000 meters (71 miles) of Class II upstream habitat.

The watersheds with the most fish habitat upstream of Red crossings are Staney Creek (HUC 

190101031003) with 2,639 meters (1.6 miles) of Class I and 7,819 meters (4.9 miles) of Class II

habitat above 19 Red crossings, Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence Strait-Sal (HUC 190101030309) with 

548 meters (0.3 miles) of Class I and 8,002 meters (5 miles) of Class II habitat above 32 Red 

crossings, and Outlet Thorne River, Falls, Gravelly Creek (HUC 190101030207) with 40 meters (0.02 

miles) of Class I and 7,758 meters (4.8 miles) of Class II habitat above 19 Red crossings.
3 – Environment and Effects

138 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Value for fish habitat is determined using an algorithm developed by Forest Service biologists that 

provides an indication of the biological benefit, known as a remediation score, which takes the area of 

habitat upstream of the crossing, channel gradient, pool frequency, and proportion of the design flow 

that fish a blocked into account

A table that shows Red crossings by watershed, amount of upstream habitat and remediation score is 

available in the project record.

Fish Habitat Improvement – Fish Pass

There are 12 fish passes in the project area. An additional fish pass had been constructed in 1974 on 

Survey Creek on Kosciusko Island, but it was removed in 2001 (Table 25).

Table 25. Fish passes in the project area

Fish Pass Name Year Completed Type Status

Big Lake Fish Pass 1991 Structure Functional

Cable Creek Fish Pass 1986 Structure Functional

Dog Salmon Creek Fish Pass 1989 Structure Functional

Hatchery Creek Fish Pass 2010 Structure Functional

Luck Creek Fish Pass 1969 Blast Functional

North Thorne River Fish Pass 1983 Blast Functional

Old Franks Creek Fish Pass – Upper 1992 Structure Functional

Old Franks Creek Fish Pass – Lower 1992 Structure Functional

Rio Roberts Creek Fish Pass 1989 Structure Functional

Sunny Creek Fish Pass 1984 Structure Functional

Survey Creek Fish Pass 1974 Structure Removed in 2001

Tunga Inlet Creek Fish Pass 1986 Structure Functional

Upper Harris River Fish Pass 2009 Blast Functional

Stream Classification and Riparian Management Areas

Fish habitat and water quality values of streams on the Tongass are classified using two classification 

systems: stream value class and channel type. Channel types, in conjunction with stream class, are 

used for assigning the Forest Plan Riparian components and delineating associated Riparian 

Management Areas (RMA).

Stream Value Class

The stream value class is a classification system designed to categorize stream channels based on 

their fish production and water quality values. The value classes do not imply either ecological 

importance or prioritization of fish harvest over maintenance of watershed function. Class I streams 

are anadromous and high-value resident fish streams or habitat upstream of fish migration barriers 

known to provide reasonable enhancement opportunities for anadromous fish. Class II streams are 

other resident fish streams. Class III streams have no fish populations or fish habitat but have 

immediate influence on downstream water quality and fish habitat capability. Class IV streams are 

small streams that do not directly influence downstream water quality or fish habitat capability. Refer 

to the Fish Standards and Guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan for more complete definitions.

Amount of stream miles and lake acres by stream value Class I and II are shown in Table 26.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 139

Table 26. Miles of streams and acres of lakes by value class within the entire project area

Stream Value Class Stream Miles Lake Acres

Class I 3,474 38,416

Class II 2,035 2,911

Class III* 5,383 1,461

Class IV* 483 25

Total of all Value Classes (I-IV) 11,375 42,813

* Class III and Class IV stream miles represent incomplete data, more are likely to be found

Channel Types and Process Groups

The channel types provide a system to estimate the amount and quality of fish habitat, and can be 

used to predict their physical response and sensitivity to different management activities. Channel 

types have been categorized into nine distinct process groups, with one additional group for lakes and 

ponds. Process groups describe the interrelationship between watershed runoff, landform relief, 

geology, and glacial or tidal influences on fluvial erosion or depositional processes. They are 

described in the Channel Type User Guide Tongass National Forest Southeast Alaska (Paustian et al.

1992, as amended in 2010).

Riparian Management Areas

Riparian Management Areas encompass the zone of interaction between aquatic and terrestrial 

environments associated with streamsides, lakeshores, and floodplains, and display distinctive 

ecological conditions characterized by high species diversity, wildlife value, and resource 

productivity. The desired conditions, objectives, and management direction for each channel type and 

process group are described in Appendix D of the Forest Plan. RMAs vary in width from the edge of 

a stream channel according to the process group and stream value class. The Tongass Timber Reform 

Act (TTRA) requires a minimum 100 foot no-cut buffer along all Class I streams and all Class II 

streams that flow directly into a Class I stream. The Forest Plan places an additional buffer on Class I,

Class II, or Class III streams depending on process group and extent of riparian soils and vegetation. 

Class III streams are given a slope-break buffer. All stream buffers require additional consideration 

for windfirmness in high wind risk areas. This riparian management approach effectively addresses 

fundamental ecological principals to maintain and restore riparian and aquatic ecosystem diversity

(Paustian 2004). Protecting riparian function will minimize the potential impacts of climate change.

Stream Restoration

Since 1995, 21 instream restoration projects on Class I streams have occurred in the project area in 

the Harris River, Fubar (Gàndlaay Hàanaa) Creek, Twelvemile Creek, Dog Salmon Creek, Sal Creek, 

Luck/Eagle Creek, Snipe Creek, and Staney Creek drainages.

Potential stream restoration sites were identified using GIS to locate fish streams that have had 

adjacent harvest (see Watershed Improvement and Restorations Treatments map, online at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla). Field assessments, including Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC) surveys and Tier II habitat surveys, are underway to evaluate which stream reaches 

in this sub-set could benefit from restoration activities. The watersheds with the most potential stream 

restoration reaches are Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence Strait-Sal (HUC 190101030309) with 14.82 

miles of stream, Staney Creek (HUC 190101031003) with 7.19 miles of stream, and Natzuhini BayFrontal South (HUC 190101031603) with 5.85 miles of stream.
3 – Environment and Effects

140 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Log Transfer Facilities and other Marine Access Facilities

There are at least 33 Log Transfer Facilities (LTF) in the project area, and 12 of those have current 

Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) discharge permits required to transfer logs 

into the ocean. A list of existing LTFs in the project area is available in the project record.

Other Marine Access Facilities (MAF) in the project area include docks, boat ramps, floats, buoys,

anchorages, breakwaters, and boat haul outs.

Up to 24 temporary barge beach access points may be used for the transport of young growth

harvested within the 1,000-foot beach fringe. A map depicting possible access points is available in 

the project record.

The Thorne Bay LTF is Category 4a listed (impaired water with a final/approved Total Maximum 

Daily Load) because of bark accumulations from previous log rafting activities, and no APDES 

permit will be authorized at this site until bark accumulations meet state standards.

Tongass 77 VCUs and TNC/Audubon Conservation Priority Areas

The Forest Plan identifies the “Tongass 77” (T77) and “The Nature Conservancy/Audubon 

Conservation Priority Areas” (Albert and Schoen, 2007) as high priority for protection due to their 

outstanding habitat values, fish production, and diversity of fish species present. Old-growth harvest 

is not allowed in these areas; young-growth timber harvest will be allowed as guided by the 

underlying LUD. Table 27 shows the amount and location of potential near term operable younggrowth harvest in each of these conservation areas.

Table 27. Locations of potential young-growth harvest within Tongass 77 and TNC/Audubon 

conservation areas

HUC HUC Name

Acres YG 

harvest in TNC 

Audubon

VCU

Acres YG 

harvest in 

T77 VCU

190101031006 Nossuk Bay-Frontal Tonowek Bay 18 5910 N/A

190101031008 Tonowek Bay-Frontal Gulf of 

Esquibel 71 5910 N/A

190101030908 Shakan Bay-Frontal Sumner Strait 255 5311 N/A

190101030309 Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence Strait 9 5820 N/A

190101030207 190101030207 15 5971 N/A

190101030305 Mabel Creek-Frontal Whale 

Passage 114 5730 30

190101030102 Hatchery Creek 475 5740 475

Total acres potential younggrowth timber harvest in 

conservation areas

957 505

Environmental Effects

Conclusion Summary

Alternative design criteria (e.g., acres of harvest, miles of roads constructed) is used to discuss direct 

and indirect effects to aquatic resources. The entire potential pool of LSTA timber stands for harvest

and associated road miles are used for cumulative effects (e.g., increases to peak flow rates); this 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 141

ensures that the maximum impact is analyzed for a worst case scenario. It is unlikely that the entire 

potential pool of timber stands and associated roads would be implemented.

For cumulative peak flow rate effects from timber harvest and road building, Alternatives 3 and 5 

both require timing activities and attention to locations of harvest to avoid peak flow rate increases in 

all project area watersheds. Alternative 2 may result in peak flow rate increases in 36 of the 136 

project area watersheds if all LSTA acres are harvested. Alternative 2 presents a greater risk of 

adverse effects compared to Alternatives 3 and 5. Peak flow rate increases could have adverse effects

to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms like channel and stream bank erosion, sediment 

transport, and the scouring of salmon redds. During the implementation process, careful consideration 

of watershed-specific activities and characteristics will be necessary to ensure that fish habitat and 

water quality will not be degraded.

Table 37 shows watersheds that have had restoration efforts, the acres of past timber harvest, 

proposed harvest in the POW LLA Project LSTA, and if detectable changes in peak flow rates may 

occur. Under Alternative 2, five watersheds that have had restoration could experience channelaltering peak flow rates if all LSTA acres are harvested. Seven watersheds with conservation areas 

could have a total of 957 acres of young-growth timber harvest, with nearly half of that in the 

Hatchery Creek watershed (Table 27). Of the 14 watersheds that have drinking water sources 

identified by ADEC, four could experience changes to peak flow rates under Alternative 2 (Jinhi BayFrontal El Capitan Passage, Tuxekan Passage-Frontal Tonowek Bay, and Slide Creek-Frontal 

Clarence Strait) if all LSTA acres are harvested.

Watersheds with cumulative roaded area exceeding 2 percent are more likely to experience peak flow 

rate increases (Grant et al. 2008). Table 86 and Table 87 in the Transportation section of this 

document shows the amount of road construction and maintenance proposed for each alternative

associated with timber harvest, and Table 87 provides estimates of how many stored roads will be 

reopened (road maintenance miles). Alternative 5 has slightly less amounts of road building and road 

reopening than Alternative 3, while Alternative 2 estimates the least amount of road building and 

reopening. Alternative 3 could be seen as the most impactful in terms of road construction. Other 

routine road maintenance may continue to occur. Road maintenance in terms of re-opening roads 

(bringing a Maintenance Level 1 road to Maintenance Level 2 standards) could have minor to 

moderate effects. Road maintenance is anticipated to have negligible adverse effects to aquatic 

resources. Although it causes short term, localized increases in sediment, road maintenance is 

necessary to protect aquatic resources and prevent long term effects to water quality, fish habitat, and 

aquatic organisms.

For new road construction on slopes greater than 50 percent gradient, Alternative 2 proposes 4 miles 

and Alternatives 3 and 5 propose 2 miles, bringing the total of roads on steep slopes up to 187 miles 

in Alternative 2, and 185 miles in Alternatives 3 and 5. Because the amounts are similar across the 

alternatives, the effects to aquatic resources from road building on steep slopes are similar across all 

action alternatives. Constructing roads on steep slopes can trigger slope stability concerns (see Soils 

section), which could result in adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms. 

The effects to aquatic resources is expected to be minor because the proportion of new road 

construction on steep slopes is small, and following Activity Cards will help minimize adverse 

effects.

For new road construction within 300 feet of fish habitat, Alternatives 2 and 3 propose approximately 

122 miles and Alternative 5 proposes approximately 118 miles, bringing the total of roads within 300 

feet of fish habitat to approximately 907 miles in Alternatives 2 and 3, and 903 in Alternative 5 for the 

project area. Because the amounts are similar across the alternatives, the effects to aquatic resources 

from road building within 300 feet of fish habitat is similar across all action alternatives. Effects to 
3 – Environment and Effects

142 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

aquatic resources are expected to range from minor to moderate. The miles are made up of small 

segments spread across the entire project area as opposed to long continuous segments within a 

floodplain. Where these segments do occur near fish habitat, there is a higher risk of sediment related 

impacts to aquatic habitat.

Quarry development is anticipated to have minor to moderate impacts to aquatic resources 

considering the estimated 0.45 acre (Table 80) of disturbance for every mile of road construction, 

with more road construction and resurfacing in Alternatives 3 and 5, there are anticipated to be 74 

new quarry acres for Alternative 2, 100 for Alternative 3, and 103 for Alternative 5. Further 

discussion of quarry development is in the Transportation section.

All of the action alternatives propose stream restoration, with Alternatives 2 and 5 proposing up to 

200 miles and Alternative 3 proposing up to 80 miles. These restoration activities could have positive 

long-term effects to aquatic resources. The greater amount of restoration allowed in Alternatives 2 

and 5 could allow for a more comprehensive effort to address restoration concerns across the project 

area.

All of the action alternatives propose fixing fish passage problems at roads, riparian thinning, and 

road decommissioning, which could all have positive long-term effects to aquatic resources.

Alternative 2 includes the potential use of a variety of Fish Habitat Improvement activities. 

Alternative 3 only includes barrier modification, and Alternative 5 only includes barrier modification 

and lake fertilization. While Fish Habitat Improvement activities may mitigate some of losses to 

salmon production, greater improvements could be realized by working with partner entities to 

identify and address the key sources of production loss.

Estimates of the timber harvest acres needed to attain the volume targets for each alternative is shown 

in Table 28. In this table it can be seen that the total acres cut in each alternative is similar, with 

Alternative 2 having the least total amount.

Table 28. Estimated acres of proposed timber harvest by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Young-growth Timber Harvest (acres) 0 19,396 36,670 36,670

Old-growth Timber Harvest (acres) 0 23,269 13,014 6,365

Total Timber harvest (acres) 0 42,665 49,684 43,035

Temporary Road (miles) 0 129 173 180

NFS Road (miles) 0 35 48 49

Road Re-opening (miles) 0 90 120 125

Table 29. Total existing and potential road miles by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Total Existing and Potential Roads on 

NFS Lands (miles) 4,008 4,262 4,349 4,317

Total Existing and Potential Roads on 

NFS Lands within 300 feet of Fish Habitat 

(miles)

785 907 907 903

Roads on Slopes 50% or Greater (miles) 183 187 185 185

Note: Discrepancies in total road miles are a result of GIS approximations. Information for roads on slopes 50 percent or 

greater is available in SOILS_AlternativeCalculationsNEW_02282018.xlsx in the Project Record.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 143

Table 30. Total number of existing and potential fish stream crossings on roads by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Total Existing and Potential Fish 

Crossings on NFS Lands 1,377 1,809 1,809 1,802

Table 31. Miles of existing and proposed trails (including motorized) by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 5 Alternative 3

Existing Trails (miles) 89 89 89

Proposed Trail (miles) 0 24 0

Table 32. Total number proposed fish stream crossings on trails by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 3 Alternative 5

Proposed Trail fish stream crossings 0 32 0

Table 33. Percent of watershed basin area in roads for the 24 watersheds where roaded area would 

exceed 2 percent with the maximum proposed project road building based on LSTA

Watershed

Percent of 

Basin 

Currently 

in Roads

Percent of Basin 

Area in Roads –

Existing and 

Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future 

non-NFS road 

construction

Percent of Basin Area 

in Roads – Existing, 

Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future 

road construction, and 

potential POW LLA

road construction

Thorne Bay-Frontal Tolstoi Bay 3.3 3.9 4.0

Twin Island Lake-Big Creek 2.9 3.4 3.4

Naukati Bay-Frontal Tuxekan Passage 2.1 2.8 3.4

Coning Inlet-Frontal Cordova Bay 2.8 3.3 3.3

Naukati Creek 2.1 2.5 2.9

Tuxekan Passage-Frontal Tonowek Bay 1.9 2.4 2.8

Edna Bay-Frontal Davidson Inlet 2.0 2.5 2.6

Dora Bay-Frontal Cholmondeley Sound 2.0 2.6 2.6

Twelvemile Creek 2.0 2.4 2.6

Sea Otter Sound-Frontal Davidson Inlet 1.5 2.2 2.5

Neck Lake 1.7 1.9 2.5

Flicker Creek 1.4 1.6 2.4

Warm Chuck Inlet-Frontal Tonowek Bay 1.8 2.0 2.4

Tolstoi Bay-Frontal Clarence Strait 1.8 2.3 2.3

Staney Creek 1.8 2.0 2.3

Outlet Thorne River 1.9 2.1 2.3

Dog Salmon Creek 1.7 1.8 2.3

Red Bay-Frontal Sumner Strait 1.6 1.8 2.2

Big Salt Lake-Frontal Shinaku Inlet 1.8 2.2 2.2

Klawock River 1.5 2.2 2.2

Polk Inlet-Frontal Skowl Arm 1.4 1.8 2.0

Natzuhini Bay-Frontal South Pass 1.8 2.0 2.0
3 – Environment and Effects

144 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Watershed

Percent of 

Basin 

Currently 

in Roads

Percent of Basin 

Area in Roads –

Existing and 

Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future 

non-NFS road 

construction

Percent of Basin Area 

in Roads – Existing, 

Reasonably 

Foreseeable Future 

road construction, and 

potential POW LLA

road construction

Port Johnson-Frontal Clarence Strait 1.5 1.9 2.0

Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence Strait 1.6 1.9 2.0

Note: Roaded area was calculated based on 40-foot minimum clearing widths

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No POW LLA Project road work, timber harvest, trail building, LTF construction and use, MAF 

construction and use, or temporary barge beach access would occur in this alternative so there would 

be no direct or indirect effects to water quality, fish habitat, or aquatic organisms.

No POW LLA Project rehabilitation efforts would occur either, including stream restoration, 

correcting fish passage at road crossings, riparian and precommercial thinning treatments, fish habitat 

improvement, and karst flow restoration.

Road-related activities could have implications for sediment related to water quality, fish habitat and 

aquatic organisms. Road storage, road decommissioning, road maintenance and converting roads to 

trails all potentially lead to less water quality impacts to adjacent streams through less intensity of 

use, or maintaining proper functionality of road related drainage. Quarry development has potentially 

negative sediment related water quality implications due to the ground disturbance during operation.

All of these activities will maintain their status quo for the No-Action Alternative, and would 

continue to receive routine maintenance.

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects due to POW LLA Project timber harvest, road construction or 

implementation of other proposed POW LLA Project activities, such as recreation facilities. Also 

there are no benefits achieved through the implementation of POW LLA Project watershed restoration 

activities.

Road Construction: Project road construction (Table 2) and road opening maintenance for action 

alternatives would not occur under the No-Action Alternative, roads remaining in a closed or ML 1 

state would have a minor beneficial effects on aquatic resources as opposed to road opening. Road 

maintenance conducted under other authority may occur.

Road and recreation-related activities: Roads would continue to receive routine maintenance as 

scheduled, but the potential benefits of project related road storage, decommissioning, and 

maintenance activities would not occur, and some cumulative adverse effects to water quality, fish 

habitat, and aquatic organisms may occur in watersheds with more than 2 percent basin area in roads 

(Table 33), or for watersheds where roads are already causing water quality concerns.

Timber: Cumulative effects to aquatic organisms, fish habitat and water quality are associated with 

timber harvest. There are no cumulative effects due to POW LLA Project timber harvest.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 145

Peak flow rates: Cumulative effects for the No-Action Alternative are limited to past harvest, harvest 

from projects on Forest Service land not related to this FEIS and timber harvest on non-National 

Forest System land. With no project harvest, there is no cumulative effect.

Restoration: Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources may increase due to no stream 

restoration in this alternative. While stream restoration projects covered by previous NEPA decisions 

would still occur, streams classified as Nonfunctional or Functional at Risk with a Downward Trend 

would not be restored in this project and could continue to have adverse effects to water quality and 

fish habitat into the future. For streams where existing LWD is deteriorating and the surrounding 

riparian stand is too young to supply natural recruitment of new LWD into the near future, cumulative 

effects to fish habitat and water quality include loss of habitat complexity and sedimentation from 

down cutting and/or eroding banks.

Fish passage at road crossings: Cumulative effects to aquatic resources would remain similar to the 

present condition in this alternative. The 447 “Red crossings” inhibiting aquatic organism passage to 

approximately 90 miles of habitat would not be fixed as a part of the POW LLA Project. However, 

ongoing various activities including culvert replacement and removal would be conducted under the 

Prince of Wales Access and Travel Management Plan, and these future actions would have a 

beneficial cumulative effect on aquatic resources.

LTFs: Cumulative effects to aquatic resources would remain similar to the present condition in this 

alternative.

MAFs (excluding LTFs): Cumulative effects to aquatic resources would remain similar to the present 

condition in this alternative.

Temporary Barge Beach Access Points: Cumulative effects to aquatic resources would remain similar 

to the present condition in this alternative.

Riparian thinning: Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources may slightly increase as a result of 

no thinning treatments in this alternative. Riparian thinning can expedite the return of young-growth

stands to old-growth characteristics, which would result in the natural recruitment of large wood into 

the stream channels sooner. Not thinning these stands, along with not doing any instream restoration 

activities to bridge the gap in time to natural large wood recruitment, means that some streams with 

previously harvested riparian stands would continue to be nonfunctional or functional at risk for the 

foreseeable future.

Fish habitat improvement: Cumulative effects to aquatic resources would remain similar to the 

present condition in this alternative. Several factors can limit salmon production including water 

quality, ocean conditions, competition, predation, and fishing pressure. While no POW LLA Project

Fish Habitat Improvement activities would occur in this alternative, greater improvements to salmon 

production could be realized by working with partner entities to identify and address the key sources 

of production loss.

Timber salvage: Continued timber salvage covered by previous NEPA documents is anticipated to 

have a negligible cumulative effect to fish habitat, water quality and aquatic organisms.

Karst flow restoration: Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would increase by doing no 

karst flow restoration in this alternative. Properly functioning karst systems benefit water quality, fish 

habitat, and aquatic organisms by providing cool clean water with higher alkalinity which can 

increase a stream’s buffering capacity against contaminants such as acid rain, making these systems 

more resilient to adverse effects from these inputs. Blockages to karst systems from past management 

activities have increased surface flow and erosion in some areas. Not correcting these blockages could 
3 – Environment and Effects

146 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

mean continual sedimentation and adverse effects to downstream water quality, fish habitat, and 

aquatic organisms.

Conclusion – Alternative 1

Effects to aquatic resources would remain similar to the present condition in this alternative.

Non-project related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the project area could 

continue to cause adverse effects to aquatic resources.

Timber harvest and road building on state, private, and federal land in the project area contribute to 

changes in peak flow rates which can affect the capability of habitat to support aquatic subsistence

resources.

Previous land management practices like harvesting riparian trees, yarding logs in streams, and 

building roads in floodplains have had adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and the capability 

of habitat to support aquatic subsistence resources like salmon. POW LLA Project activities (such as 

stream restoration) that would help offset adverse effects from past land management practices would 

not occur.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Road Construction

Each alternative estimates an amount of road construction, reconstruction and maintenance needed for 

the amount of potential timber harvest based on the LSTA.

Roads have been found to contribute more sediment to streams than any other land management 

activity (Gucinski et al., 2001). Road construction in Southeast Alaska requires substantial ground 

disturbance, which may result in at least short-term increases in sediment transport (Paustian 1987) 

and studies in Southeast Alaska have correlated higher rates of road erosion with heavy traffic and 

poor quality rock surfacing (Kahklen and Hartsog 1999).

Long-term sediment introduction from roads is influenced by the type of structure at the road–stream 

crossing, proximity of the drainage structures to streams, road slope, age, maintenance condition, time 

since last graded, seasonal timing of maintenance activities, amount of traffic, rock quality, weather, 

hillslope length, soil depth, and cutbank depth (Croke et al., 2005; Wemple and Jones, 2003; Kahklen 

and Hartsog, 1999; Reid and Dunne, 1984).

Of the potential new roads to be built, all action alternatives include 1 mile in the vicinity of the Salt 

Chuck Mine area (303d listed impaired waterbody). New road construction in the Neck Lake, and 

Twelvemile Creek watersheds (had watershed restoration/investment) could increase the percent 

roaded area with in these watershed such that changes to peak flow rates could be detectable.

Trails

Although trails do not have the same vehicular use as roads, similar impacts as road construction and 

use are anticipated from trail clearing and installation of stream crossings including low water ford 

construction on fish-bearing streams (USDA Forest Service, 2011, Watershed Condition Framework 

FS-977).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 147

Commercial Timber Harvest

Timber harvest can change streamflow by altering the collection and storage of water, thus altering 

the amount and timing of water delivery to streams. Reductions in canopy interception and plant 

transpiration rates resulting from harvest can increase annual water yield as well as peak flow rates in 

small streams (Jones and Grant 1996). Canopy removal has the effect of changing the rate of 

precipitation interception, which in turn alters the timing of water delivery to streams, and the nature 

of evaporation from the forest. Removing trees from the landscape alters transpiration, another 

important component of water balance. By changing the timing and amount of water delivered to 

streams, timber harvest can lead to water quality concerns in the form of increased sediment delivery, 

and increased flow volume, which can change the nature of stream channels. Faster moving and 

greater amounts of water could change the shape of some stream channels leading to negative impacts 

for fish habitat and aquatic organisms. Canopy removal can also increase water temperature, which is 

a negative impact to aquatic habitat.

Restoration

Restoration activities generate short term bursts of sediment while instream work is being done and 

from ground disturbance in riparian areas to access the stream. These effects are minor (short term), 

anticipated to reach base line levels of turbidity in the days following the completion of work 

(Turbidity Monitoring of Fubar (Gàndlaay Hàanaa) Creek Restoration). Stream restoration has major 

(lasting years) benefits to fish habitat and fishing recreational activities. Additionally, stream 

restoration may provide the major benefit of reconnecting streams to flood plains which benefit forest 

health and provide natural mitigation for high flow events.

Fish Passage at Road Crossings

There are 447 currently known Red crossings in the project area, which are inhibiting access to 

approximately 90 miles of aquatic habitat. All of the action alternatives allow for the replacement or 

removal of these crossings (which may also be addressed through projects not associated with POW 

LLA Project).

Removing or replacing Red crossings could have major (lasting for years) positive effects on aquatic 

organisms because access to upstream habitat would be restored/improved.

There would be some negligible (lasting less than a day) to minor (lasting less than a week) adverse 

effects to water quality from bursts of sediment during implementation. Adverse effects to fish are 

minimized by operating during species specific timing windows designed to avoid spawning adults, 

eggs and alevins in the gravel, and autumn high water. Effects to water quality, fish habitat, and 

aquatic organisms would be further minimized by following direction in the Fish Passage Activity 

Card (Appendix A), which outlines required BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and requires identification 

of site-specific mitigations during implementation planning.

LTFs

At least 15 LTFs may be used in the action alternatives; two new LTFs may be constructed, five

existing LTFs may be reconstructed, and eight existing LTFs may receive maintenance. Additional 

existing LTFs may be used as needed. All 33 existing LTFs are listed in the project record.

The two new LTF sites (Commercial Vegetation Map) may potentially be located at Orr Island 

Southwest and Browns Bay. The five existing sites that may receive reconstruction, including 

potential expansion, are located on Marble Island, El Capitan Passage, North Red Bay, Orr Island 

West, and Orr Island East. The eight existing sites that may receive maintenance are Lancaster Cove, 

Heceta Island, Suemez Island, Calder, Tuxekan Island, Polk Inlet, Thorne Bay, and Coffman Cove.
3 – Environment and Effects

148 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Of the 13 existing LTF sites, only the Thorne Bay LTF is Category 4a listed (impaired water with a 

final/approved Total Maximum Daily Load) for known adverse effects from bark accumulations and 

will be a barge loading only facility to prevent further bark accumulation.

There would be negligible to minor adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms depending on the amount of time required to develop the LTFs, and the characteristics of 

the locations. LTF construction and operations in the past have been found to affect benthic resources 

and some fish-rearing habitat primarily through the accumulation of bark from dumping, storage, and

rafting of logs. Some shoreline disturbance can occur from the development of these sites, including 

modification or loss of habitat through the addition of rock or other structures on the shoreline. There 

is potential for runoff of sediment and oils from the landing area as well. But the major risk of these 

sites is the addition of bark to the marine system (Faris and Vaughan 1985). Historically, LTFs have 

affected approximately 2 acres of marine benthic habitat for the average site, mostly due to bark 

accumulation (Faris and Vaughan 1985). Bark and other wood fragments that sinks to the bottom, if 

abundant, can have varied adverse effects to marine areas by reducing organism diversity, burying 

benthic organisms, and reducing organism abundance (Sedell et al. 1991). If bark accumulations are 

high enough, specific benthic areas may become anoxic or locally toxic. This could result in adverse 

effects to organisms such as crabs, shrimp, and nearshore rearing marine and anadromous fish. Bark 

can remain for extended periods (decades) but, based on dive survey results for LTF sites of concern, 

the bottom area covered with bark (based on bottom area with continuous coverage) can be greatly 

reduced within a few years (e.g., 1 to 10) after operations cease (ADEC 2008). Additionally, after 

deposition has stopped, over time these areas can become biologically similar to areas unaffected by 

even large accumulations of bark and wood debris (Germano and Browning 2005). Log rafts also 

have the potential to cause adverse effects to habitat primarily from grounding of the rafts, which can 

damage intertidal habitats and organisms that are present.

An Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) permit is required where log rafting can 

occur, and several existing LTFs, including 8 of the 13 that are most likely to be used in project, have 

discharge permits.

Specific locations will be selected and/or reconstructed according to Log Transfer Facility Guidelines 

(Forest Plan, Appendix G) to minimize adverse effects to aquatic resources. Effects to aquatic 

resources would also be minimized during LTF construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and use by 

following direction in the LTF Activity Card (Appendix A), which outlines required BMPs, Forest 

Plan direction, and require identification of site-specific mitigations during implementation planning.

MAFs (excluding LTFs)

Up to 70 non-LTF Marine Access Facilities, including docks, boat ramps, floats, buoys, anchorages, 

breakwaters, boat haul outs, and similar may be developed or improved in all action alternatives.

In-water MAF construction, blasting, and/or filling activities can cause adverse effects to aquatic 

resources. Shallow, near shore areas are used by spawning herring and out-migrating juvenile 

salmonids in the spring and summer, making these fish susceptible to blasting activities or increased 

turbidity from construction and filling activities during this time.

There would be some negligible (lasting less than a day) to minor (lasting less than a week) adverse 

effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms depending on the type of activity being 

implemented, and the days required to develop the facility.

Additionally, some MAF facilities would be used for equipment barging and storage, including an 

existing MAF at Thorne Bay. As mentioned in the LTF section above, Thorne Bay is also used as a 

barge only facility for transporting logs.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 149

Effects to aquatic resources from MAF development, improvement, and use for barging and 

equipment storage would be minimized by following direction in the MAF Activity Card (Appendix 

A), which outline required BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and require identification of site-specific 

mitigations during implementation planning.

Temporary Barge Beach Access

Up to 24 temporary barge beach access points may be used when harvesting Young Growth stands 

within the 1,000-foot beach fringe.

There could be some negligible to minor short-term adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and 

aquatic organisms. Shade caused by barges and equipment floats can reduce primary production and 

prey abundance in the water column. Anchoring and moorage could destroy submerged vegetation. 

Log landings and access trails located within the 1,000-foot beach fringe could increase surface water 

runoff which can carry sediments, woody debris, and hydrocarbons.

Effects to aquatic resources from temporary barge beach access sites would be minimized by 

following direction in the Young Growth Harvest Activity Cards (Appendix A) which outline required 

BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and require identification of site-specific mitigations during 

implementation planning.

Thinning

Up to 4,500 acres of young-growth stands would be precommercially thinned annually for timber 

production, wildlife habitat improvement, and/or riparian improvement.

No adverse effects to aquatic resources are anticipated from thinning activities. No-thin buffers on 

fish streams will protect stream banks, and additional protection measures outlined in the 

Precommercial Thinning, Riparian Thinning, and Wildlife Thinning Activity Cards (Appendix A), 

BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and the requirement for site-specific mitigations during implementation 

planning will further protect aquatic resources.

Beneficial effects include increased growth and vigor in riparian trees for increased bank stability and 

future sources of instream large wood.

Timber Salvage

It is anticipated that effects to aquatic resources will be minor for the action alternatives. Timber 

salvage operations are subject to mandatory no-harvest riparian management areas (RMA) and other 

protections outlined in the Activity Cards (Appendix A) that would minimize adverse effects.

Karst Flow Restoration

Properly functioning karst systems provide cool clean water with higher alkalinity which can increase 

a stream’s buffering capacity against contaminants such as acid rain. These conditions may increase 

productivity of fish streams if other important habitat features are also present such as well-developed 

gravel substrates, large wood, and complex pools (Bryant et al. 1998). Additionally, a majority of the 

documented occurrences of cave obligate amphipods Stygobromus quatsinensis and Stygobromus spp.

have been in the project area. In addition to some caves in British Columbia, Stygobromus 

quatsinensis occurs in springs and caves on Heceta, Dall, Baker, Suemez, and Coronation Islands. 

Stygobromus n sp. is only known to occur in El Capitan, Lower El Capitan, and Starlight cave 

systems on Prince of Wales Island. These cave dwelling species have specific karst habitat 

requirements and are sensitive to changes in water chemistry, in particular, temperature and pH, and 

water quality (Holsinger et al. 1997).
3 – Environment and Effects

150 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Diverted water flows from roads and other blockages have increased surface flow and erosion in 

some areas. In all the action alternatives karst surface water flow paths could be restored where 

ditches, culverts, slash, and beaver dams/structures are impeding natural water flows or creating 

unnatural water flows to karst features.

Restoring karst flows could have moderate (measurable, small, less than a week, localized to affected 

channel segment) to major (readily measurable, last for years, have substantial consequences, notices 

on a subwatershed scale) positive effects to water chemistry, quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms. By restoring blockages and returning karst systems to their proper functioning condition, 

sources of sedimentation can be corrected and the beneficial effects of karst to aquatic resources can 

be restored.

Bursts of sediment would occur during implementation. The adverse effects to water quality would be 

minor because the increased turbidity would be short-term and localized. Adverse effects to fish are 

minimized by operating during species specific timing windows which are designed to avoid 

spawning adults, eggs and alevins in the gravel, and autumn high water. Effects to water quality, fish 

habitat, and aquatic organisms would be further minimized by following direction in the Restore 

Karst Flows Activity Card (Appendix A), which outlines required BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and 

requires identification of site-specific mitigations during implementation planning. See also Karst and 

Cave Resources section in this chapter.

Road and Recreation Related Activities

All of the action alternatives propose road maintenance, storage, decommissioning, conversion to 

trails, and quarry development. The effects of these activities are discussed below.

Road Maintenance

Road maintenance activities may have minor adverse effects on aquatic resources from short term and 

localized bursts of sediment while equipment is operating, but properly maintained roads reduce the 

adverse effects to aquatic resources in the long term. Roads contribute more sediment to streams than 

any other land management activity, and pose the greatest potential risk to watershed resources and 

fish habitat capabilities. Regular road maintenance is necessary to mitigate adverse effects to aquatic 

resources. Effects to aquatic resources would be minimized by following direction on the Road 

Maintenance Activity Card (Appendix A).

Road Storage

Road storage activities may have minor adverse effects on aquatic resources from short term and 

localized bursts of sediment while equipment is operating, but properly stored roads reduce the 

adverse effects to aquatic resource in the long term. Road storage puts not needed roads in a condition 

where less maintenance is required to prevent adverse effects to aquatic resources. Road prisms are 

stabilized and Level 1 roads receive basic custodial maintenance that focuses on drainage structures 

and runoff patterns. Effects to aquatic resources would be minimized by following direction on the 

Road Storage Activity Card (Appendix A).

Road Decommissioning

Road decommissioning activities may have minor adverse effects on aquatic resources from short 

term and localized bursts of sediment while equipment is operating, but decommissioned roads 

reduce the adverse effects to aquatic resource in the long term. Roads no longer needed could be 

decommissioned using a variety of treatments including revegetating the road surface, restoring 

surface drainage, and recontouring the surface to the natural slope. Effects to aquatic resources would 

be minimized by following direction on the Road Decommissioning Activity Card (Appendix A).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 151

Convert Roads to Trails

The conversion of road to non-motorized trails may have minor adverse effects to aquatic resources 

from short term and localized bursts of sediment while equipment is operating, but roads converted 

for non-motorized use reduce the adverse effects to aquatic resource in the long term. Roads 

converted to non-motorized use trails are put in a condition that requires less maintenance to prevent 

adverse effects to aquatic resources.

Roads converted to OHV (off highway vehicle) trails could cause some minor adverse effects to 

aquatic resources. Roads converted to OHV trails may not be put in a condition that requires less 

maintenance and the adverse effects to aquatic resources would be similar to the effects from roads.

Additionally, designated OHV trails can help mitigate damage to aquatic resources by providing

designated routes for travel and stream crossing. Any new/replacement fish stream crossing 

structures, including low water fords, will be designed to provide for fish passage. Effects to aquatic 

resources would be minimized by following direction on the Convert Roads to Trails Activity Card 

(Appendix A).

Quarry Development

Quarry development may have minor effects to aquatic resources. An estimated 0.45 acre of 

disturbance for every mile of road construction increases the amount of canopy removal in a 

watershed. Effects to aquatic resources would be minimized by siting quarries outside of RMAs, and 

by following direction in the Quarry Development Activity Card (Appendix A).

Winter Sport Access Improvements for Over-the-Snow Vehicle Use

Winter sport access improvements could have minor effects to aquatic resources where trail clearing 

and excavation to sub-grade occurs near streams. The adverse effects include short term and localized 

bursts of sediment during implementation. Effects to aquatic resources would be minimized by 

following direction in the Winter Sport Access Improvements for Over-the-Snow Vehicle Use 

Activity Card (Appendix A).

Cumulative Effects

Peak Flow Rate – Cumulative Watershed Effects for Roads and Timber Harvest

Changes to peak flow rates are the primary cumulative watershed effect considered for aquatic 

organisms, fish habitat and water quality. In general, changes in streamflow following timber harvest

and road building are commensurate with the proportion of watershed harvested (Harr 1986; Jones 

and Grant 1996; Jones 2000; Moore and Wondzell 2005; Grant et al. 2008). Forest canopy openings

created by timber harvest may collect more snow which may be exposed to warm rain that rapidly 

melts snow, which can then increase surface runoff and response as increased streamflow. Roads 

exceeding two percent of watershed area are assumed to accelerate this effect. Grant et al. 2008 

provides the state of the science on this issue as a synthesis of relevant studies in western Washington 

and Oregon.

Potential LSTA harvest stands, proposed timber harvest on non-National Forest System land, past 

timber harvest within the past 30 years, and the amount of roads on all land jurisdictions were used to 

determine the degree of cumulative effects for watersheds in the project area.

Young-growth timber estimates for cumulative effects analysis were based on near-term operable 

stands, and the percentage of stand that was estimated operable. Helicopter-harvested timber stands 

were assumed to have 50 percent of stand area harvested.
3 – Environment and Effects

152 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Grant et al. 2008 provides a method to estimate a worst-case scenario outcome of potential detectable 

increases to peak flow rates in a watershed if all LSTA acres and roads were implemented. For this 

project, if any LSTA acres occur in the transient snow zone (>800 feet elevation), transient snow zone 

effects are assumed for the entire watershed. For watersheds where no LSTA acres occur in the 

transient snow zone, rain-dominated effects are assumed for the entire watershed. Rain-dominated 

watersheds are less likely to experience peak flow rate increases resulting from timber harvest.

Table 34. The percent of watershed area that can be in timber harvest openings younger than 30 years 

before peak flow rate changes could be observed, by percentage of watershed area in roads (see Table 

33) and precipitation zone.

Watershed Area in 

Roads

Precipitation Zone

Rain Dominated Zone (RDZ) (<800 

feet elevation)

Transient Snow Zone (TSZ) (>800 

feet elevation)

<2% Up to 45% of basin area in timber 

harvest openings

Up to 20% of basin area in timber 

harvest openings

>2% Up to 29% of basin area in timber 

harvest openings

Changes to peak flow rates may 

already be detectable.

The Implementation Plan specifies additional factors that are considered to evaluate potential peak 

flow rate increases based on site-specific activities planned and watershed-specific characteristics 

(Appendix B). These factors include watershed size (watersheds greater than 2,500 acres are less 

likely to experience detectable peak flow rate increases), recovery of snow interception capability in 

forest canopy of past harvest acres in the watershed, actual location of canopy openings in rain 

dominated or transient snow zones within the watershed, canopy opening size and silvicultural 

prescription (small openings and uneven-age harvest are less likely to accumulate snow), 

characteristics of stream network connections between canopy openings and alluvial stream reaches 

(stream density, size, gradients), presence of lakes and wetlands that could diminish peak flow rates, 

and characteristics of road network (efficiency of surface water transport from open canopy areas to

streams). Additionally, the indirect effects of peak flow rate increases on downstream aquatic habitats 

will be considered, including proximity of low-gradient, alluvial reaches containing redds or 

spawning habitat (e.g., FP, MM, and AF process groups) prone to scour) and any intervening 

depositional streams that would lessen peak flow rate effects.

Table 35. LSTA acres (all timber stands considered for cumulative effects)

Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 & 3 Alternative 5

Potential Old Growth Harvest (acres) 0 42,619 40,501

Potential Young Growth Harvest 

(acres) 0 34,156 33,823

All Potential Timber Harvest 0 76,775 67,646

Note: Potential harvest areas derived from the LSTA used for cumulative watershed effects. Helicopter units were assumed 

to be harvested to 50 percent of their area. Young-growth units are near term operable (of appropriate age class for harvest) 

with estimated operable percentages applied.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 153

Table 36. Watersheds with potential Peak Flow Rate increases from cumulative harvest and road building 

activities.

Greater 

than 2% 

Basin 

Area as 

Roads

6th level HUC Watersheds

Percent 

non-NFS

proposed 

harvest

Percent 

past

harvest

since 

1989

Percent 

past 

harvest

since 

1989 and 

potential

non-NFS 

harvest

Percent All 

Alts 2, 3 

potential 

harvest for 

NFS (LSTA), 

non-NFS, 

and past 

since 1989

Percent 

All Alt 5 

harvest 

for NFS, 

non-NFS, 

and past 

since 

1989

Nutkwa Inlet-Frontal Cordova 

Bay

41 8 49 49 49

* Naukati Bay-Frontal Tuxekan 

Passage

20 12 32 48 48

* Tolstoi Bay-Frontal Clarence 

Strait

14 35 48 48 48

Polk Inlet-Frontal Skowl Arm 8 21 29 37 37

* Twin Island Lake-Big Creek 8 5 13 36 36

* Thorne Bay-Frontal Tolstoi 

Bay

10 17 27 35 35

* Naukati Creek 7 19 25 35 35

* Big Salt Lake-Frontal Shinaku 

Inlet

7 27 34 34 34

North Pass-Frontal Tlevak 

Strait

19 14 33 33 33

Tuxekan Passage-Frontal 

Tonowek Bay

11 9 20 33 33

* Sea Otter Sound-Frontal 

Davidson Inlet

21 5 26 33 33

* Twelvemile Creek 8 10 17 31 31

190101030907-Perue Peak 28 2 30 30 30

Port Bazan-Frontal Pacific 

Ocean

1 29 30 30 30

Baldy Bay-Frontal Tlevak 

Strait

8 21 29 29 29

McKenzie Inlet-Frontal Skowl 

Arm

20 8 28 28 28

Hassiah Inlet-Frontal Cordova 

Bay

28 0 28 28 28

190101030205 0 9 9 28 28

* Staney Creek 0 7 7 27 27

* Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence 

Strait

4 11 15 27 27

Flicker Creek 0 4 4 26 22

Trout Creek 18 0 18 26 26

Hetta Inlet-Frontal Cordova 

Bay

1 24 26 26 26

* Dog Salmon Creek 1 14 15 26 26

* Neck Lake 1 3 4 25 25
3 – Environment and Effects

154 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Greater 

than 2% 

Basin 

Area as 

Roads

6th level HUC Watersheds

Percent 

non-NFS

proposed 

harvest

Percent 

past

harvest

since 

1989

Percent 

past 

harvest

since 

1989 and 

potential

non-NFS 

harvest

Percent All 

Alts 2, 3 

potential 

harvest for 

NFS (LSTA), 

non-NFS, 

and past 

since 1989

Percent 

All Alt 5 

harvest 

for NFS, 

non-NFS, 

and past 

since 

1989

Jinhi Bay-Frontal El Capitan 

Passage

16 3 19 24 24

Kitkun Bay-Frontal 

Cholmondeley Sound

14 8 22 24 24

Soda Bay-Frontal Tlevak Strait 12 11 23 23 23

* Klawock River 20 3 22 23 23

Ratz Creek 0 11 11 23 23

Karta Bay-Frontal Kasaan Bay 1 19 20 22 22

* Outlet Thorne River 2 9 10 22 22

Exchange Creek-Frontal 

Kashevarof Passage

6 7 13 22 22

Cholmondeley Sound-Frontal 

Clarence Strait

7 8 14 22 22

* Edna Bay-Frontal Davidson 

Inlet

12 0 12 21 21

Goose Creek 1 15 17 21 21

There are 24 watersheds in the project area with greater than 2 percent roaded area (Table 33), all of 

which could trigger peak flow rate concerns once harvest occurs in the TSZ. Based on the potential

roads and timber harvest per watershed, 36 watersheds may see increased peak flow rates. This 

includes all watersheds in the project area regardless of land ownership. Of these 36 watersheds, 21 

could avoid peak flow rate increases and resulting impacts to streams and fish habitat by managing 

the timing of harvest relative to harvest in the past 30 years.

The S.1484 land exchange is within seven watersheds. The anticipated harvest area contains two 

watersheds already identified with some form of peak flow rate concern (Kitkun Bay-Frontal 

Cholmondeley Sound and Cholmondeley Sound-Frontal Clarence Strait), and an additional three that 

are likely to have peak flow rate concerns (North Arm Moira Sound-Frontal Moira Sound, Port 

Johnson-Frontal Clarence Strait, and Dora Bay-Frontal Cholmondeley Sound).

Fish Passage at Road Crossings

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would decrease with “Red crossing” removal or 

replacement activities in the action alternatives. Aquatic organism passage and habitat connectivity

problems from previous road building would be prioritized and corrected for NFS maintained roads 

based on funding and the decision trees in Appendix B.

LTFs

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources from LTF construction would slightly increase in 

these alternatives.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 155

The Thorne Bay LTF has had bark accumulations that were in exceedance of water quality standards.

While the LTF is in operation, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation requires annual 

dive surveys to monitor bark accumulation.

Some pollution discharge from log rafting is allowed for locations with discharge permits. Required 

LTF monitoring (2016 Forest Plan, p. G-10) and monitoring done by Forest Service contract 

inspectors would assess activities associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the 

facilities, and ensure that adverse effects will not occur and corrective actions are taken if necessary.

MAFs (excluding LTFs)

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources from non-LTF MAF development or improvement 

would remain similar to the existing condition.

The footprint of developed and improved sites may expand, but site-selection criteria outlined in the 

MAF Activity Card, BMPs, and Forest Plan direction will avoid filling of intertidal and subtidal areas 

to the extent feasible so that cumulative effects to aquatic resources can be minimized.

Temporary Barge Beach Access

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources from Temporary Barge Beach Access sites would 

slightly increase in these alternatives.

These alternatives would make a minor contribution to the existing potential for oil or fuel spills 

associated with existing vessel activity.

Thinning

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would decrease with the thinning treatments 

proposed in the action alternatives. These treatments would accelerate growth and development of 

young-growth riparian areas toward a more mature forest structure mirroring the conditions of 

undisturbed riparian stands. Thinning treatments outside the RMA expedite the transition of younggrowth stands towards old-growth characteristics, promoting natural stream runoff conditions.

Timber Salvage

Cumulative effects on aquatic resources are anticipated to be minor considering that this activity is 

anticipated to be ongoing. However, the intensity of future salvage sales is unknown, since most large 

salvage operations are triggered by catastrophic events.

Karst Flow Restoration

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would decrease by doing karst flow restoration in the 

action alternatives. Past management activities have caused blockages in some systems, which have 

increased surface flow and erosion in some areas.

Conclusion – All Action Alternatives

All of the action alternatives propose some amount of timber harvest, road building, and the 

construction and use of LTF and other MAF sites. These activities can cause adverse effects to water 

quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms, but the adverse effects are expected to be minor in all the 

action alternatives by following additional considerations during the implementation process, required 

BMP direction in Activity Cards, Forest Plan direction, and other protections that avoid or minimize 

impacts.
3 – Environment and Effects

156 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

POW LLA Project activities that may help offset adverse effects from previous land management 

practices would occur in all action alternatives, like stream and karst restoration, riparian thinning, 

fish habitat improvement activities including bioenhancement, and fixing fish passage issues at road 

crossings.

Effects by Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Roads

Alternative 2 proposes to construct 35 miles of NFS road, 129 miles of temporary road, and re-open 

90 miles of closed road (Table 2).

In Alternative 2, 4 miles of new road could be constructed on slopes greater than 50 percent gradient, 

which would bring the total up to 187 miles of road on steep slopes in the project area (Table 29).

Constructing roads on steep slopes can trigger slope stability concerns (see Soils section), which 

could result in adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms. The effects to 

aquatic resources is expected to be minor because the proportion of new road construction on steep 

slopes is small, and following Activity Card direction will help minimize adverse effects.

Alternative 2 also proposes to construct up to 122 miles of roads within 300 feet of fish habitat, 

bringing the total up to 907 miles of road in proximity to fish streams in the project area (Table 29). If 

all 122 miles of new road were to be constructed in this alternative effects to aquatic resources are 

expected to range from minor to moderate. The 122 miles of new road are made up of small segments 

spread across the entire project area as opposed to long continuous segments within a floodplain. 

Where these segments do occur near fish habitat, there is a higher risk of sediment related impacts to 

aquatic habitat.

Alternative 2, as well as Alternative 3, proposes 432 new fish stream crossings (Table 30). Minor 

adverse effects to aquatic resources may occur from burst of sediment during implementation, but 

these effects are expected to be short term and localized. All new fish stream crossings would be 

constructed to provide for fish passage at all flows.

Trails

Under Alternative 2, as well as Alternative 5, maintenance would continue on existing trails, regularly 

used trails would be improved as needed, five new trails could be developed, and spur trails to 

recreation structures may be developed. Considering that maintenance and improvements to existing 

trails will likely lessen adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat and aquatic organisms and that 

spur trails built to access recreation structures would likely improve (e.g., boardwalks, gravel 

surfaces) erodible pathways this alternative will likely impact water quality, fish habitat and aquatic 

organisms in a beneficial way. Five new trails in the project area are estimated to involve 24 miles of 

ground disturbance (Recreation map online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla; Table 31) 

may cause a potential direct effect to water quality (sedimentation) during construction. The estimated 

32 trail fish stream crossings would be designed to provide for fish passage and would have a 

negligible indirect effect on aquatic resources through increased foot traffic in the area. Adverse 

effects to aquatic resources would be minimized by following direction in the Trails, Convert Roads 

to Trails, and Over the Snow Trails Activity Cards (Appendix A).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 157

Timber Harvest

For Alternative 2, an estimated 19,396 acres of young-growth and 23,269 acres of old-growth timber 

could be harvested for a total of 42,665 acres (Table 28). These acres could be selected from a 

suitable timber land base that includes areas “North of 20 Road”. The timber harvest proposed in this 

alternative could have minor adverse effects on water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms.

While timber harvest can have adverse effects on water quality, fish habitat and fish by altering the 

amount and timing of runoff, sediment transport/deposition regimes (Sullivan et al. 1987), average 

substrate size (Ross 2013), and stream temperature (Beschta et al. 1987), mandatory no-harvest 

riparian management areas (RMA) and other protections outlined in the Activity Cards (Appendix A) 

would minimize these adverse effects.

Restoration

Under Alternative 2, as well as Alternative 5, up to 200 miles of stream restoration could occur in the 

project area over the next 15 years. Restoring reaches that are nonfunctional or functional at risk with 

a downward trend could have major (lasting for years) beneficial effects on water quality and fish 

habitat because habitat complexity and floodplain roughness would be restored, sedimentation 

problems would be corrected, and the added features like LWD would help bridge the gap in time 

until nearby riparian stands are old enough to recruit large wood into the streams naturally.

Bursts of sediment and ground disturbance would occur during implementation due to use of 

equipment in streams and riparian areas. The adverse effects to water quality would be minor because 

the increased turbidity would be short-term and localized. Adverse effects to fish are minimized by 

operating during species specific timing windows which are designed to avoid spawning adults, eggs 

and alevins in the gravel, and autumn high water. Effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms would be further minimized by following direction in the Stream Restoration Activity Card 

(Appendix A), which outlines required BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and requires identification of 

site-specific mitigations during implementation planning.

Fish Habitat Improvement

Fish Habitat Improvement activities proposed in Alternative 2 include lake fertilization, egg 

incubation boxes, and fry stocking to improve wild sockeye salmon runs in areas that historically 

produced larger runs, and barrier modifications to improve/provide Pacific salmon access to spawning 

and rearing habitat. Improvement locations are listed on page 2-23 (see also Watershed Improvement 

and Restoration Treatments Map online at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/tongass/powlla). The direct 

and indirect effects of these activities are described below.

Lake Fertilization

Lake fertilization activities could have major (readily measurable, last for years, have substantial 

consequences) positive effects on fish and fish habitat in lakes where sockeye salmon production has 

been limited by low lake fertility.

Because of the extensive pre and post implementation monitoring required for lake fertilization 

activities, the adverse effects of POW LLA Project lake fertilization activities on water quality, fish 

habitat, and aquatic organisms would be minor (small, last less than a week, localized to affected 

lake). Potential adverse effects to lake fertilization include altering food-web dynamics so that other 

planktivore species are favored and outcompete juvenile sockeye salmon. Lake fertilization can also 

stimulate the growth of ungrazable algae, which can be difficult to constrain. The Fish Habitat 

Improvement Activity Card (Appendix A) and the Fish Habitat Improvement Decision Tree 

(Appendix B) outline requirements during project planning. This includes assessments of historical 

abundance, assessment of all potential causes for decreased run sizes, assessment of lake fertility 
3 – Environment and Effects

158 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

from detailed pre-project monitoring, and habitat capability and feasibility analyses to determine if 

the foodweb structure is appropriate for lake fertilization. If all pre-project assessments show that 

historical sockeye salmon abundance had been larger, and that lake fertilization would benefit 

sockeye salmon, then the required consistent and long-term monitoring following the start of lake 

fertilization activities would allow for early identification of water quality concerns.

Barrier Modification

Barrier modification activities could have major (readily measurable, last for years, have substantial 

consequences) positive effects on fish and fish habitat in systems where barriers are limiting or 

preventing access to spawning and rearing habitat. Desirable consequences include increased overall 

freshwater ecosystem productivity, increased size or numbers of resident or other anadromous 

salmonids that prey on supplemented species in freshwater, and overall production of target species as 

returning adults which provide harvest opportunities. Evaluation of fish production resulting from 

colonization or wildstock supplementation projects is challenging and can be expensive. Bryant and 

others (1999) and Wright and others (1997) evaluated ecological impacts of introduced salmon in 

freshwater habitats in two Southeast Alaska systems where barriers were removed and fish stocking 

was conducted. Both noted some increased complexity in food webs and changes in resident 

population characteristics but no broad-scale displacement or replacement by introduced species.

Bursts of sediment would occur during implementation. The adverse effects to water quality would be 

minor because the increased turbidity would be short-term and localized. Adverse effects to fish are 

minimized by operating during species specific timing windows which are designed to avoid 

spawning adults, eggs and alevins in the gravel, and autumn high water. Effects to water quality, fish 

habitat, and aquatic organisms would be further minimized by following direction in the Fish Habitat 

Improvement Activity Card (Appendix A), which outlines required BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and 

requires identification of site-specific mitigations during implementation planning.

Egg Incubation Boxes and Fry Stocking

Egg incubation boxes and fry stocking activities could have moderate (measurable, small, less than a 

week, localized to affected channel segment) to major (readily measurable, last for years, have 

substantial consequences, notices on a subwatershed scale) positive effects to fish in systems where 

wild sockeye salmon production had historically been larger, but has been limited by low egg-to-fry 

survival or where self-perpetuating wild runs could be established or reestablished by fry stocking.

Because of the extensive pre and post implementation monitoring required for egg incubation and fry 

stocking activities, the adverse effects of POW LLA Project bioenhancement activities on water 

quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms would be minor (small, last less than a week, localized to 

affected lake). Potential adverse effects to egg incubation boxes and fry stocking include introduction 

and spread of disease, reduced genetic fitness, competition with wild stocks for aquatic resources, and 

loss of survival from release timing errors. The Fish Habitat Improvement Activity Card (Appendix 

A) and the Fish Habitat Improvement Decision Tree (Appendix B) outline requirements during 

project planning (like assessments of historical abundance, assessment of all potential causes for 

decreased run sizes, assessment of egg to fry survival, and habitat capability and Feasibility Analyses)

to determine if the physical and chemical parameters of the aquatic ecosystem are appropriate for egg 

incubation boxes and/or fry stocking. If all pre-project assessments show that historical sockeye 

salmon abundance had been larger, and that egg incubation and/or fry stocking would benefit sockeye 

salmon, then the required consistent and long-term monitoring following the start of these 

bioenhancement activities would allow for the regular assessment of the sockeye stocks and the 

nutrient food-web dynamics.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 159

Road and Recreation Related Activities

Approximately 90 miles of road re-opening is proposed in Alternative 2 (Table 87), which would 

have negligible to moderate adverse effects to aquatic resources depending on the condition of and

the number of stream crossings. Re-installation or repair of fish crossings is expected to have minor 

adverse effects to aquatic resources.

Quarry development is anticipated to have minor to moderate impacts to aquatic resources. With an 

estimated 0.45 acre of disturbance for every mile of road construction, there are anticipated to be 74 

new quarry acres in Alternative 2. Adverse effects would be minimized by siting quarries outside of 

RMAs, and following the Quarry Development Activity Card (Appendix A).

Up to eight winter sport access points and areas would be developed in Alternative 2, as well as 

Alternative 5. Trail clearing and development activities could have minor effects to aquatic resources 

during implementation, but those effects would be minimized by following direction in the Winter 

Sport Access Improvements for Over-the-snow Vehicle Use Activity Card (Appendix A).

Cumulative Effects

Roads

Project road building brings the total up to 4,408 miles of road in the project area (Table 29). 

Cumulatively, 907 miles of road will be located within 300-feet of fish streams. An additional 432 

fish stream crossings are proposed, bringing the total to 1,809 fish stream crossings in the project area 

(Table 30). Roads can cause moderate adverse cumulative effects on aquatic resources by increased 

sedimentation, and these effects can be minimized by following Activity Cards.

Trails

Five additional trails, as well as trail maintenance and improvements to regularly used trails and spur 

trails built to access recreational facilities will likely lead to negligible to minor cumulative effects to 

water quality when considered in conjunction with the existing trails in the project area.

Peak Flow Rates

Alternative 2 could result in changes in peak flow rates in any watershed, including ones that have 

had past watershed restoration efforts, as a worse-case scenario. Table 37 shows locations of past 

restoration activities, timber harvest in watersheds that contain the restoration activity, and anticipated 

changes to peak flow rate. During implementation, careful consideration of activity locations and 

watershed characteristics will ensure that no adverse effects to aquatic resources will occur. Thirty-six 

watersheds that may experience peak flow rate changes are shown in Table 36. Four of the watersheds 

listed in Table 36, Jinhi Bay-Frontal El Capitan Passage, Tuxekan Passage-Frontal Tonowek Bay, 

Slide Creek-Frontal Clarence Strait and Klawock River have drinking water systems.
3 – Environment and Effects

160 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 37. Watersheds with prior improvements or restoration that could be impacted by POW LLA 

Project activities

HUC12 Name

Improvement or 

Restoration 

Project

All past and 

present

Timber 

Harvest 

(acres)

Proposed 

LLA Acres 

(LSTA)

Harvest 

(acres)

Detectable 

change in peak 

flow rate

determined 

through analysis

190101030307 Eagle Creek

Luck Creek

Large Woody 

Debris

6,896 1,568 No

190101030102 Hatchery Creek Hatchery Creek 

Fish Pass 3,875 438 No

190101030502 Indian CreekHarris River

Harris River

Barrier falls 

modification and 

Large woody 

debris

and Fubar

(Gàndlaay 

Hàanaa)

large woody 

debris

4,232 4,146 No

190101030304 Neck Lake Neck lake

Fish stocking 3,379 2,498 Yes

190101030309

Slide CreekFrontal Clarence 

Strait

Sal Creek

Large woody 

debris

14,156 4,888 Yes

190101031003 Staney Creek Large woody 

debris 14,914 8,520 Yes

190101030501 Twelvemile 

Creek

Twelvemile Creek

Large woody 

debris

6,087 1,662 Yes

190101031401 Dog Salmon 

Creek

Dog Salmon 

Creek

Large woody 

debris

4,594 1,179 Yes

190101031402 190101031402

Snipe Creek

Large woody 

debris

6,336 2,437 No

Restoration

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would decrease with restoration activities in this 

alternative.

Previous land management practices, like timber harvest in riparian areas or yarding within fish 

stream corridors, have impaired stream reaches by removing sources for LWD recruitment, degrading 

stream banks, and in some cases causing down-cutting which incises stream channels, prevents 

streams from accessing floodplains, and causes continuous sources of sedimentation. While stream 

restoration activities in this alternative cause short-terms bursts of sediment, these activities correct 

long-term adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 161

Fish Habitat Improvement

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would slightly decrease as a result of Fish Habitat 

Improvement Activities in Alternative 2. Several factors can limit salmon production including water 

quality, ocean conditions, competition, predation, and fishing pressure. While Fish Habitat 

Improvement Activities may mitigate some losses to salmon production, greater improvements could 

be realized by working with partner entities to identify and address the key sources of production loss.

Conclusion – Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would have moderate adverse effects to aquatic resources. In a worst-case scenario of 

all LSTA acres harvested, peak flow rates could increase in 36 watersheds, including four that have 

had prior watershed restoration efforts. Depending on where in the watershed timber and road 

building takes place, previous investments in watershed restoration could be affected. During the 

implementation process, careful consideration of all activities, including potential increases to peak 

flow rates, will ensure that no adverse effects to aquatic resources will occur. Four watersheds with 

drinking water systems could be affected. Up to 200 miles of stream restoration activities help restore 

the function of streams across the project area watersheds. Fish habitat improvement activities like 

barrier modification, lake fertilization, fry stocking, and egg incubation may help improve the 

productivity of salmon systems where productivity had historically been higher.

Along with the other action alternatives, karst restoration, thinning, road decommissioning, and fixing 

fish passage issues at road crossings would have beneficial effects to aquatic resources.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Roads

Alternative 3 proposes to construct 48 miles of NFS road, 175 miles of temporary road, and re-open 

120 miles of closed road (Table 86 and Table 87).

In Alternative 3, as well as Alternative 5, 2 miles of new road could be constructed on slopes greater 

than 50 percent gradient, which would bring the total up to 185 miles of road on steep slopes in the 

project area (Table 29). Constructing roads on steep slopes can trigger slope stability concerns (see 

Soils section), which could result in adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms. The effects to aquatic resources is expected to be minor because the proportion of new 

road construction on steep slopes is small, and following Activity Card direction will help minimize 

adverse effects.

Alternative 3 also proposes to construct up to 122 miles of roads within 300 feet of fish habitat, 

bringing the total up to 907 miles of road in proximity to fish streams in the project area (Table 29). If 

all 122 miles of new road were to be constructed in this alternative effects to aquatic resources are 

expected to range from minor to moderate. The 122 miles are made up of small segments spread 

across the entire project area as opposed to long continuous segments within a floodplain. Where 

these segments do occur near fish habitat, there is a higher risk of sediment related impacts to aquatic 

habitat.

Alternative 3, as well as Alternative 2, proposes 432 new fish stream crossings (Table 30). Minor 

adverse effects to aquatic resources may occur from burst of sediment during implementation, but 

these effects are expected to be short term and localized. All new fish stream crossings would be 

constructed to provide for fish passage at all flows.
3 – Environment and Effects

162 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Trails

Under Alternative 3, no new trails would be developed (Table 31). Maintenance would occur on the 

trails with the greatest use, leading to negligible direct and indirect effects to water quality, fish 

habitat and aquatic organisms.

Timber

For Alternative 3, an estimated 36,670 acres of young-growth and 13,014 acres of old-growth timber 

could be harvested for a total of 49,684 acres (Table 28). These acres could be selected from a 

suitable timber land base that includes areas “North of the 20 Road”. Any old-growth stands North of 

the 20 Road would only be harvested as part of sales of generally less than 3 MMBF. The timber 

harvest proposed in Alternative 3 could have minor adverse effects on water quality, fish habitat, and 

aquatic organisms. While timber harvest can have adverse effects on water quality, fish habitat and 

fish by altering the amount and timing of runoff, sediment transport/deposition regimes (Sullivan et 

al. 1987), average substrate size (Ross 2013), and stream temperature (Beschta et al. 1987), 

mandatory no-harvest riparian management areas (RMA) and other protections outlined in the 

Activity Cards (Appendix A) would minimize these adverse effects.

Invasive Plant Treatments – Herbicidal

Alternative 3 allows for the use of herbicide on invasive plant populations. The guidance and 

protections outlined in the Activity Cards (Appendix A) ensure that there will be negligible harmful 

impacts to aquatic resources. The removal of invasive plant populations is considered to be a form of 

watershed restoration. Successful herbicidal treatments could have moderate to major positive effects 

for watershed health.

Restoration

In Alternative 3, up to 80 miles of stream restoration could occur in the project area over the next 15 

years. Restoring reaches that are nonfunctional or functional at risk with a downward trend could 

have major (lasting for years) beneficial effects on water quality and fish habitat because habitat 

complexity would be restored, sedimentation problems would be corrected, and the added features 

like LWD would help bridge the gap in time until nearby riparian stands are old enough to recruit 

large wood into the streams naturally.

Bursts of sediment would occur during implementation. The adverse effects to water quality would be 

minor because the increased turbidity would be short-term and localized. Adverse effects to fish are 

minimized by operating during species specific timing windows, which are designed to avoid 

spawning adults, eggs and alevins in the gravel, and autumn high water. Effects to water quality, fish 

habitat, and aquatic organisms would be further minimized by following direction in the Stream 

Restoration Activity Card (Appendix A), which outlines required BMPs, Forest Plan direction, and 

requires identification of site-specific mitigations during implementation planning.

Fish Habitat Improvement

Fish Habitat Improvement activities proposed in Alternative 3 only include barrier modification 

activities to improve/provide Pacific salmon access to spawning and rearing habitat.

The adverse and positive effects from barrier modification are discussed for Alternative 2.

Road and Recreation Related Activities

Approximately 120 miles of road maintenance is proposed in Alternative 3 (Table 87), which would 

have negligible adverse effects to aquatic resources in the short term, but proper road maintenance
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 163

has long term benefits to aquatic resources. Adverse effects would be minimized by following 

direction in the Road Maintenance Activity Card (Appendix A).

Quarry development is anticipated to have minor to moderate impacts to aquatic resources. With an 

estimated 0.45 acre of disturbance for every mile of road construction, there are anticipated to be 100 

new quarry acres in Alternative 3. Adverse effects would be minimized by siting quarries outside of 

RMAs, and following direction in the Quarry Development Activity Card (Appendix A).

Only winter sport access points and areas with documented public support indicating potential for 

high use would be developed in this alternative. Trail clearing and development activities could have 

minor effects to aquatic resources during implementation, but those effects would be minimized by 

following direction in the Winter Sport Access Improvements for Over-the-snow Vehicle Use Activity 

Card (Appendix A).

Cumulative Effects

Roads

Project road building brings the total up to 4,408 miles of road in the project area (Table 29). 

Cumulatively, 907 miles of road will be located along fish streams on all lands. An additional 432 fish 

stream crossings are proposed, bringing the total to 1,809 fish stream crossings in the project area 

(Table 30). Roads can cause moderate adverse cumulative effects on aquatic resources by increased

sedimentation; these effects can be minimized by following Activity Card direction.

Trails

No new trails would be developed in this alternative, but regularly used trails would continue to 

receive maintenance and improvements. Ongoing maintenance would have negligible cumulative 

effects on water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms.

Peak Flow Rates

In Alternative 3, POW LLA Project timber harvest and road building would be planned to avoid peak 

flow rate increases in all project area watersheds. By minimizing peak flow rates during 

implementation planning, minor adverse effects to aquatic resources from cumulative timber harvest

and road building would be anticipated. Previous restoration efforts and drinking water systems do 

not have the potential to be affected by peak flow rate changes in this alternative.

Restoration

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would decrease with restoration activities in 

Alternative 3.

Previous land management practices, like timber harvest in riparian areas or yarding within fish 

stream corridors, have impaired stream reaches by removing sources for LWD recruitment, degrading 

stream banks, and in some cases causing down-cutting which incises stream channels, prevents 

streams from accessing floodplains, and causes continuous sources of sedimentation. While stream 

restoration activities in Alternative 3 cause short-term bursts of sediment, these activities correct longterm adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms.

Fish Habitat Improvement

In Alternative 3, cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would slightly decrease as a result of 

barrier modification activities. While barrier modification would provide access to additional habitat, 
3 – Environment and Effects

164 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

several other factors can limit salmon production including water quality, ocean conditions, 

competition, predation, and fishing pressure.

Conclusion – Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would have minor to moderate adverse effects to aquatic resources. Timber harvest and 

road building would be timed to avoid peak flow rate increases in all project area watersheds. Up to 

80 miles of stream restoration activities help restore the function of streams across the project area.

Barrier modification fish habitat improvement activities may help improve/provide Pacific salmon

access to spawning and rearing habitat.

Along with the other action alternatives, karst restoration, thinning, road decommissioning, and fixing 

fish passage issues at road crossings would have positive effects to aquatic resources.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Roads

Alternative 5 proposes to construct 49 miles of NFS road, 180 miles of temporary road, and re-open 

125 miles of closed road (Table 86 and Table 87).

In Alternative 5, as well as Alternative 3, 2 miles of new road could be constructed on slopes greater 

than 50 percent gradient, which would bring the total up to 185 miles of road on steep slopes in the 

project area (Table 29). Constructing roads on steep slopes can trigger slope stability concerns (see 

Soils section), which could result in adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms. The effects to aquatic resources is expected to be minor because the proportion of new 

road construction on steep slopes is small and following Activity Card direction will help minimize 

adverse effects.

This alternative also propose to construct up to 118 miles of roads within 300 feet of fish habitat, 

bringing the total up to 903 miles of road in proximity to fish streams in the project area (Table 29). If 

all 118 miles of new road were to be constructed in this alternative effects to aquatic resources are 

expected to range from minor to moderate. The 118 miles is made up of small segments spread across 

the entire project area as opposed to long continuous segments within a floodplain. Where these 

segments do occur near fish habitat, there is a higher risk of sediment related impacts to aquatic 

habitat.

Alternative 5 proposes 425 new fish stream crossings (Table 30). Minor adverse effects to aquatic 

resources may occur from bursts of sediment during implementation, but these effects are expected to 

be short term and localized. All new fish stream crossings would be constructed to provide for fish 

passage at all flows.

Trails

The direct and indirect effects of trails to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms are the 

same in this alternative as what was described in Alternative 2.

Timber

For Alternative 5, an estimated 36,670 acres of young-growth and 6,365 acres of old-growth timber 

could be harvested for a total of 43,035 acres (Table 28). These acres could be selected from a 

suitable timber land base that includes areas “North of 20 Road”; however, no old-growth timber will 

be harvested North of the 20 Road in Alternative 5. The timber harvest proposed in this alternative 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 165

could have minor adverse effects on water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms. While timber 

harvest can have adverse effects on water quality, fish habitat and fish by altering the amount and 

timing of runoff, sediment transport/deposition regimes (Sullivan et al. 1987), average substrate size 

(Ross 2013), and stream temperature (Beschta et al. 1987), mandatory no-harvest riparian 

management areas (RMA) and other protections outlined in the Activity Cards (Appendix A) would 

minimize these adverse effects.

Restoration

The direct and indirect effects of stream restoration to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic 

organisms are the same in this alternative as what was described in Alternative 2.

Fish Habitat Improvement

Fish Habitat Improvement activities proposed in Alternative 5 include barrier modification and lake 

fertilization activities.

Barrier modification activities could be used to improve/provide Pacific salmon access to spawning 

and rearing habitat. Where wild sockeye salmon runs had historically been larger, lake fertilization 

activities could be used for lakes that are exhibiting low levels of fertility and high potential for 

sockeye salmon production.

The adverse and positive effects from barrier modification and lake fertilization are discussed for 

Alternative 2.

Road and Recreation Related Activities

Approximately 125 miles of road maintenance is proposed in Alternative 5 (Table 87), which would 

have negligible adverse effects to aquatic resources in the short term, but proper road maintenance

has long term benefits to aquatic resources. Adverse effects would be minimized by following 

direction in the Road Maintenance Activity Card (Appendix A).

Quarry development is anticipated to have minor to moderate impacts to aquatic resources. With an 

estimated 0.45 acres of disturbance for every mile of road construction, there are anticipated to be 103 

new quarry acres in Alternative 5. Adverse effects would be minimized by siting quarries outside of 

RMAs, and following direction in the Quarry Development Activity Card (Appendix A).

Up to eight winter sport access points and areas would be developed in Alternative 5, as well as 

Alternative 2. Trail clearing and development activities could have minor effects to aquatic resources 

during implementation, but those effects would be minimized by following direction in the Winter 

Sport Access Improvements for Over-the-snow Vehicle Use Activity Card (Appendix A).

Cumulative Effects

Roads

Project road building brings the total up to 4,385 miles of road in the project area (Table 29). 

Cumulatively, 907 miles of road will be located along fish streams. An additional 432 fish stream 

crossings are proposed, bringing the total to 1,802 fish stream crossings in the project area (Table 30). 

Roads can cause moderate adverse cumulative effects on aquatic resources by increased 

sedimentation, and these effects can be minimized by following Activity Card direction.
3 – Environment and Effects

166 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Trails

Five additional trails, as well as trail maintenance and improvements to regularly used trails and spur 

trails built to access recreational facilities will likely lead to negligible cumulative effects to water 

quality when considered in conjunction with the existing trails in the project area.

Peak Flow Rates

In Alternative 5, POW LLA Project timber harvest and road building would be planned to avoid peak 

flow rate increases in all project area watersheds. By minimizing peak flow rates during 

implementation planning, minor adverse effects to aquatic resources from cumulative timber harvest

and road building would be anticipated. Previous restoration efforts and drinking water systems do 

not have the potential to be affected by peak flow rate changes.

Restoration

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would decrease with restoration activities in this 

alternative.

Previous land management practices, like timber harvest in riparian areas or yarding within fish 

stream corridors, have impaired stream reaches by removing sources for LWD recruitment, degrading 

stream banks, and in some cases causing down-cutting which incises stream channels, prevents 

streams from accessing the floodplains, and causes continuous sources of sedimentation. While 

stream restoration activities in this alternative cause short-terms bursts of sediment, these activities

correct long-term adverse effects to water quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms.

Fish Habitat Improvement

Cumulative adverse effects to aquatic resources would slightly decrease as a result of barrier 

modification activities in Alternative 5. While barrier modification would provide access to additional 

habitat and lake fertilization activities could improve fertility levels in sockeye salmon lakes, several 

other factors can limit salmon production including water quality, ocean conditions, competition, 

predation, and fishing pressure. While Fish Habitat Improvement Activities may mitigate some of 

losses to salmon production, greater improvements could be realized by working with partner entities 

to identify and address the key sources of production loss.

Conclusion – Alternative 5

Alternative 5 would have minor to moderate adverse effects to aquatic resources. Timber harvest and 

road building would be timed to avoid peak flow rate increases in all project area watersheds, and no 

old-growth timber harvest activities would occur “North of the 20 Road”. Up to 200 miles of stream 

restoration activities help restore the function of streams across the project area. Fish habitat 

improvement activities like barrier modification and lake fertilization may help improve the 

productivity of salmon systems where productivity had historically been higher.

Along with the other action alternatives, karst restoration, thinning, road decommissioning, and fixing 

fish passage issues at road crossings would have positive effects to aquatic resources.

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment

The Magnusson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires consultation with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for any activities that could affect the essential fish 

habitat (EFH) of federally managed fish species identified in a fishery management plan (FMP) by 

the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC). EFH includes all waters and substrate 

necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 167

The Forest Service has determined that activities in the POW LLA Project may adversely affect both 

freshwater and marine essential fish habitat for federally managed fish species, and provided the 

DEIS on April 27, 2018 to initiate consultation with the NMFS. NMFS requested a hard copy during 

a phone conversation with the Forest Service October 9, 2018. We responded to this request and 

consultation will be documented in the Final ROD.

Freshwater EFH

The five Pacific salmon species (Chinook, chum, coho, pink, and sockeye) are included in a Fishery 

Management Plan (North Pacific Fishery Management Council 2012), and POW LLA Project

activities may adversely affect their freshwater EFH. These potential effects include increased stream 

flows, increased sediment delivery, altered riparian vegetation, and disturbed channel integrity.

Project activities like culvert work, instream restoration, and fish barrier modification can cause 

bursts of sediment in streams, but the adverse effects to water quality would be minor because the 

increased turbidity would be short-term and localized.

Timber harvest and road construction remove tree canopy cover in a watershed, which reduces the 

amount of forest transpiration, or the amount of water released by trees and evaporated into the 

atmosphere, and can affect snow accumulation and melt. When enough forest canopy cover is 

removed in a watershed (see Peak Flow Rate discussion above), the amount of water flowing through 

a stream at peak flow rate can increase and cause detrimental effects to water quality and fish habitat 

like channel and stream bank erosion, sediment transport, and the scouring of salmon redds.

Alternatives 3 and 5 both require timing activities and planning locations of harvest to avoid peak 

flow rate increases in all project area watersheds. Alternative 2 could result in peak flow rate

increases in 36 project area watersheds, and those increases could have adverse effects to water 

quality, fish habitat, and aquatic organisms.

The use of herbicides (aminopyralid, imazapyr, and glyphosate) is proposed in Alternative 3 for 

treating invasive plant infestations. Aminopyralid is expected to have minimal effects on aquatic 

resources because of its low toxicity. Glyphosate (aquatic, less toxic formula) may cause sub-lethal 

effects to fish, and there could be some localized effects to aquatic macrophytes with the use of 

imazapyr. However, the adverse effects to aquatic organisms using hand or spot spraying methods are 

expected to be short term and minor because of the low number of infestations within riparian 

management areas, in, along, or near Class I and II streams, and along lake/pond shorelines. In 

addition, application rates will be at or lower than the label recommendations, all of which are lower 

than the levels required to generate effects to aquatic organisms. Broadcast applications for all three 

herbicides will require a 100-foot buffer around water to protect riparian vegetation. Given this, it is 

expected that applications of the herbicides will rarely, if ever, result in concentrations that exceed a 

level of concern for aquatic organisms.

The Forest Service will minimize the effects on freshwater EFH by following the Implementation 

Plan (Appendix B) and direction in the Activity Cards (Appendix A) which include BMPs, Forest 

Plan direction, applicable laws and regulations, and site-specific protections. Protections include:

• All Class I and II streams would be protected by a minimum 100-foot no-harvest buffer. Noharvest buffers may be larger than 100 feet depending on stream process groups, the extent of 

riparian soils and vegetation, elevated windthrow concerns, and other site-specific resource 

concerns. The Forest Plan authorizes young-growth harvest in riparian management areas but the 

harvest must be outside 100-foot no-harvest buffers and would need to meet the objectives of the 

stream process group.

• Class III streams would be protected by a no-harvest buffer to the top of the side slope (v-notch).
3 – Environment and Effects

168 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

• Reasonable Assurance of Windfirmness (RAW) buffers would be prescribed around no-harvest 

stream buffers that have a high risk of windthrow.

• All new fish crossing structures on roads will provide for fish passage. All crossings will be 

removed from temporary roads 3 to 5 years after timber sale activities are completed.

• Any instream work would occur during species specific timing windows which are designed to 

avoid spawning adults, eggs and alevins in the gravel, and autumn high water.

• Careful consideration of potential changes to peak flow rates will be made during the 

implementation phase. Given the geographic location of specific activities, professional 

judgement based on the analysis method provided in the FEIS will be followed to ensure that no 

adverse effects to EFH will occur.

Marine EFH

Several marine species listed in a Fishery Management Plan use the nearshore waters of Prince of 

Wales Island including arrowtooth flounder, Pacific cod, walleye Pollock, dusky rockfish, 

shortraker/rougheye rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, sablefish, sculpin, and skates (North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council 2017). The nearshore waters are also used by adult and juvenile 

salmon.

POW LLA Project activities like the development and improvement of LTF and other MAF sites, and 

temporary barge beach access may adversely affect the marine EFH of these species. These potential 

effects include injury or mortality of federally managed fish species and their prey from reduced 

oxygen levels, anaerobic conditions, and the presence of toxic sulfide compounds from log-rafting 

bark accumulations; increased turbidity and blast-induced pressures and vibrations from in-water 

MAF construction, blasting, and/or filling activities; and fuel spills from barge loading equipment.

Additionally, shade caused by barges and equipment floats can reduce primary production and prey 

abundance in the water column. Anchoring and moorage could destroy submerged vegetation. Log 

landings and access trails located within the 1,000-foot beach fringe could increase surface water 

runoff which can carry sediments, woody debris, and hydrocarbons.

The Forest Service will minimize those potential effects on marine EFH by following direction in the 

Activity Cards (Appendix A) which include BMPs, Forest Plan direction, applicable laws and 

regulations, and site-specific protections. Protections include:

• Prohibit siting LTFs and log rafts within 300 feet of the mouth of an anadromous fish stream or in 

any area known to be important for fish spawning or rearing

• Site LTFs along straits, channels, or deep bays where currents may be strong enough to disperse 

sunken or floating wood debris.

• Site log rafts along steep shorelines where there is little substrate for plant or animal growth.

Areas with a minimum amount of bottom substrate in the euphotic (or sunlight) zone are 

preferred.

• Site log rafts in a minimum depth of 40 feet at mean lower low water to avoid grounding of log 

bundles, and to avoid rooted aquatic macrophytes and algaes which generally begin to decrease in 

density below 40 feet.

• Time in-water construction to limit adverse impacts to marine and estuarine fishery resources.

Generally, avoid in-water construction from mid-March to mid-June to protect juvenile salmon

and spawning herring, but the actual timing windows will depend on specific locations.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 169

• Following the 2013 Blasting Standard (Timothy 2013) to minimize and mitigate the impacts of 

blasting on fish:

♦ Hydrophones used to monitor pressures and geophones used to monitor vibrations will be 

placed in the appropriate habitats as close to the point of detonation as possible without 

damaging the equipment. The instantaneous pressure rise in the water column in rearing 

habitat and migration corridors is limited to no more than 7.3 psi (pounds per square inch)

where fish are present. Peak particle velocities in spawning gravels are limited to no more 

than 2.0 inches per second during the early stages of embryo incubation before epiboly is 

complete.

• Design, construct, and operate facilities to minimize the risk to marine fish habitat from surface 

water runoff which can carry sediments, woody debris, and hydrocarbons. This can be 

accomplished by keeping overland flow from entering the LTF or adjacent facilities, collecting 

runoff from the facility in settling basins, or retaining vegetative buffer strips.

• Prohibit equipment storage, maintenance, and re-fueling within riparian areas. For marine 

facilities outside riparian areas, maintain equipment and facilities to ensure lubricants and 

hydraulic fluids do not enter receiving waters.

• The Thorne Bay LTF is Category 4a listed (impaired water with a final/approved Total Maximum 

Daily Load) because of bark accumulations from previous log rafting activities, and no Alaska 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (APDES) permit will be authorized at this site until bark 

accumulation meets State standards. While the LTF is in operation, the Alaska Department of 

Environmental Conservation requires annual dive surveys to monitor bark accumulation.

Essential Fish Habitat Conclusion

Based on the known effects of timber harvest, road building, and other project activities, the Forest 

Service believes the POW LLA Project may adversely affect Freshwater EFH and Marine EFH.

However, the Forest Service has determined that by following the Implementation Plan (Appendix B) 

and implementing the direction in project Activity Cards (Appendix A), which includes Forest Plan

direction, Best Management Practices, and site-specific protections, effects to essential fish habitat 

would be minimized under all action alternatives.
3 – Environment and Effects

170 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Issue 5: Wildlife Habitat

Issue 5 includes discussion of Region 10 Forest Service sensitive species (Queen Charlotte goshawk), 

and other selected wildlife species including Sitka black-tailed deer, Alexander Archipelago wolf, 

black bear, American marten, marbled murrelet, brown creeper, and endemic species including the 

Prince of Wales flying squirrel, Prince of Wales spruce grouse, and Keen’s myotis.

Issue statement: Proposed actions, particularly timber harvest and road construction, combined with 

past and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest would affect the amount of remaining 

productive old growth (POG), high volume POG (HPOG), and large tree POG (SD67) wildlife 

habitat. Past actions have also impacted wildlife habitat by converting old-growth forest into younggrowth forests. Proposed actions in young-growth stands should improve wildlife habitat. These same 

activities would affect current wildlife habitat connectivity provided by productive old-growth as well 

as older young-growth stands (generally greater than 50 years old) across the landscape. Past 

activities have also impacted the connectivity of the landscape.

Background: Changes in forested conditions and the presence of roads have altered wildlife habitats. 

Vegetation management can affect wildlife habitat through modification of vegetation characteristics 

or habitat composition. Primary concerns in the project area include the maintenance of lower 

elevation, productive old growth (POG) forested habitats and the improvement of wildlife habitat in 

young-growth stands, especially in lower-elevation stands. Road densities are also a concern in the 

project area. The amount, location, and diversity of forested habitats need to be considered in order to 

properly address wildlife needs.

Units of Measure

• Acres harvested of non-winter deer habitat, POG, HPOG, and SD67 habitat by Wildlife Analysis 

Area (WAA) and Game Management Unit (GMU) 2;

• Literature habitat thresholds for remaining habitat acres by WAA;

• Acres harvested of POG habitat below 1,500 feet in elevation (average snow habitat);

• Acres harvested of HPOG habitat in south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation (deep snow 

habitat);

• Total road density below 1,200 feet in elevation on NFS lands by WAA; and

• Qualitative discussion of Deer Habitat Capability (DHC) by biogeographic province and GMU 2.

Methodology

The scales of analysis used include GMU 2 (which is equal to the project area), biogeographic 

province, and the individual WAA.

Sources of information used in this analysis include field reconnaissance, aerial photo interpretation, 

Forest Service GIS data, peer-reviewed literature (cited as appropriate), previous NEPA analyses in 

the vicinity of the project, and information from knowledgeable individuals.

Only the effects of old- and young-growth harvest and treatments are discussed in detail in Issue 5. 

The effects of other proposed activities found in the Activity Cards, such as recreation structures, and 

slash treatment would have negligible effects. It is anticipated that effects to wildlife resources from 

salvage sales would be minor. In rare instances salvage areas could be larger if they are the result of a

catastrophic wind event or an insect outbreak. Salvage sales are as defined in the Forest Plan.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 171

For purposes of analysis, assumptions include that all harvest stands from the LSTA would be 

harvested and the only harvest method would be clearcut. This assumption results in little or no 

difference between alternatives at the project-area scale. It was assumed that areas with more oldgrowth harvest would result in a greater effect. Young-growth harvest, depending on the prescription, 

size, and placement, could result in a positive effect since it was assumed that all young-growth acres 

treated are in the stem exclusion stage and would result in a younger stand with more available 

forage. However, no alternative would harvest all LSTA acres (see Table 12 through Table 15) nor 

would they all be clearcut, and all potential roads needed for timber harvest would not be constructed.

There are no threatened or endangered terrestrial birds or mammals or critical habitat within the 

project area. A Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) for the POW LLA Project was 

completed. A determination of “Not likely to adversely affect” was found for listed marine mammal 

species. The BA/BE is included in the project record.

Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program

Incorporation of recommendations made by the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program in 

Alternatives 3 and 5 could mitigate habitat concerns. Alternative 2 does not include recommendations

in the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program per se but there is overlap between 

recommendations in the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program with recommendations in 

the Forest Plan, such as thinning younger-aged young-growth stands.

Alternative 3 incorporates portions of the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program including 

the following.

Deer Habitat

Younger Young Growth (0 to 25 years):

• Aim to thin all young growth prior to about 25 years post-harvest in medium to high productivity 

stands.

• Leave untreated or unthinned strips (leave strips) to provide elevational movement corridors for 

wildlife. Promote/maintain redcedar and yellow-cedar through thinning and planting if needed.

Young Growth (26 to 60 years):

• Incorporate leave strips that provide elevational movement corridors for deer to maintain or 

enhance connectivity between higher and lower elevations. Use 400 feet as a guide to space travel 

corridors within thinning treatments in the absence of existing routes, terrain features, or other 

habitat connectivity drivers.

• Consider a variety of thinning treatment combinations to create deer forage and movement 

corridors.

• Reduce or abate effects of slash on deer mobility in treated stands.

Older Young Growth (Commercial age, greater than 60 years):

• Without compromising continued succession towards old-growth conditions, design treatments 

and harvest that provide understory deer forage and reduce effects of stem exclusion and slash to 

support long-term deer habitat. Treatments could include variable-density thinning, thinning 

favoring dominant trees, creating small gaps and narrow openings, and pruning.
3 – Environment and Effects

172 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

• Incorporate leave strips of intact canopy, especially along ridgelines, to promote elevational

movements during severe winters and minimize distance between deer and foraging opportunities 

across the landscape.

• Consider vulnerability to predation when designing sizes and shapes of multi-age class rotational 

configurations, decreasing deer vulnerability on flatter slopes by creating smaller and more 

dispersed treatments and harvest.

Wolf

Den:

• Protect the integrity of known wolf dens (active and inactive) with noncircular polygons (buffers) 

generally centered on the den with consultation with Alaska Department of Fish and Game 

(ADF&G) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

• Retain roadless, gently sloping (less than 14 degrees) old-growth forest within 330 feet of major 

lakes and streams to preserve denning habitat and den site options for wolves.

• In Legacy VCUs, retain acres to create large buffers along major lakes and streams. See Legacy

Standard and Guideline in Forest Plan.

• Use an average buffer of 2,400 feet in radius (about 0.5 mile) for reproductive wolves at den sites 

as suggested in Preliminary Wolf Buffer Analysis (ADF&G 18 Oct 2017).

Road Density:

• During implementation, prioritize roads for closure based on wolf harvest vulnerabilities. Focus 

road closures in areas to benefit wolves.

Alternative 5 incorporates the Wolf Plan in its entirety (see project record).

The level of effects to wildlife resources from project activities are further estimated using the 

following qualitative descriptors.

Analysis Based on Habitat

The analysis for the POW LLA Project focuses on the effects to different habitat types and the species 

associated with those habitat types. This analysis will include the effects to overall POG, HPOG, and 

SD67 (large tree habitat); as well as some of these habitats in specific areas on the landscape. 

Productive old-growth (POG) forest is defined as being capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet of 

wood fiber per acre per year, or having greater than 8,000 board feet per acre. The size density model 

(SDM) divides the POG forest into seven different habitat type categories, including high volume 

POG (HPOG) and large tree POG (SD67). These are further defined in the Forest Plan FEIS (p. 3-

190). The analysis presented compares the habitat thought to be present in 1954 (prior to large scale 

logging), the existing condition, and the effects of the POW LLA Project. The effects to these habitat 

types are discussed at different scales depending on species. The scales include the GMU 2, Prince of 

Wales Island, biogeographic provinces, WAA, and VCU.

The Legacy Standard and Guideline is applied at the VCU scale but only in VCUs that are already 

over 33 percent POG harvest or will be over as a result of project harvest.

Tolerance to Changes in Habitat

The concept of limits in the amount of habitat arises in part from the idea that animals have minimum 

requirements for habitat and that if changes decrease the amount of suitable habitat that could drive 

population numbers down rapidly (Carlson 2000) creating small, unviable populations. This is being 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 173

used in this analysis to be able to show changes in the available habitat. Literature on tolerance to 

changes in habitat suggests that the effects of habitat loss are the primary cause of species decline and 

that different species have different requirements for minimum habitat; hence, species loss occurs 

along a gradient of habitat loss (Gibbs 1998).

There have been many studies on the level of tolerance of species to changes in habitat with a variety 

of results and conclusions. Empirical studies at the landscape level are few. Several studies to date 

suggest that habitat loss has consistently negative effects on biodiversity, and that habitat 

fragmentation per se has much weaker effects on biodiversity that are at least as likely to be positive 

as negative (Fahrig 2003). The influence of the spatial features of habitat loss on limits in habitat loss 

in forested ecosystems is unclear. Dykstra (2004) determined that there is little to indicate universal 

limits in habitat; there is no general consistency as to when these limits occur across species and 

ecosystems, and that limits are relevant primarily within ecosystems with similar disturbance regimes 

and ecologies. Retention of sufficient habitat and habitat components is one way to maintain species 

above habitat tolerance levels.

Habitat specialists (e.g., POW flying squirrel) will have less tolerance to habitat loss than habitat 

generalists (e.g., wolf, deer and marten). Retaining sufficient habitat and habitat structures at the stand 

and landscape level is the best strategy to mitigate declines in populations and species.

Additionally, for some species, the abundance of habitat appears to be more important than the 

configuration of habitat (With and Crist 1995). Measures of habitat area may be insufficient to predict 

the effects of habitat loss, because habitat loss has different effects on populations, depending on 

where the habitat loss occurs (Ney-Niefle and Mangel 2000). Species interactions also influence 

responses to habitat loss. Models assume that species that disperse poorly, but that are superior 

competitors, exhibit responses at earlier stages of habitat loss (Tilman et al. 1997; Neuhauser 1998). It 

appears that high quality matrix habitat can mitigate some of the negative factors associated with 

limits in habitat loss. Spatial features of habitat loss appear to primarily affect poor dispersers and rare 

species at low levels of habitat loss.

Various species respond differently to different habitat thresholds. If a habitat threshold has been 

identified for the species chosen for this analysis, those thresholds are used in the analysis; however, 

sometimes no thresholds have been identified for a specific species and in those cases, a threshold 

was used for a similar species. These thresholds are discussed under the habitats the species are 

associated with.

NFMA requires forest plans to “provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities based on 

the suitability and capability of the specific land area.” This is achieved through implementation of 

the Conservation Strategy and Forest Plan direction.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The analysis for the POW LLA Project focuses on the effects to different habitat types and to the 

species associated with those habitat types. This analysis will include the effects to overall POG, 

HPOG, and SD67; as well as some of these habitats in specific areas on the landscape. The analysis 

presented here is the habitat thought to be present in 1954 prior to large-scale logging, the existing 

condition and the effects of the POW LLA Project. The effects to these habitat types are discussed at 

different scales depending on species. The scales include the Game Management Unit 2 (GMU 2;

equivalent to the project area), Prince of Wales Island, biogeographic province (BP), Wildlife 

Analysis Areas (WAA), and Value Comparison Units (VCU). The project area includes four 

biogeographic provinces: North Central Prince of Wales Province (#14), Southern Outer Islands 

Province (#16), the Dall Island and Vicinity Province (#17), and the South Prince of Wales Province 
3 – Environment and Effects

174 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

(#18). Almost the entirety of GMU 2 is within the project area. GMU 2 includes 32 WAAs, however,

WAA 1104 (Forrester Island) is a National Wildlife Refuge managed by the USFWS and was 

excluded from the project area. WAA 5150 (Coronation Island), which is in GMU 3, was included in 

the project area because it is on the Thorne Bay Ranger District.

The temporal scale is about 25 years of the project for short-term effects and through 150 years for 

long-term effects as this analysis focuses on the old-growth ecosystem.

Old Growth Reserves and Connectivity

Tongass Old-growth Habitat Conservation Strategy

The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy was designed to address effects to species through the network 

of OGRs and other non-development LUDs, combined with Forest-wide standards and guidelines

intended to maintain important habitat components, and functional connectivity across the landscape, 

including through development LUDs (matrix). The conservation strategy is expected to maintain 

viable, well-distributed populations across the Forest, even with full implementation of the Forest 

Plan’s expected harvest levels. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, 

including assumptions underlying the design of the old growth reserve (OGR) system, refer to 

Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS,

and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS.

The Conservation Strategy was designed prior to the 2001 Roadless Rule, and these additional nondevelopment roadless area contributions are more protective than the original design and therefore 

help ensure continued old-growth habitat and connectivity within the project area. See also the 2016 

Forest Plan ROD “Wildlife Habitat and the Tongass Old-growth Habitat Conservation Strategy” pp. 

19-23 (USDA Forest Service. 2016b).

The 2016 Forest Plan ROD (pp. 19-23) states that within OGRs and other non-development LUDs, 

young-growth forest stands have ecological values which contribute to the functioning of the OGR 

system. Openings created by even-aged timber harvest would provide forage for deer as sunlight 

reaches the forest floor enhancing the growth of forage (Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan FEIS). The 

Forest Plan ROD also indicates that thinning of young-growth stands in the stem exclusion stage will 

also improve the forage for deer for 15 to 25 years (Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan FEIS). When it was 

developed in 1997, the Conservation Strategy was based on the assumption that it would maintain a 

functional and interconnected old-growth forest ecosystem without the additional habitat quality 

contribution of previously harvested areas, either as young growth or over time as these stands 

matured to old-growth condition (2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D). For this reason, 

harvest of young growth in these areas will pose a very low risk to the function and integrity of the 

Conservation Strategy. The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, 

goshawks, flying squirrels). Therefore, there will be no change to the functioning of this contributing 

element of the Conservation Strategy (2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D).

Considering both NFS and non-NFS lands, all of the biogeographic provinces on the Tongass are 

projected to maintain at least 56 percent of the original (1954) POG after 100 years of Forest Plan

implementation, and 19 of the 21 biogeographic provinces are projected to maintain at least 80

percent (Forest Plan FEIS. Chapter 3). All of the Forest Plan alternatives should maintain a functional 

and interconnected old-growth ecosystem, capable of supporting well-distributed, viable wildlife 

populations across the planning area; therefore, none of them are expected to increase the likelihood 

of species listing under the ESA (Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix D).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 175

Old Growth Reserves (OGR) – Connectivity, Distance, and Acre 

Requirements

Landscape level connectivity on Prince of Wales Island was addressed at an Interagency OGR 

Review on February 2, 2018. Discussion on OGR concerns including connectivity, distance, and acre 

requirements can be found in the 2018 Interagency OGR Review Document for the POW LLA 

Project that is part of the project record. OGR concerns expressed at this meeting were either: 1) 

addressed and fixed in the 2018 Interagency OGR review document, or 2) in some situations, the 

2018 interagency review team (IRT) acknowledged that a situation existed but could not be rectified 

given the situation on the landscape, usually due to land in other ownership.

The Forest Plan allows for the commercial harvest of young growth in OGRs. The Forest Plan 

includes the option to either retain the young-growth acres within the OGR or treat those acres to 

meet the old-growth habitat goals and objectives while removing a timber by-product, or the younggrowth acres can be removed from the OGR boundary and be replaced with POG acres. The 2018 

IRT came to the consensus that it would rather young-growth acres currently in OGRs be retained 

within the OGR boundary and be treated according to that LUD designation. Documentation of the 

Interagency OGR review for the POW LLA Project is included in the project record.

Connectivity

The connectivity in the area between Port Protection and Calder Bay is an area of concern for local 

residents. Much of the NFS land in this is in non-development LUDs, including congressionally 

designated LUD II which is managed as non-development. The area between Port Protection and 

Calder Bay is connected to the large Mt. Calder/Mt. Holbrook LUD II area via the 1,000-foot beach 

fringe and other non-development LUD acres. There is one small area, Hole-in-the-Wall, of nonNational Forest System (NFS) land along the beach to the south of Lab Bay. This 675 acre area of 

non-NFS land is owned by the State of Alaska and is managed for unique recreation opportunities and 

fish and wildlife harvest values (Prince of Wales Area Plan Revised 1998, Alaska Department of 

Natural Resources). The 2015 Sealaska Land conveyance included some upland roadless acres in 

VCUs 5280 and 5310; however, connectivity is still provided on the landscape via the LUD II acres.

Wildlife Habitat

This section provides an assessment of the current condition of the project area.

This section focuses on the past effects associated with old-growth and young-growth timber 

management (precommercial thinning and commercial harvest), and road construction/reconstruction. 

Sources of information used to support the analysis include existing information from field surveys, 

GIS data, scientific literature, and other sources.

This section discusses the effect of old-growth harvest to POG, HPOG, and SD67 habitat types as 

well as these habitat types in specific locations on the landscape: average snow habitat (POG below 

1,500 feet in elevation) and deep snow habitat (HPOG below 800 feet in elevation in south facing 

stands). The analysis presented compares the habitat thought to be present in 1954 (prior to large 

scale logging), the existing condition and the effects of the POW LLA Project. The size density model 

divides the POG forest into several different habitat type categories that are defined in the Forest Plan

FEIS (starting on p. 3-189).

Issue 5 includes discussion of Region 10 Forest Service sensitive species (Queen Charlotte goshawk), 

and other selected wildlife species including Sitka black-tailed deer, Alexander Archipelago wolf, 

black bear, American marten, marbled murrelet, brown creeper, and endemic species including the 

Prince of Wales flying squirrel, Prince of Wales spruce grouse, and Keen’s myotis.
3 – Environment and Effects

176 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Harvest prescriptions include even-aged (clearcut), two-aged, and uneven-aged. Wildlife centric 

prescriptions could include: 1) two-aged harvest retains at least 30 percent of the stand unharvested 

and can occur in a patchwork of up to 20 acres openings, and timing of the next entry is stand 

dependent, and 2) uneven-aged harvest in old-growth stands can be by single tree selection (STS) or 

group selection. Group selection removes less than 33 percent of a stand area during any entry. In 

young-growth stands harvest tree selection can vary between basal area removal, diameter as breast 

height (DBH), or by designing removal in strips or groups (see Forest Vegetation section).

The effects of the POW LLA Project are similar between all alternatives because all alternatives 

assume that all acres proposed for timber harvest will be harvested. The analysis also assumes that all 

acres will be harvested by even-aged harvest methods. The total acres estimated to be needed to meet 

timber needs are likely over-estimated and therefore the effects are likely over-estimated as well.

Alternative 2 proposes to harvest the most overall old-growth acres compared to Alternatives 3 and 5. 

Of the total old-growth acres proposed for harvest under Alternative 2, over half, about 57 percent, 

would have uneven-aged harvest prescriptions. Uneven-aged harvest should have less effect to oldgrowth habitat and its associated species than clearcut harvest. Alternative 3 proposes to harvest about 

56 percent of the total number of old-growth acres proposed for harvest under Alternative 2; however 

about 75 percent would use uneven-aged harvest prescriptions. Alternative 5 proposes to harvest 

about 27 percent of the total number of old-growth acres proposed for harvest under Alternative 2 

(see Table 38). Of the old-growth harvest acres in Alternative 5, about 33 percent would have unevenaged harvest prescriptions. Overall, Alternative 5 would have the least impact to old-growth habitat, 

since fewer acres are proposed for harvest and a third of the acres that are proposed for harvest would 

include uneven-aged prescriptions. Alternative 2 proposes to treat the fewest young-growth acres 

(19,366 acres); this amount is about 57 percent of the total young-growth acres proposed for 

treatment or harvest under Alternatives 3 and 5 (36,670 acres); see Table 38. Under Alternative 2, 

about 22 percent of the total young-growth acres would be treated with uneven-aged prescriptions. 

Alternatives 3 and 5 include uneven-aged prescriptions for about 57 percent of the proposed younggrowth acres. Overall Alternatives 3 and 5 would likely have a more long-term beneficial effect than 

Alternative 2, because Alternatives 3 and 5 result in more young-growth acres being treated with 

uneven-aged prescriptions, which should increase the understory forage.

Table 38. Overall Comparison of actual proposed Harvest by Alternative

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

Old Growth

Volume 235 MMBF 115 MMBF 75 MMBF

Total acres of harvest 23,269 13,014 6,365

 Acres even-aged 9,972 3,253 4,244

 Acres uneven-aged 13,297 9,760 2,122

% uneven-aged 57% 75% 33%

Young Growth

Volume 421 MMBF 529 MMBF 529 MMBF

Total acres of harvest 19,366 36,670 36,670

 Acres even-aged 15,156 15,630 15,630

 Acres uneven-aged 4,210 21,040 21,040

% uneven-aged 22% 57% 57%
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 177

Non-Winter Deer Habitat

Non-winter habitat is important for deer reproduction and recovery following severe winters, and for 

building up pre-winter body reserves. These habitats include all vegetation types, except young 

growth, at all elevations.

Southeast Alaska includes both migratory and resident deer. Migratory deer tend to overwinter in 

forested habitat at higher elevations than resident deer and benefit from abundant forage in alpine 

areas during snow-free months (McNay and Vollner 1995). Migratory deer may be at lower risk of 

predation than resident deer. Populations of migratory deer should rebound more quickly than 

resident deer during mild years because they have access to high-quality range in summer and have 

lower risk of predation. Consequently, the ratio of migratory deer to resident deer within logged 

watersheds adjacent to alpine terrain should increase over time (Person and Brinkman 2013). Severe 

winters may force migratory deer to move down into valley bottoms where they compete with 

resident deer for winter forage and experience the same risk of predation endured by resident deer

(Brinkman 2013). Migratory deer may be less affected by loss of carrying capacity within logged 

stands, which tend to be concentrated at low elevations (Brinkman 2013).

Mortality of deer in extensively logged watersheds is high during severe winters, but their numbers 

rebound quickly during mild years despite effects of predation and hunting, indicating that population 

regulation is strongly influenced by bottom–up processes (Brinkmann 2013).

Resident deer do not migrate to alpine habitat during summer but remain within the same home 

ranges throughout the year. On Prince of Wales Island, resident deer generally select clearcuts less 

than 20 years old and open-canopy forest stands during summer and mild winters (Yeo and Peek 

1992; Farmer 2002; Doerr et al. 2005; Person 2009).

Populations of migratory deer may rebound more quickly than resident deer during mild years 

because they have access to high-quality range in summer (non-winter habitat). The ratio of migratory 

deer to resident deer within managed landscapes adjacent to alpine (non-winter) could increase over 

time (Person and Brinkman 2013).

Deer, especially migratory, have the ability to disperse between habitats. On Admiralty Island, Schoen 

et al. 1985 reported a spring dispersal mean distance of 7.7 kilometers (4.7 miles). The shortest 

dispersal distance for a resident deer was 0.3 kilometer (0.6 mile) and the greatest for migratory deer 

was 45 kilometers (28 miles).

Affected Environment

The current estimated acres of non-winter deer habitat in the project area in 1954 was about 

1,776,889 acres. On NFS lands the project area currently has about 1,625,718 acres of non-winter 

deer habitat. This is about 91 percent of the 1954 habitat.

When considering NFS lands only, all WAAs in the project area currently have at least 50 percent or 

more of the estimated original POG remaining.

No habitat thresholds have been determined for deer.

Environmental Effects

For this analysis it is assumed all old-growth harvest is POG and all acres will be clearcut. Proposed 

young-growth treatment or harvest acres were not included in the calculations.
3 – Environment and Effects

178 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 will result in about a 2 percent decline in non-winter habitat at the project area scale, 

followed by Alternatives 3 and 5, both with a 1 percent decline or less. At the project area scale, this 

results in about a 10 percent reduction since 1954 for Alternative 2 (90 percent remaining), and a 9 

percent reduction in Alternatives 3 and 5 (91 percent remaining).

Assuming all POG harvest acres are also non-winter habitat acres, the effects post-project result in 

one WAA, 1525 (46 percent remaining), retaining less than 50 percent of the estimated 1954 nonwinter habitat.

Proposed activities that could result in less than 50 percent remaining by WAA would have greater 

effects if these WAAs were adjacent to each other or on islands. WAA 1525 is on Kosciusko Island; 

however, the other half of Kosciusko Island is WAA 1526, which has an estimated 96 percent nonwinter habitat remaining, somewhat mitigating the effects in WAA 1525 relative to WAAs that are 

isolated or surrounded by other WAAs with less habitat remaining.

Cumulative Effects

Currently there are about 2,058,170 acres of non-winter deer habitat on lands in all ownerships in the 

POW LLA project area. This is about an 8 percent reduction from the estimated acres (2,248,209) 

present in 1954.

When considering lands in all ownership all WAAs in the POW LLA Project currently exceed 50 

percent non-winter habitat remaining.

Cumulative effects result in six WAAs retaining less than the estimated original non-winter habitat:

WAA 1003 (43 percent), WAA 1106 (23 percent), WAA 1315 (32 percent), WAA 1318 (42 percent), 

WAA 1525 (28 percent), and WAA 1531 (35 percent). Cumulatively, six WAAs or 19 percent of the 

total WAAs are expected to retain less than 50 percent of the estimated original non-winter habitat.

The effects in these WAAs would be greater relative to the WAAs that retain more than 50 percent of 

the estimated original POG habitat. Some these WAAs are islands: WAA 1003 is Heceta Island, WAA 

1106 is Long Island, WAA 1525 is one of two WAAs on Kosciusko Island, and WAA 1531 includes 

Tuxekan Island and other smaller islands. Long and Tuxekan Island are almost entirely non-NFS land. 

Island effects would be similar to those discussed above under POG.

The effects in WAA 1525 may be mitigated to some extent due to the fact the other WAA on 

Kosciusko Island, WAA 1526, is almost all LUD II and retains 95 of the estimated original nonwinter habitat. Adjacency concerns for WAA 1315 are discussed in POG section above. WAA 1318 is 

surrounded by WAAs retaining between 61 and 98 percent of the estimated original non-winter 

habitat.

Conclusion

On NFS lands there is one WAAs that may drop below 50 percent of the original non-winter habitat 

remaining: WAA 1525. Cumulatively six WAAs drop to less than 50 percent non-winter habitat 

remaining or about 19 percent of the project area.

Based this analysis of non-winter habitat, it is expected that overall the project area on NFS lands 

should be able to continue to support populations over time since non-winter habitat is not the 

limiting habitat type for deer (see discussion below on effects to deep snow deer habitat); however,

there may be concerns when considering effects on all lands. Effects may be greater in WAAs on 

islands (WAAs 1003, 1525, and 1531), or WAAs with a greater effects that are adjacent to each other:

WAAs 1315 and 1420.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 179

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). The Forest Plan determined that with the conservations strategy in place even with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan it would be expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood 

maintain viable, well-distributed populations. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS, as well as Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan and Appendix D of the 2008 Forest 

Plan.

POG

Productive old-growth (POG) forest is defined as being capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet of 

wood fiber per acre per year, or having greater than 8,000 board feet per acre.

This discussion includes the effects to POG and associated species (black bear, insular dusky shrew,

and ermine). All POG at all elevations is considered habitat for black bears (USDA Forest Service, 

2008b), the endemic insular dusky shrew, and Prince of Wales ermine.

Black bears appear to prefer estuarine, riparian, and forested coastal habitats (USDA Forest Service, 

2016c) which are all provided some degree of protection in the Forest Plan. Research by Mikusinski 

and Angelstram (2000) indicated a habitat threshold for bears (brown) of about 50 percent habitat 

remaining.

Clearcut logging may actually increase shrew habitat. This species is more often found in deadwood 

debris areas and in clearcuts that have 85 to 90 percent herbaceous ground cover than in heavily 

forested areas with less herbaceous cover (Thomas 1979). However, a study in British Columbia 

found dusky shrew abundance to be lower in clearcuts and riparian buffer strips compared to control 

plots (Cockle and Richardson 2003). Timber harvest and road construction lead to habitat 

fragmentation (ADF&G 2005a Alaska Species Ranking System Summary Report – Dusky shrew, 

Queen Charlotte Islands). Thomas (1979) indicated that suitable habitat of at least 5 acres is required 

to support a population of shrews. While no habitat thresholds have been identified for shrews 

specifically, research has been conducted on other small rodents with a range of habitat thresholds 

indicated; Research by Heinen (1998) in southern Ontario, Canada indicated that mice did not show a 

habitat threshold while this same research showed that chipmunks had a habitat threshold of about 30 

percent habitat remaining. The Estavillo et al. (2013) study in Brazil proposed a threshold amount in 

small mammals was 30 percent of remaining forest.

Management actions could enhance shrew habitat. When considering ermine management, activities 

could attempt to enhance prey abundance, such as breeding bird and deer mouse populations in 

riparian areas, and availability, where possible. In general this would include enhancing heterogeneity 

of canopy, understory, and ground cover species composition and structure (Reid et al. 2000).

Research by Mikusinski and Angelstram (2000) indicated a habitat threshold for bears (brown) of 

about 50 percent habitat remaining. Research by Heinen (1998) indicated that mice did not show a 

habitat threshold; however, this same research showed that chipmunks had a habitat threshold of 

about 30 percent habitat remaining. Since there were habitat thresholds defined specifically for 

shrews the 30 percent defined for chipmunks was used. Therefore a threshold of 50 percent was used 

for the analysis of effects to bear habitat and 30 percent for shrews. No thresholds were determined 

for ermine.

Ermine are adapted to a wide variety of habitats but seem to prefer wooded areas with thick 

understory near water. They rarely occur in heavily forested regions but often occupy earlysuccessional or forest-edge habitats, wet meadows, marshes, ditches, riparian woodlands, or river 

banks with high densities of small mammals and adequate under-canopy foraging space (Simms 
3 – Environment and Effects

180 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

1979a, Simms 1979b). Results of a study on coastal ermine suggest no particular reliance on oldgrowth forest, but do indicate a use of riparian and marine foreshore (beach buffer) habitats (Reid et 

al. 2000), The Suemez Island subspecies of ermine (M. e. seclusa) has been documented in varied 

habitat including POG and young growth forest, brush, alpine meadows, marshes, and riparian areas 

(Hall 1951). Because ermine were live trapped in young-growth forest and in the beach buffers,

effects to ermine habitat are also discussed under Young Growth (Reid et al. 2000). No thresholds 

have been identified for the ermine; however, the 1997 Forest Plan included the Suemez Island 

ermine within the group of endemic species. The 1997 population panel identified that the greatest 

concern for endemic species was their restricted ranges, which naturally increased their risk of 

extinction, and that being an endemic species equated to increased risk. Thus the panel predicted that 

all of the proposed 1997 Forest Plan alternatives had some likelihood of causing extirpation within 

the endemic group (2008 Forest Plan FEIS Appendix D p. D-67). Currently there is an incomplete 

understanding of the ermine distribution and habitat needs.

The levels of tolerance to habitat change determined by research of 30 (Heinen 1998 and Estavillo et 

al. 2013) and 50 percent (Mikusinski and Angelstram 2000) of the original habitat remaining are 

dependent in part on the dispersal capabilities of the species associated with that habitat type. Species 

with greater dispersal capabilities such as the bear may be less affected by WAAs with less habitat if 

these areas are adjacent to areas that have more habitat. Both reduction in habitat and distance 

between habitats would likely have a greater impact to species with more limited dispersal 

capabilities such as the shrew and ermine. Species such as the shrew and ermine may be impacted 

even more when areas of past effects are concentrated or on islands.

The analysis below is based on these literature identified thresholds for these species. The change in 

percent habitat remaining between DEIS and FEIS is due to comments received on the DEIS.

Affected Environment

This POG analysis includes both species with high dispersal capabilities (black bear) and ones with 

more limited dispersal capabilities (insular dusky shrew and ermine).

A threshold of 50 percent was used for the analysis of effects to bear habitat and 30 percent for 

shrews. No thresholds were determined for ermine. The amount of habitat change determined by 

research of 30 and 50 percent of the original habitat remaining are dependent in part on the dispersal 

capabilities of the species associated with that habitat type.

It is assumed that areas that have more POG harvest would have greater effects to these species than 

areas with less POG harvest. It is also assumed that effects to habitat could have less impact to those 

species with greater dispersal ability (black bear) than to those species with more restricted dispersal 

capabilities (insular dusky shrew and ermine). The amount of past harvest may also have a greater 

impact to species with more limited dispersal capabilities, such as the shrew, in areas of concentrated 

harvest, such as WAAs with greater past impact in proximity to each other, or on islands.

Currently, on NFS land, the project area is estimated to have about 814,912 acres of POG. This is 

about 82 percent remaining of the 1954 habitat (996,395 acres). Currently all WAAs have at least 50 

percent of the original POG estimated to be present in 1954.

There are four WAAs that have percentages of POG remaining that are in the range of 50 percent of 

the 1954 habitat: WAA 1003 (59 percent remaining), WAA 1315 (56 percent remaining), WAA 1420 

(56 percent POG remaining), and WAA 1525 (59 percent remaining).

The amount of habitat change determined by research of 30 and 50 percent of the original habitat 

remaining are dependent in part on the dispersal capabilities of the species associated with that habitat 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 181

type. It is assumed that bears would have greater dispersal capabilities than either the ermine or the 

shrew.

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

For this analysis it is assumed that all potential harvest acres are POG acres and all would be clearcut. 

The assumption of all clearcut harvest likely over estimates the effects because the timber analysis 

indicates more helicopter logging (assumed harvest other than clearcut) than tradition harvest 

(assumed clearcut). The assumption that all harvest acres were clearcut was done to display maximum 

effects.

The direct and indirect effects analysis includes NFS land acres only. At the project area scale,

Alternative 2 harvests about 23,269 acres (3 percent of current) of POG, Alternative 3 harvests about 

13,014 acres (2 percent of current), and Alternative 5 about 6,365 acres (1 percent of current). At the 

project area scale, this results in about a total reduction since 1954 of about 21 percent for Alternative 

2, a 20 percent reduction since 1954 in Alternative 3, and about a 19 percent reduction since 1954 for 

Alternative 5. The specific location and amount of harvest in each WAA would be determined during 

implementation and vary by alternative.

Post-project, four WAAs 1003 (40 percent remaining), 1317 (48 percent remaining), 1422 (47 percent 

remaining) and 1525 (33 percent remaining) drop from having more than 50 percent original POG to 

less than 50 percent due to the activities proposed in the POW LLA Project. Two WAAs, WAA 1315 

(28 percent remaining) and WAA 1420 (30 percent remaining), drop from more than 50 percent POG 

remaining to 30 percent or less. WAAs 1315 and 1420 are adjacent to each other. WAA 1315 is also 

adjacent to WAA 1319 (65 percent POG remaining) and WAA 1316 (99 percent POG remaining). 

WAA 1420 is also adjacent to WAA 1421 (67 percent POG remaining) and WAA 1319 (65 percent 

POG remaining).

WAA 1003 includes VCUs that would have legacy structure retention as well as peak flow rate 

mitigation measures. WAAs 1315 and 1420 would receive limited harvest in all alternatives due to 

mitigation measures in Alternative 2 that includes wildlife centric prescriptions within 5 miles of 

subsistence communities, Alternative 3 that includes only 25 percent removal by STS in south-facing 

stands below 800 feet in elevation, and Alternative 5 that does not allow old-growth harvest in southfacing stands below 800 feet in elevation as well as legacy forest structure retention and peak flow 

mitigation measures. WAA 1317 includes measures included in Alternatives 3 and 5 as well as both 

legacy structure retention and peak flow rate measures. WAA 1422 includes measures included in 

Alternative 2 as well as legacy and peak flow rate measures. WAA 1525 includes the measures in 

place in Alternative 2, legacy structure retention, and peak flow rate measures.

The levels of tolerance to habitat change determined by research (see Affected Environment above) of 

30 and 50 percent of the original habitat remaining are dependent in part on the dispersal capabilities 

of the species associated with that habitat type. Species with greater dispersal capabilities such as the 

bear may be less affected by WAAs with less habitat if these areas are adjacent to areas that have 

more habitat. Both reduction in habitat and distance between habitats would likely have a greater 

impact to species with more limited dispersal capabilities such as the shrew and ermine. Species such 

as the shrew and ermine may be impacted even more when areas of past effects are concentrated or on

islands. The fact that WAAs 1315 and 1420 are both effected by habitat loss and are adjacent to each 

may exacerbate the local effects to species like the shrew and ermine.
3 – Environment and Effects

182 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects

Post-project on all lands, WAAs with less than 50 percent of the estimated 1954 POG habitat 

remaining post-project include: WAA 1003 (37 percent), WAA 1106 (48 percent), WAA 1315 (20 

percent), WAA 1317 (42 percent), WAA 1420 (27 percent), WAA 1422 (45 percent), WAA 1525 (21 

percent), WAA 1530 (36 percent), and WAA 1531 (29 percent). These WAAs would have a greater 

effect to POG habitat and associated species such as the black bear relative to WAAs that retain more 

than 50 percent of the estimated original POG habitat.

For WAAs separated by saltwater, even species with higher dispersal capabilities, such as black bear, 

may have a more difficult time dispersing from areas with greater impacts to habitats to areas with 

less impacts. These include WAA 1003, Heceta Island and WAA 1525, southern part of Kosciusko 

Island. WAA 1003 is surrounded by WAAs that retain between 21 and 100 percent of the estimated 

original POG habitat, and WAA 1525 by WAAs that retain between 20 and 100 percent of the 

estimated original POG habitat.

Kosciusko Island consists of two WAAs, WAAs 1525 and 1526. There may be less concern 

associated with the effects in WAA 1525 to both bear and shrew because WAA 1526 is on the same 

island and has 99 percent of estimated original POG remaining. WAA 1106 (48 percent) is Long 

Island but this WAA is surrounded by WAAs retaining between 75 and 99 percent POG habitat.

WAAs 1003, 1317, and 1530 are discussed above in Direct and Indirect effects.

The following WAAs have less than 30 percent of the estimated POG habitat remaining: WAA 1315 

(20 percent); WAA 1420 (27 percent); WAA 1525 (21 percent); and WAA 1531 (29 percent). WAA 

1315 is surrounded by other WAAs that retain between 27 and 99 of the estimated original POG 

habitat; WAA 1420 by WAAs that retain between 20 and 64 percent; and WAA 1525 by other WAAs 

that retain between 29 and 100 percent. WAA 1531 is Tuxekan Island and is surrounded by WAAs

with between 21 and 97 percent.

WAAs with less than 30 percent of the estimated original POG habitat remaining will have the 

greatest impact on species compared to WAAs that retain 30 percent or more POG habitat. These 

WAAs would have a greater negative effect to species associated with this habitat type than WAAs 

that retain more than 30 percent of the original POG habitat.

WAAs 1106 and 1531 do not include any proposed LSTA harvest.

Conclusion

Areas of potential concern, especially for species with more limited dispersal capabilities such as the 

shrew and ermine, would be in areas where POG harvest has been concentrated or on islands. The 

WAAs on islands include WAA 1003, Heceta Island and WAA 1525 on Kosciusko Island. WAA 1003 

includes all of Heceta Island where WAA 1525 is only about half of Kosciusko Island. The other 

portion of Kosciusko Island is WAA 1526 that is designated as LUD II and therefore protected from 

most management activities. Other areas of potential concern may be WAAs 1315, 1317, 1420, and 

1422 on Prince of Wales Island. These WAAs are expected to have less than 50 percent of the original 

POG habitat. WAAs 1315, 1420, 1525, and 1531 are expected to have 30 percent or less of the 

original POG habitat. The effect may be compounded because many of these WAAs are adjacent to 

each other (see WAA map in deep snow habitat section Figure 5).

Bears would be a greatest risk in those WAAs that retain less than 50 percent of estimated original 

POG habitat; on NFS land this would be in WAAs 1003, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1422, 1525, and 1530. 

Cumulatively, the effect to bears would be greatest in the WAAs listed for NFS lands as well as 

WAAs 1106 and 1531. There are 31 WAAs in the project area and cumulatively there would be 9 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 183

WAAs (29 percent of the total number of WAAs) that retain less than the 50 percent threshold for 

bears. Bears are not likely to be limited by their dispersal capabilities and may be more likely to be 

able to move between habitats of lower value to those of higher value.

Shrews would be a greatest risk in those WAAs that retain less than 30 percent of estimated original 

POG habitat; on NFS land this would be in WAA 1315. Cumulatively, the effect to shrew would be 

greatest in the WAA listed for NFS lands as well as WAAs 1420, 1525, and 1531. There are 31 WAAs 

in the project area and cumulatively there would be 4 WAAs (13 percent of the total number of 

WAAs) with less than the 30 percent threshold for shrew. The shrew has more limited dispersal 

capabilities and therefore the reduction in habitat could have a greater impact on this species,

especially as WAAs 1525 and 1531 are islands and WAAs 1315 and 1420 are adjacent to each other.

WAAs that fall below literature thresholds for habitat may not be capable of supporting species that 

depend on that habitat type, and this could lead to local extirpation of species from some areas.

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). The Forest Plan determined that with the conservations strategy in place even with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan it would be expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood to 

maintain viable, well-distributed populations. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan.

POG on the Landscape – Average Snow Deer and Year-round Marten Habitat

Both average snow deer winter habitat and year-round marten habitat are defined as all POG below 

1,500 feet elevation (referred to as average snow habitat). No literary habitat thresholds have been 

identified for deer; 50 percent was used in this analysis.

Coastal habitats and riparian areas, including beach fringe, have the highest habitat value for marten,

followed by upland forested habitats (all POG) below 1,500 feet in elevation (USDA Forest Service 

2008b, p. 3-234).

DeGayner 1997 states that the marten panel (convened for the 1997 Forest Plan) indicated that the 

system of well distributed old-growth reserves was only minimally acceptable for marten. The 

approach was judged to be minimal primarily because the spatial distribution of reserves could allow 

for “gaps” in marten distribution, they defined the spatial scale of a gap to be one vacant marten 

territory. A marten territory was considered to be from one to three square miles. Maintaining POG 

within beach and riparian habitat zones was considered to be important by panel evaluators. A “nocut” 1,000-foot beach fringe was specifically considered to be important because of the highly 

dissected and naturally fragmented nature of forest habitat on islands in Southeast Alaska. Beach 

habitat was generally considered to be more important than altitudinal riparian corridors. Panel 

evaluators indicated that a population can accommodate a certain, but unknown, level of gaps and still 

remain viable. The panel could not, however, identify the threshold of POG remaining at which a 

landscape or a territory would not be suitable for marten reproduction (DeGayner 1997).

In the 1930s, introductions of martens were made by the Alaska Game Commission on Prince of 

Wales Island. This transplantation was made without knowledge of the underlying morphological and 

genetic variation that exists across the region (Elkins and Nelson 1954; Burris and McKnight 1973; 

MacDonald and Cook 1996). Marten populations were thought to not exist on Prince of Wales before 

introductions, but this presumption was questioned due to the rapid increase in numbers on Prince of 

Wales Island following the transplant (Elkins and Nelson 1954). Stone et al. 2002 provided no 

indication that martens existed on Prince of Wales Island prior to the introduction, but this conclusion 
3 – Environment and Effects

184 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

may be premature because it was derived from a mitochondrial gene that may not effectively detect 

genetic swamping.

Marten are absent from stands with less than 30 percent cover, and prefer stands with 50 to 70 percent 

cover (see references in Thompson and Harestad 1994).

The removal of POG features, such as decadent live trees and snags, would reduce the vertical and 

horizontal structural complexity important to marten in relation to prey access, denning and resting 

sites, escape from predation, and thermoregulation (Buskirk and Zielinski 1997; Hargis et al. 1999; 

Flynn and Schumacher 2001).

Thompson and Harestad (1994) used the response of American marten to changes in forest cover at 

the stand level to predict a limit in habitat. Marten are absent from stands with less than 30 percent 

cover, and prefer stands with 50 to 70 percent cover (see references in Thompson and Harestad 1994).

Marten, as a species have a wider dispersal capability compared to other species. The mean minimum 

travel distance for marten is about 8 miles (13 kilometers) (Flynn 1991 as cited in Flynn and 

Schumacher 2001). This research noted that the mean maximum travel distance reported in this study 

was 12 miles (20 kilometers) and that travel distances of up to 39 miles (65 kilometers) has been 

documented. The effects to connectivity and how it relates to marten are addressed in the OGR 

portion of this document.

Deer, especially migratory deer, have the ability to disperse between habitats. On Admiralty Island, 

Schoen et al. 1985 reported a spring dispersal mean distance of 7.7 kilometers (4.7 miles). The 

shortest dispersal distance for a resident deer was 0.3 kilometer (0.6 mile) and the greatest for 

migratory deer was 45 kilometers (28 miles).

Affected Environment

Currently, there are about 750,618 acres of average snow habitat on NFS lands within the project 

area. This is about a 19 percent reduction (81 percent remaining) from 1954.

Currently on NFS lands, all WAAs have at least 50 percent of the original average snow habitat 

remaining.

Environmental Effects

For this analysis it is assumed all old-growth harvest below 1,500 feet is POG and all will be clearcut. 

There are slivers of polygons that are above 1,500 feet but the acreage amount is negligible and likely 

some of the acres are not POG.

Direct and Indirect Effects

At the project area scale, Alternative 2 would have the greatest impact to average snow deer and year 

round marten habitat and would result in about a 3 percent reduction. Alternative 3 would result in 

about a 2 percent reduction, and Alternative 5 about a 1 percent reduction. When compared to 1954 

Alternative 2 would still have about 78 percent of this habitat type remaining; Alternatives 3 and 5 

would have about 79 and 80 percent remaining, respectively.

The WAAs with the greatest impact to average snow habitat are: WAA 1003 (about 39 percent 

remaining), WAA 1315 (about 26 percent remaining), WAA 1317 (about 40 percent remaining), WAA

1420 (about 23 percent remaining), WAA 1422 (44 percent), WAA 1525 (about 32 percent 

remaining), and WAA 1530 (about 40 percent remaining) compared to amount of average snow 

habitat estimated to be present in 1954. WAA 1003 includes VCUs that would have legacy structure 

retention as well as peak flow rate mitigation measures. WAAs 1315 and 1420 would receive limited
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 185

harvest in all alternatives due to mitigation measures in Alternative 2 that includes wildlife centric 

prescriptions for both old and young growth within 5 miles of subsistence communities; Alternative 3 

that includes only 25 percent removal by STS in south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation; and 

Alternative 5 that does not allow old-growth harvest in south-facing stands below 800 feet in 

elevation, as well as legacy forest structure retention and peak flow rate mitigation measures. WAA 

1317 includes the mitigation measures in Alternatives 3 and 5, the legacy structure retention and peak 

flow rate mitigation measures. WAA 1525 includes the measures in place in Alternative 2, legacy 

structure retention and peak flow rate measures. WAA 1530 includes the measures in Alternative 2 as 

well as both legacy and peak flow rate measures. WAA 1531 includes both legacy retention and peak 

flow rate measures.

Implementation of the Legacy Standard and Guideline in many VCUs within WAAs 1315 and 1420 

would also reduce the impacts to average snow habitat. Both WAAs also include peak flow rate 

mitigation measures. WAA 1315 would include no timber harvest on slopes above 800 feet in 

elevation and 29 percent basin area removal below 800 feet in elevation. WAA 1420 could include 45 

percent basin area removal below 800 feet in elevation and 20 percent basin area removal above 800 

feet in elevation.

WAAs with effects to average snow habitat that drop below 50 percent habitat remaining that are 

adjacent to each other could result in a greater effect relative to WAAs with less effect or WAAs with 

a similar effect but that are surrounded by WAAs with less effect. Both deer (especially migratory) 

and marten have greater dispersal capabilities relative to many other species and therefore may be 

more capable of moving between habitats.

Effects to marten that rely on average snow habitat would be greatest in those WAAs with less than 

30 percent of the estimated original habitat remaining; on NFS lands only WAAs 1315 and 1420 are

estimated to drop below 30 percent habitat remaining. According to research by Thompson and 

Harestad (1994) marten may become absent from these areas.

Overall there are 7 WAAs that are estimated to retain less than 50 percent habitat or 22 percent of the 

total WAAs in the project area; two of these seven WAAs are expected to drop to less than 30 percent 

average winter habitat remaining, or about 6 percent of the total WAAs in the project area.

The mitigation measures, such as the Legacy Standard and Guideline, peak flow rate measures, and 

harvest restrictions, implemented in the WAAs with average snow habitat concerns help to offset 

concerns for the species associated with this habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Currently on lands in all ownership the POW LLA Project has about 874,594 acres of average snow

habitat, about 80 percent of the estimated 1954 acres.

WAAs where the percentage of remaining estimated average snow habitat is likely a concern includes 

WAA 1003 (35 percent remaining), WAA 1106 (48 percent remaining), WAA 1214 (49 percent 

remaining), WAA 1315 (19 percent remaining), WAA 1317 (34 percent remaining), WAA 1318 (33 

percent remaining), WAA 1420 (20 percent remaining), WAA 1422 (42 percent remaining), WAA 

1525 (21 percent remaining), WAA 1527 (40 percent remaining), WAA 1530 (36 percent remaining),

and WAA 1531 (29 percent remaining). This analysis assumed that the effect to species could be 

greater if impacted WAAs are adjacent to each other or on islands; both would be assumed to limit 

dispersal. Cumulatively 12 WAAs in the project area, or about 38 percent of all the WAAs in the 

project area, are expected to drop to below 50 percent of the original average snow habitat remaining.
3 – Environment and Effects

186 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

See discussion above for effects in WAAs on islands (1003, 1106, 1525, and 1531) and WAAs that are 

adjacent to other WAAs. WAAs 1315 and 1317 are separated by the Karta Wilderness (WAA 1316) 

with 99 percent of the POG remaining. WAA 1315 is also adjacent to WAA 1319 with 74 percent of 

the estimated original habitat remaining and WAA 1316.

WAAs with less than 30 percent of original average snow habitat remaining are: WAA 1315 (19 

percent remaining), WAA 1420 (20 percent remaining), WAA 1525 (21 percent remaining), and WAA

1531 (29 percent remaining). WAAs 1315 and 1420 are adjacent to each other but both WAAs have 

additional mitigation on old-growth harvest (average snow habitat) on NFS lands in Alternatives 2, 3,

and 5, as well as both the legacy structure retention and peak flow rate mitigation measures. WAA 

1525 includes harvest restrictions in Alternative 2, and both the legacy retention guideline and peak 

flow rate measures. WAA 1531 includes both the legacy retention guideline and the peak flow rate

measures.

See direct and indirect effects for discussion on WAAs 1315 and 1420. Even though the Forest 

Service has no control over the harvest on non-NFS lands, harvest mitigation measures on adjacent 

NFS lands could help to offset some of the effects on non-NFS lands. WAA 1003 includes VCUs that 

on NFS lands would require the Forest Plan Legacy Standard and Guideline be applied as well as 

peak flow rate mitigation measures. WAA 1317 includes the Legacy Standard and Guideline 

mitigation (all alternatives) as well as for peak flow rate (Alternatives 3 and 5). In WAA 1422 harvest 

on NFS lands includes harvest limitation measures included in Alternative 2 and both the legacy

retention and peak flow rate mitigation measures. WAA 1525 includes measures included in 

Alternative 2, legacy retention and peak flow rate measures. WAAs 1106, 1211, 1214, 1318, 1332, 

and 1527 all include measures covered in Alternatives 3 and 5; however, on NFS lands these WAAs 

are retain at least 56 percent of the estimated original average snow habitat.

Activities on non-NFS lands that would contribute to the cumulative effects include the State of 

Alaska proposal to harvest about 530 acres, the University of Alaska proposal to harvest about 23

MMBF over the next 5 years, the Alaska Mental Health harvest, and the ANCSA Admiralty Island 

Land Exchange Finalization Act of 2017 and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Improvement Act 

of 2017. This proposes a land exchange between the Sealaska Corporation and the Forest Service. 

The lands in the proposed legislation to be acquired by or exchanged to Sealaska is about 14,017 

acres and located in Cholmondeley Sound between Lancaster Cove and Kitkun Bay. It can be 

assumed that most of these activities would include the harvest of POG acres. See Appendix C for 

present and reasonably foreseeable future activities.

Conclusion

Overall effects to average snow habitat and associated species on NFS lands lead to concerns in 

WAAs 1003, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1422, 1525, and 1530 due to habitat loss compared to other WAAs 

that retain more than 50 percent of estimated 1954 average snow habitat. Of the WAAs with less than 

50 percent habitat remaining, WAAs 1315 and 1420 (6 percent of project area WAAs) have less than 

30 percent average snow habitat remaining. WAAs with less than 30 percent average snow habitat 

may not be capable of providing habitat for marten.

Cumulatively, 12 WAAs in the project area, or about 38 percent of all the WAAs in the project area, 

are expected to drop to below 50 percent of the original average snow habitat remaining. 

Cumulatively, 4 of the 12 WAAs, or 13 percent of the total WAAs, drop below 30 percent average 

snow habitat remaining and may not be capable of providing habitat for marten.

Overall effects to average snow habitat and associated species would likely be mitigated due to the 

fact that marten and deer habitat is supported by the conservation strategy to maintain mature forest 

cover and coarse woody debris to provide structure important to marten for resting, denning, escape 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 187

from predators, trapping refugia, and facilitate marten dispersal. In addition to the functional 

connectivity across the landscape provided by the reserve system and old-growth forest in the matrix, 

connectivity between reserves for marten is also provided by structural elements of the Forest Plan

conservation strategy, including the stream, estuary, lake and beach buffers.

The mitigation measures implemented on NFS lands in the WAAs that with less than 30 or 50 percent 

habitat remaining increase the likelihood that these WAAs would continue to support deer and 

marten, both species with greater than dispersal capabilities. Mitigation measures for all WAAs with 

concern here are discussed above in effects to other habitat.

The mean minimum travel distance documented for marten was about 8 miles (13 kilometers)

reported by Flynn (1991 as cited in Flynn and Schumacher 2001); therefore, the effects to average 

snow habitat may have less of an impact to marten because they could travel between areas of greater 

impact to those with less impact. Marten populations are supported by the conservation strategy to 

maintain mature forest cover and coarse woody debris to provide structure important to marten for 

resting, denning, escape from predators, trapping refugia, and facilitate marten dispersal. The Forest 

Plan conservation strategy as a whole will continue to be critical in maintaining a sustainable marten 

population. In addition to the functional connectivity across the landscape provided by the reserve 

system and old-growth forest in the matrix, connectivity between reserves for marten is also provided 

by structural elements of the Forest Plan conservation strategy, including the stream, estuary, lake, 

and beach buffers.

Deer, especially migratory deer, have the ability to disperse between habitats. Schoen et al. 1985 

reported a spring dispersal mean distance of 7.7 kilometers (4.7 miles) for deer; therefore, the effects 

to average snow habitat may have less of an impact to deer, especially migratory, because they could 

travel between areas of greater impact to those with less impact.

The mitigation measures implemented in the WAAs with habitat concerns increase the likelihood that 

these WAAs would continue to support deer and marten, both species with less limited dispersal 

capabilities; but it is acknowledged that cumulatively, 4 of the 12 WAAs, or 13 percent of the total 

WAAs, drop below 30 percent average snow habitat remaining and may not be capable of providing 

habitat for marten.

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). The Forest Plan determined that with the conservations strategy in place even with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan it would be expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood 

maintain viable, well-distributed populations. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan.

Percentage of POG by VCU – Forest Plan Legacy Standard and Guideline

The Forest Plan Legacy Standard and Guideline evolved from considerations presented at the 

Interagency Conservation Strategy Review workshop (USDA Forest Service 2007a) and replaced 

species-specific goshawk foraging and marten standards and guidelines. It applies to those Value 

Comparison Units (VCU) that have had or are anticipated to have high levels of old-growth harvest 

timber harvest with openings greater than 20 acres in size.

VCUs are generally representative of the size of smaller scales of habitat selection within a goshawk 

home range. Goshawks are discussed in more detail in the Biological Evaluation. Marten are 

discussed in the average snow habitat section (above) and in the deep snow habitat section (below).
3 – Environment and Effects

188 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

An interagency assessment (The Conservation Assessment for the Northern Goshawk in Southeast 

Alaska, Iverson et al. 1996) defined three categories related to the likelihood of the VCU continuing 

to support goshawks. These categories are: 1) less than 33 percent POG harvest (high likelihood that 

the VCUs will continue to support goshawks); 2) 33 to 47 percent POG harvest (there is a slightly 

increased risk that these VCUs will not support goshawks); and 3) greater than 47 percent (there is an 

increased risk that these VCUs will not support goshawks). Exceeding the 33 percent harvest does not 

necessarily mean that these VCUs are incapable of supporting goshawks, only that there is an 

increased risk in these areas.

The Forest Plan lists the following VCUs as having more than 33 percent of the POG harvested:

5320, 5350, 5371, 5380, 5390, 5440, 5450, 5460, 5500, 5542, 5550, 5560, 5570, 5580, 5590, 5600, 

5610, 5620, 5700, 5710, 5720, 5790, 5810, 5830, 5840, 5850, 5860, 5871, 5872, 5880, 5900, 5972, 

6100, 6200, 6210, and 6240. The Legacy Standard and Guideline will be applied in these VCUs in all 

alternatives.

All VCUs with proposed activities would be verified during project-specific implementation to 

determine if the Legacy Standard and Guideline applies based on the Forest Plan criteria. During 

project implementation, if proposed activities would cause a VCU to exceed the legacy limit, then the 

Legacy Standard and Guideline will be applied in that VCU. A project could also be modified so that 

proposed activities do not cause the VCU to exceed the 33 percent original POG harvest limit. The 

Legacy Standard and Guideline only applies to old-growth harvest on NFS land.

Affected Environment

Implementation of the Legacy Standard and Guideline is intended to provide for the habitat needs of 

marten and goshawk. Although the Legacy Standard and Guideline is applied at the VCU scale for 

this analysis, the percent POG harvested was also calculated at the WAA scale. VCUs are a subset of 

WAAs and a single WAA usually contains multiple VCUs. For this analysis, the percent POG was 

also calculated at the WAA scale. WAAs with habitat concerns were then tied to legacy VCUs. Most 

WAAs with concerns, subsistence and habitat, include legacy VCUs and legacy structure retention 

can be used as a mitigation measure in these WAAs.

Calculations were done by VCU to determine the acreage remaining that could be harvested before 

implementation of the Legacy Standard and Guideline would be required (see project record for 

spreadsheet). That spreadsheet also includes the current percent harvest of POG by VCU. This 

recalculation showed three VCUs, 6770, 5980 and 6130, not listed in the Forest Plan as currently 

having more than 33 percent POG harvest and thus requiring the Legacy Standard and Guideline.

See Table 39: VCUs that currently have more than 33 percent POG harvest. There is a slightly 

increased risk that these VCUs will not support goshawks. Included in this table are the VCUs that 

currently have more than 47 percent POG harvest where there is an increased risk that these VCUs 

will not support goshawks.

Proposed POG harvest in the POW LLA Project could result in VCUs that currently have less than 33 

percent POG harvest and therefore have a high likelihood to continue to support goshawks, moving 

into the category with more than 33 percent POG harvest which has a slightly increased risk of not 

being able to support goshawks. As a result of the POW LLA Project, it is also possible that VCUs 

that currently have more than 33 percent POG harvest but less than 47 percent POG harvest could 

move into the greater than 33 percent POG harvest category. These VCUs would be at an increased 

risk for not being able to support goshawks.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 189

Table 39. VCUs that currently have had more than 33 percent POG harvest

VCU % POG harvested Location Comments

5320 53 Red Bay Not adjacent 

5350 37 Salmon Bay Adjacent to 5380 and 5390

5371 46 Twin Island lake Adjacent to 5380 and 5500

5380 68 Twin Island lake Adjacent to 5371 and 5500

5390 38 Salmon Bay Adjacent to 5350 and 5380

5440 43 Kosciusko Not adjacent

5460 37 Kosciusko Adjacent to 5450

5500 51 Neck Lake Adjacent to 5371 and 5380

5550 37 Marble Not adjacent

5580 45 Heceta Adjacent to other VCUs on Heceta

5590 41 Heceta Adjacent to other VCUs on Heceta

5610 39 Heceta Adjacent to other VCUs on Heceta

5620 41 Heceta Adjacent to other VCUs on Heceta

5700 75 Heceta Adjacent to other VCUs on Heceta

5710 44 Naukati Adjacent to 5871, 5880 and 5900

5770 39 Logjam Adjacent to 5710 and 5880

5790 62 N. Thorne Adjacent to 5810, 5830, 5840, 5850 and 5860

5810 51 Luck Lake See 5790; Adjacent to 5720

5830 45 Big Lake See 5790

5840 43 Ratz See 5790

5850 62 Sandy Beach See 5790

5860 59 Thorne Bay See 5790

5871 41 Staney Adjacent to 5710, 5872, 5880 and 5900

5880 53 Staney See 5871

5900 41 Election Creek See 5871

5972 36 Rio Roberts Adjacent to 5980

5980 40 Salt Chuck Adjacent to 5860 and 5972

6100 43 Maybeso Experimental Forest

6130 36 Little Coal Bay Adjacent to 6210

6210 37 Twelvemile Adjacent to 6130

6240 36 Trocadero Adjacent to 6210

Note: VCUs 5450, 5542, 5600, 5720, 5872, and 6200 are not included in this table because the POW LLA does not include 

proposed timber activities in these VCUs.

VCUs 5450, 5542, 5560, 5570, 5600, 5672, 5872, and 6200 are all VCUs with more than 33 percent 

POG harvest but the POW LLA Project does not propose any activities in these VCUs.

Although the Legacy Standard and Guideline is applied at the VCU scale for this analysis, the percent 

POG harvested was also calculated at the WAA scale. VCUs are a subset of WAAs and a single WAA 

usually contains multiple VCUs. For this analysis, the percent POG was also calculated at the WAA 

scale. WAAs with habitat concerns were then tied to legacy VCUs. Most WAAs with concerns, 

subsistence and habitat, include legacy VCUs and legacy structure retention can be used as a 

mitigation measure in these WAAs.
3 – Environment and Effects

190 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

At the WAA scale, currently eight WAAs have had more than 33 percent of the estimated original 

POG harvested and one WAA (1531) is very close at minus 33 percent. WAA 1003 (-39 percent), 

WAA 1315 (-43 percent), WAA 1317 (-33 percent), WAA 1420 (-44 percent), 1422 (-37 percent), 

WAA 1525 (-38 percent) and 1530 (-38 percent). All WAAs with more than 33 percent POG harvest 

contain VCUs where the Legacy Standard and Guideline would be applied. There are five additional 

WAAs that contain legacy VCUs, even though the overall WAA does not exceed 33 percent harvest: 

WAAs 1214, 1319, 1332, 1527, and 1529.

At the WAA scale in all WAAs where a potential concern may exist for marten (see average and deep 

snow habitat discussions), the Legacy Standard and Guideline would be applied within at least some 

of the VCUs within that WAA. The application of the Legacy Standard and Guideline will help to 

mitigate further habitat loss that could locally reduce the capacity of the area to support marten over 

the long-term (Flynn and Schumacher 1997).

Tolerance to Habitat Changes at Stand Level

The Legacy Standard and Guideline evolved from considerations presented at the Interagency 

Conservation Strategy Review workshop (USDA Forest Service 2007) and replaced species-specific 

goshawk foraging standards and guidelines (Forest Plan FEIS Appendix D p. D-16).

Penteriani and Faivre (2001) examined goshawk (Accipiter gentiles) nesting patterns at the stand level 

in two European areas, focusing on the effects of harvesting activity and reduction in forest cover on 

occupancy rate, productivity, and number of young per breeding pair. The authors were interested in 

whether limits in nesting patterns would occur as a result of progressive thinning of the forest 

(removal of 10 percent, 20 percent, 20 percent, 20 percent in four passes) and clearcutting activities 

(removing the final 30 percent of stand) spaced over 10 to 15 years. In this study, site fidelity 

remained strong if the harvest level does not exceed 30 percent; however, after removal of 50 percent 

of the stand no nesting pairs remained. The authors therefore conclude that goshawks in these habitats 

can tolerate some degree of timber harvesting within nesting stands, up to 30 percent removal (the 

level of removal at which nesting pairs are last observed) (Penteriani and Faivre 2001).

Research in British Columbia suggests that landscapes should be managed to retain at least 40 to 50 

percent mature old-growth forest (POG) to provide adequate nesting and foraging habitat for Queen 

Charlotte goshawks (Doyle 2005, Northern Goshawk Recovery Team 2008). The least amount of 

remaining productive old-growth within any goshawk use area (home range of 10,000 acres) reported 

in the Goshawk Assessment (Iverson et al. 1996) was 23 percent. Iverson 1997 states that while the 

1995 panel identified 20 percent of the productive old growth harvested as a threshold level where 

excessive amounts of the least valuable early seral forest created local persistence and viability 

concerns, the 1997 panel did not make any conclusions regarding harvest thresholds due to the lack of 

information and other uncertainty. The panel also stated that “allowable” thresholds of the amount of 

early seral forests in the landscape, although unspecified, were relatively low. The panel also found 

that the value of mature stand structure than can develop between 100 and 200 years, some panel 

evaluators suggested that these stands might even be superior to old growth relative to goshawk 

habitat use, or at least the difference between the two stand ages was insignificant. The 1995 panel 

the earlier panel indicated that a system of large and medium reserves and a 100-year rotation in the 

matrix was likely to result in some gaps between reserves, but they did not specifically address 

whether or not this habitat situation represented a well distributed, viable goshawk population

(Iverson 1997). The 1997 evaluators concluded that there was virtually no chance of extirpation of the 

goshawk from the Tongass National Forest as a result of implementation of any of the 1997 Forest 

Plan alternatives.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 191

Iverson (1997) also states that the 1995 panel found that at the VCU scale, a single gap, even if 

permanent, might exist in goshawk distribution and it may not be well distributed, but it was unlikely 

to be significant since the population would continue to be able to interact, and thus remain viable.

Gaps to preclude population interaction would have to be very large (e.g., province scale) to be 

significant given the large movement capabilities of goshawks. Some panel evaluators suggested that 

goshawks might no longer occur on the northern half of Prince of Wales Island and thus the 

population would no longer be well distributed – but this may not affect population viability 

throughout Southeast Alaska. As in the 1995 panel, evaluators generally concluded that the Southeast 

Alaska population was not a sink population. Panel evaluators strongly indicated their belief that 

goshawks in Southeast Alaska were likely food-limited. This conclusion emphasized the need to 

maintain habitat to support prey production and goshawk foraging. Nesting habitat was not 

considered limiting by panel evaluators (Iverson 1997).

Timber harvest, and subsequent lack of habitat, could increase competition by other raptors, increase 

predation, reduce life expectancy, and reduce nesting success. Research in British Columbia suggests 

that landscapes should be managed to retain at least 40 to 50 percent mature old-growth forest (POG) 

to provide adequate nesting and foraging habitat for Queen Charlotte goshawks (Doyle 2005, 

Northern Goshawk Recovery Team 2008). This is not a requirement nor a recommendation included 

in the 2016 Forest Plan. The least amount of remaining productive old-growth (general POG not 

nesting or foraging habitat) within any goshawk use area (home range of 10,000 acres) reported in the 

Goshawk Assessment (Iverson et al. 1996) was 23 percent.

Effects to goshawk habitat are covered in more detail in the BA/BE.

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

All action alternatives depending on the location of old-growth harvest could result in VCUs 

exceeding the 33 percent POG harvest value and thereby require the implementation of the Legacy

Standard and Guideline in those VCUs. The project record contains a list of VCUs and the acreage 

available for harvest by VCU before the Legacy Standard and Guideline would be implemented.

The Forest Plan Legacy Standard and Guideline evolved from considerations presented at the 

Interagency Conservation Strategy Review workshop (USDA Forest Service 2007a) and replaced 

species-specific goshawk foraging and marten standards and guidelines. It applies to those Value 

Comparison Units (VCU) that have had or are anticipated to have high levels of old-growth harvest 

timber harvest with openings greater than 20 acres in size.

VCUs are generally representative of the size of smaller scales of habitat selection within a goshawk 

home range. Goshawks are discussed in more detail in the Biological Evaluation. Marten are 

discussed in the average snow habitat section (above) and in the deep snow habitat section (below).

All VCUs with proposed activities would be verified during project-specific implementation to 

determine if the Legacy Standard and Guideline applies based on the Forest Plan criteria. During 

project implementation, if proposed activities would cause a VCU to exceed the legacy limit, then the 

Legacy Standard and Guideline will be applied in that VCU. A project could also be modified so that 

proposed activities do not cause the VCU to exceed the 33 percent original POG harvest limit. The 

Legacy Standard and Guideline only applies to old-growth harvest on NFS land.
3 – Environment and Effects

192 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects

The Legacy Standard and Guideline does not apply on non-NFS lands. Therefor it is assumed that no 

legacy structure will be maintained on non-NFS lands. This could result in these areas not being able 

to support goshawks.

Conclusion

The amount of past POG harvest by VCU would be recalculated at project implementation to see if 

proposed activities would result in the VCU exceeding 33 percent POG harvest; if so, the Legacy

Standard and Guideline would be applied.

In VCUs with more than 33 percent POG harvest on NFS lands, there would be an increased risk of 

not being able to support goshawks.

Both marten (see average snow habitat discussion) and goshawk are species with relatively high 

dispersal capabilities. These species are more likely to be able to move between habitats of greater 

impact to those of lesser impacts. At the WAA scale, all WAAs with more than 33 percent POG 

harvest include legacy VCUs. Three WAAs (not VCUs) with more than 33 percent original POG 

harvest, WAAs 1315, 1317 and 1420, are also WAAs where additional mitigation measures would be 

implemented to address subsistence concerns. Both the Legacy Standard and Guideline and the 

harvest limitations proposed in all alternatives should help to mitigate impacts to goshawks and 

marten by retaining forest structure within the matrix. See discussion above (average snow habitat) 

and below (deep snow habitat) for more on effects to marten habitat and the BA/BE for more on 

effects to goshawk habitat.

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). The Forest Plan determined that with the conservations strategy in place even with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan it would be expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood 

maintain viable, well-distributed populations. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008

Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan.

High Volume POG (HPOG)

Several wildlife species are associated with HPOG habitat including the goshawk (Reynolds et al.

2006, Boyce et al. 2006), marbled murrelet (DeGange 1996; Kuletz et al. 1995; Ralph and Miller 

1995), the endemic Prince of Wales flying squirrel (Pyare et al. 2010), and Prince of Wales spruce 

grouse (Russell 1999). Deer and marten use HPOG habitat tied to specific locations on the landscape. 

This habitat is defined as deep snow deer and marten habitat, HPOG below 800 feet elevation in 

south facing stands (2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS p. 3-270).

Appendix B (pp. B-25 and B-26) of the Forest Plan FEIS explains how HPOG and SD67 are 

calculated for 1954 on both NFS and non-NFS lands. To estimate original high volume and large-tree 

POG, an estimate was first made of the percentage of past harvest in these categories using the 

SizeDensity1954 layer, which was based on timber type mapping from the mid-1980s and other GIS 

layers. The following compositions of harvest were conservatively determined for NFS and non-NFS 

lands:

• For NFS lands, prior harvest was estimated to have been 30 percent large-tree POG and 75 

percent high-volume POG.

• For non-NFS lands, prior harvest was estimated to have been 37 percent large-tree POG and 65 

percent high-volume POG.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 193

Goshawk

Goshawk is also discussed above under legacy and in more detail in the Biological Evaluation 

included in the project record.

Conservation measures for the goshawk include nest buffer and Legacy Forest Structure Standard and 

Guideline under the Forest Plan. The system of OGRs and other non-development LUDs also 

maintain habitat for goshawks. Smith (2013) expressed some uncertainty with respect to the ability of 

Forest Plan conservation measures to contribute sufficient habitat to sustain well-distributed, viable 

populations of northern goshawks throughout Southeast Alaska. The conservation strategy is expected 

to maintain viable, well-distributed populations across the Forest, even with full implementation of 

the Forest Plan’s expected harvest levels. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, including assumptions underlying the design of the old growth reserve (OGR) system, refer 

to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS,

and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan FEIS.

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). Therefore, there will be no change to the functioning of this contributing element of the 

Conservation Strategy (2016 Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix D).

Individual activities would be required to conduct goshawk surveys and implement the goshawk 

standards and guidelines, which would minimize impacts to this species at the project level. For these 

reasons, the Forest Plan Amendment (all alternatives considered) may impact individuals but would 

not result in loss of viability of this species or a trend toward federal listing.

Marbled Murrelets

Marbled murrelets are widely distributed across marine waters in Southeast Alaska. They spend the 

majority of their lives at sea, but travel inland up to 50 miles to nest in old-growth forest stands (Piatt 

et al. 2007). Marbled murrelets typically nest on mossy-limbed branches of large, mature coniferous 

trees within stands of structurally complex, coastal high-volume old-growth forest (DeGange 1996; 

Kuletz et al. 1995; Ralph and Miller 1995). Timber harvest, through the removal of POG forest, can 

directly remove nest trees, and also increases habitat fragmentation and associated edge effects, such 

as increased rates of nest predation (Andren 1994; Chalfoun et al. 2002).

Prince of Wales Flying Squirrel

The Prince of Wales flying squirrel (G. s. griseifrons) is an endemic of Prince of Wales Island (POW) 

and nearby islands off POW’s western coast (Dall, Long, Kosciusko, Tuxekan; MacDonald and Cook 

1999). The entire geographic range of this unique subspecies is limited to POW and these associated 

islands. This subspecies has the lowest genetic diversity of all northern flying squirrels in North 

America (Bidlack and Cook 2001). Consequently, it is especially vulnerable to inbreeding with 

significant additional negative demographic consequences for isolated populations that currently exist 

(Smith et al. 2011) and become isolated as a result of further habitat loss and fragmentation across its 

range.

Smith (2013) determined that to sustain isolated breeding populations for an extended period (50 

years) with a high probability (0.95), old-growth reserves need to be over 5,000 hectares (12,500 

acres) in size and be 100 percent POG; the existing small OGRs (designed for flying squirrels; USDA 

Forest Service 1997) have about an 80 percent probability of supporting flying squirrel populations 

for 50 years (Smith and Person 2007). Smith 2013 also determined that there are few (if any) OGRs 

or any POG habitat patches (except Honker Divide) in the project area that likely can support POW 

flying squirrel populations in isolation (Smith et al. 2011).
3 – Environment and Effects

194 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Prince of Wales flying squirrels are limited by their habitat requirements and dispersal capabilities.

An experimental study demonstrated that it takes POW flying squirrels 10 times more time to move 

through clearcuts than POG (Smith et al. 2011),

Smith et al. (2011) suggests spacing small OGRs at a maximum distance of about 0.6 mile (1 

kilometer). Prince of Wales flying squirrel is capable of crossing open areas such as meadows or 

riparian zones; however, this subspecies has a limited gliding range of approximately 250 feet 

(Flaherty et al. 2008).

Fragmentation resulting from timber harvest has the potential to reduce the value of residual patches 

of old growth in the matrix if they become isolated from adjacent patches either by distance or habitat 

type (young growth). The duration of reduced habitat suitability following timber harvest depends in 

part on the time required for harvested stands to regenerate. Habitat suitability for flying squirrels 

would be expected to return more quickly under uneven-aged management (about 10 to 20 years), 

where some forest cover and structure are retained in the stand, than under even-aged management (in 

60 or more years; Smith and Holloway 2011). Mikusinski and Angelstram 2000 found, at the scale of 

about 19 by 19 miles, a habitat threshold of about 15 percent habitat remaining for squirrels while 

Angelstram 2001b found, at a smaller scale of about 2 by 2 miles, a habitat threshold of 70 percent

remaining.

Prince of Wales Spruce Grouse

Prince of Wales spruce grouse are associated with microhabitats within POG forests. Spruce grouse 

have a dispersal distance of about 1 mile (Russell 1999). The Forest Plan conservation strategy 

maintains connectivity within matrix lands that will help facilitate dispersal and interchange between 

isolated spruce grouse populations.

Prince of Wales spruce grouse avoid young (less than 5 years) clearcuts due to large amounts of 

debris that inhibit movement, increased exposure to predators, and lack of food; however, as the 

understory vegetation peaks after 15 to 25 years, grouse likely benefit from increased berry 

production and cover for chicks (Russell 1999).

Research on grouse (Angelstam 2001b) indicated a habitat threshold of about 70 percent while 

Angelstam 2001 showed a habitat threshold of about 16 percent for black grouse and 30 percent for 

Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus).

Affected Environment

National Forest System lands in the POW LLA project area were estimated to have about 560,671 

acres of HPOG in 1954. Currently NFS lands in the project area is estimated to have about 379,176 

acres of HPOG, about 68 percent remaining.

Six WAAs in the POW LLA project area are currently at 50 percent or less of the original HPOG 

habitat remaining: WAA 1003 (47 percent remaining), 1315 (35 percent remaining), 1420 (39 percent 

remaining), 1421 (50 percent remaining), 1422 (43 percent remaining), and 1530 (32 percent 

remaining). Three additional WAAs are nearing the 50 percent trigger point: 1317 (52 percent 

remaining), 1525 (54 percent remaining), and 1531 (52 percent remaining).

All of the WAAs in the POW LLA project area currently have at least 20 percent or more of the 

estimated original HPOG habitat remaining.

All WAAs with current HPOG habitat concerns are adjacent to at least one other WAA with HPOG 

concerns or are on islands thereby potentially having a greater effect to species with more limited 

dispersal capabilities.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 195

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

HPOG habitat is assumed for analysis to be proportional to the total POG harvest; HPOG currently 

makes up about 47 percent of the POG on NFS lands in the project area. Therefore, if 100 acres of 

harvest is projected, it is assumed that 47 acres of that will be HPOG habitat.

As a result of the proposed activities the POG acres may be reduced to about 317, 658 acres. At the 

project area scale this is about 90 percent of the current amount and about 60 percent of the HPOG 

estimated in the project area in 1954.

Research from the Queen Charlotte Islands and elsewhere in western North America suggests that 

landscapes consisting of 40 to 60 percent mature or old forest (POG and mature second-growth) are 

favored by goshawks for foraging and nesting (Reynolds et al. 1992, Finn et al. 2002, Doyle 2005). If 

timber harvest reduces the proportion of the landbase consisting of POG and mature second-growth 

forest to below 50 percent this could result in portions of the landscape becoming marginal or 

unsuitable for goshawks. Therefore, alternatives that harvest the most POG, and reduce the proportion 

of the landscape consisting of mature and old-growth forest to below 50 percent, would be expected 

to have the greatest effect on goshawks.

For the species listed under HPOG the effects would be expected to be less as a result of uneven-aged

harvest (squirrels- Smith and Holloway 2011) rather than even-aged harvest. The uneven-aged harvest 

of old-growth stands could be especially beneficial in WAAs that have a high percentage of past 

harvest, such as WAAs that currently have less than 50 percent of the estimated original HPOG 

habitat remaining.

Post activities nine WAAs are projected to retain 50 percent or less of the estimated original HPOG 

habitat: WAA 1003 (34 percent), WAA 1315 (14 percent), WAA 1317 (40 percent), WAA 1420 (22 

percent), WAA 1421 (44 percent), WAA 1422 (32 percent), WAA 1524 (37 percent), WAA 1530 (13 

percent), and WAA 1531 (41 percent). This is about 28 percent of the total WAAs in the project area.

Literature has identified a range of thresholds for squirrels from 15 to 30 percent; and for grouse a 

range of 15, 30, or 70 percent remaining habitat.

WAAs with at least 70 percent HPOG habitat remaining on NFS lands after implementation of the 

POW LLA Project include WAAs 901 (83 percent), 902 (100 percent), 1105 (99 percent), 1106 (100 

percent), 1107 (96 percent), 1108 (99 percent), 1209 (100 percent), 1210 (99 percent), 1211 (81 

percent), 1212 ( 99 percent), 1213 (97 percent), 1316 (99 percent), 1318 (74 percent), 1323 (86 

percent), 1524 (100 percent), 1526 (86 percent), and 5015 (100 percent). This is 17 WAAs or 53 

percent of the WAAs in the project area.

WAAs with between 30 and 70 percent HPOG habitat remaining on NFS lands after implementation 

of the POW LLA Project include WAAs 1003 (34 percent remaining), 1214 (56 percent), 1317 (40 

percent remaining), 1319 (52 percent), 1332 (61 percent), 1421 (50 percent remaining), 1422 (32

percent remaining), 1525 (37 percent remaining), 1528 (67 percent), 1529 (64 percent) and 1531 (41 

percent remaining). This is about 34 percent of the WAAs in the project area.

As a result of the proposed activities, one WAA is estimated to have between 20 and 30 percent of the 

original HPOG habitat remaining: 1420 (22 percent remaining), or about 3 percent of the WAAs in 

the project area.
3 – Environment and Effects

196 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

WAAs with less than 15 percent HPOG habitat remaining include WAAs 1315 (14 percent remaining) 

and 1530 (13 percent remaining), which is about 6 percent of the WAAs in the project area.

Alternative 2 is estimated to harvest about 57 percent of the total acres by uneven-aged harvest 

prescriptions, Alternative 3 about 75 percent, and Alternative 5 about 33 percent; see Table 38 for 

Overall Comparison of Harvest by Alternative.

Table 40. Estimated effects to HPOG on NFS lands by for all Alternatives by WAA*

Current Post Project

WAA HPOG 1954 HPOG 

Existing

% 

remaining

Estimated

POW LLA

HPOG ac

harvested

Estimated

POW LLA

HPOG ac postharvest

% remaining

from current

% remaining 

of 1954 post 

project

1003 24,215 11,396 47 3,142 8,254 72 34

1315 23,354 8,181 35 4,837 3,344 41 14

1317 21,037 10,988 52 2,615 8,373 76 40

1420 20,403 8,032 39 3,467 4,565 57 22

1421 31,937 15,832 50 1,652 14,180 90 44

1422 54,172 23,413 43 5,931 17,482 75 32

1525 18,949 10,311 54 3,217 7,094 68 37

1530 19,662 6,279 32 3,758 2,521 40 13

1531 10,497 5,415 52 1,079 4,336 80 41

*WAAs not included in the Table have 55 percent or more of the original habitat remaining

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 will have no direct effect to HPOG habitat at any scale.

Alternative 2, 3, and 5

All alternatives would result in about a 3 percent reduction in HPOG at the project area scale.

WAAs with HPOG habitat concerns include 1003, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1530, and 

1531.

Alternative 2 includes uneven-aged harvest prescriptions for harvest activities within 5 miles of 

subsistence communities (WAAs 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530); so this 

would occur in all WAAs with HPOG concerns except WAAs 1003 and 1531.

Under Alternatives 3 and 5, all WAAs with HPOG concerns would receive at least one form of 

mitigation.

In Alternative 3, WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the of the estimated DHC would 

only have 25 percent removal by single-tree selection (STS) for old-growth harvest on south-facing 

stands below 800 feet in elevation. This would occur in WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420. All 

of these WAAs except 1318 are also on the list of areas where more than 50 percent of the original 

HPOG has been harvested. Alternative 3 also includes the portions of the Interagency Wolf Habitat 

Management Program recommendations (see the beginning of Issue 5).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 197

Alternative 3 includes Legacy Standard and Guideline in VCUs within WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 

1420, 1422, 1525, and 1530. Alternative 3 also includes peak flow rate mitigation measures in WAAs 

1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1530, and 1531.

Alternative 5 proposes no harvest on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation in WAAs 1214, 

1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420. All of these WAAs except 1318 are also on the list of areas where more 

than 50 percent of the original HPOG has been harvested. Alternative 5 incorporates the Wolf Plan in 

its entirety (see project record).

Alternatives 3 and 5 propose about four times the amount of uneven-aged harvest compared clearcut

harvest acres. Uneven-aged harvest acres are assumed to have less of an effect to HPOG habitat and

the species associated than clearcut harvest acres.

Under Alternatives 3 and 5 WAAs that also include peak flow rate mitigations that are implemented 

when more than 20 percent of watershed in roads. The peak flow rate mitigation measures would be 

included in WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530. The peak flow rate

mitigation measures include would no timber harvest on slopes above 800 feet in elevation and 29 

percent basin area removal below 800 feet in elevation. WAAs with watersheds that have less than 2 

percent of the watershed in roads include WAAs 1420 and 1421. Peak flow rate mitigation in these 

WAAs includes 45 percent basin area removal below 800 feet in elevation and 20 percent basin area 

removal above 800 feet in elevation.

The Legacy Standard and Guideline would also be applied to VCUs within WAAs with HPOG

concerns in all alternatives. WAAs with VCUs in which the Legacy Standard and Guideline would be 

applied include 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530.

Table 41 shows the estimated HPOG habitat remaining by WAA on NFS lands currently and post 

project for all alternatives.

WAAs would be at greater risk for not being able to support species that depend on HPOG habitat. 

See discussion above under average snow for adjacency concerns. Most WAAs with HPOG concerns 

are adjacent to at least one other WAA that has more than 50 percent HPOG remaining, somewhat 

mitigating the adjacency issue for species with more limited dispersal.

Estimated HPOG harvest for the POW LLA Project results in nine WAAs, three more than currently 

(1317, 1525, and 1531), in the project area having 50 percent or less of the estimated 1954 HPOG 

habitat remaining. In WAA 1530, the estimated remaining HPOG acres drops to 20 percent of the 

estimated 1954 HPOG. As a result these WAAs could be at greater risk for not being able to support 

species that depend on HPOG habitat, especially WAA 1530. See discussion above under average 

snow for adjacency concerns. Most WAAs with HPOG concerns are adjacent to at least one other 

WAA that has more than 50 percent HPOG remaining; somewhat mitigating the adjacency issue for 

species with more limited dispersal capabilities (POW flying squirrel and spruce grouse).
3 – Environment and Effects

198 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 41. Percent HPOG habitat remaining by WAA on NFS lands Current and Post project All 

Alternatives

WAA

Current Post Project

>70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15% >70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15%

901 X X

902 X X

1003 X X

1105 X X

1106 X X

1107 X X

1108 X X

1210 X X

1211 X X

1212 X X

1213 X X

1214 X X

1315 X X

1316 X X

1317 X X

1318 X X

1319 X X

1323 X X

1332 X X

1420 X X

1421 X X

1422 X X

1524 X X

1525 X X

1526 X X

1527 X X

1528 X X

1529 X X

1530 X X

1531 X X

5015 X X

Cumulative Effects

The POW LLA Project was estimated to have 678,586 acres of HPOG in 1954. Currently the project 

area is estimated to have about 451,990 acres of HPOG. This is a reduction of about 33 percent since 

1954.

Currently on all lands WAAs that retain at least 70 percent of the estimated HPOG habitat include 

WAA 901 (83 percent), WAA 902 (100 percent), WAA 1105 (99 percent), WAA 1106 (100 percent). 

WAA 1107 (94 percent), WAA 1108 (99 percent), WAA 1209 (100 percent), WAA 1210 (99 percent), 

WAA 1211 (88 percent), WAA 1212 (98 percent), WAA 1213 (98 percent), WAA 1316 (99 percent), 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 199

WAA 1323 (78 percent), WAA 1524 (100 percent), WAA 1526 (87 percent), WAA 1528 (70 percent), 

and WAA 5015 (100 percent).

WAAs with between 50 and 70 percent HPOG remaining include WAAs 1214 (63 percent), WAA 

1318 (66 percent), WAA 1319 (60 percent), WAA 1332 (65 percent), WAA 1527 (63 percent), and 

WAA 1529 (65 percent).

Currently on all lands eight WAAs have between 30 and 50 percent remaining, the threshold 

identified by some literature for goshawks, of the estimated 1954 HPOG: WAA 1003 (46 percent), 

WAA 1315 (36 percent), WAA 1317 (48 percent), WAA 1420 (37 percent), WAA 1421 (50 percent), 

WAA 1422 (43 percent), WAA 1525 (45 percent), WAA 1530 (30 percent), and WAA 1531 (47 

percent).

There are currently no WAAs on all lands with less than 30 percent of the estimated original HPOG 

habitat remaining.

Alternative 2, 3, and 5

See discussion under direct and indirect effects for mitigation measures by WAA.

Activities on both NFS and non-NFS lands would contribute to the cumulative effects; see Appendix 

C. About 93,979 acres of harvest is estimated for non-NFS lands in the project area. Approximately 

62 percent of current POG on non-NFS lands is HPOG; using that percentage, about 52,628 acres of 

HPOG could be harvested on non-NFS lands. When combined with POW LLA Project, this could 

result in the project area having about 56 percent of the estimated 1954 HPOG habitat remaining.

As a result of the proposed activities on NFS lands as well as non-NFS lands, several WAAs will 

retain at least 70 percent of the estimated 1954 HPOG habitat, including: WAA 901 (81 percent), 

WAA 902 (96 percent), WAA 1105 (87 percent), WAA 1108 (99 percent), WAA 1209 (97 percent), 

WAA 1210 (94 percent), WAA 1212 (89 percent), WAA 1316 (100 percent), WAA 1323 (76 percent), 

WAA 1524 (100 percent), and WAA 1526 (86 percent).

WAAs with an estimated 50 to 70 percent of the 1954 HPOG habitat remaining include: WAA 1107 

(66 percent), WAA 1211 (51 percent), WAA 1213 (68 percent), WAA 1319 (51 percent), WAA 1528 

(66 percent), and WAA 1529 (61 percent).

WAAs with between 30 and 50 percent HPOG habitat remaining include: WAA 1003 (31 percent), 

WAA 1106 (30 percent), WAA 1214 (38 percent), WAA 1214 (38 percent), WAA 1317 (34 percent),

WAA 1332 (41 percent), WAA 1421 (43 percent), WAA 1422 (30 percent), and WAA 1527 (38 

percent).

As a result of the proposed activities on NFS lands as well as non-NFS lands, the following WAAs 

could have between 15 and 30 percent of the 1954 HPOG habitat: WAA 1318 (28 percent), WAA 

1420 (20 percent), WAA 1525 (24 percent), and WAA 1531 (19 percent); and two WAAs, WAA 1315 

(10 percent) and WAA 1530 (12 percent), would have less than 15 percent remaining.

In WAAs with less than 70 percent of original HPOG habitat remaining mat be less likely to support 

species such as the grouse. In WAAs with less than 50 percent of the HPOG habitat remaining may be 

less likely to support species such as the goshawk. WAAs with less than 30 percent HPOG habitat 

remaining may be less likely to support species such as the Prince of Wales flying squirrel and 

grouse; however, at some scales squirrels and grouse may occur in WAAs with at least 15 percent 

habitat remaining.
3 – Environment and Effects

200 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Conclusion

Species tied to HPOG habitat include the goshawk, marbled murrelet, and the endemic Prince of 

Wales flying squirrel and spruce grouse. The goshawk and marbled murrelet are less likely to be 

impacted by the reduction in HPOG than species such as the flying squirrel and grouse because they 

have a greater ability to disperse. Species such as the Prince of Wales flying squirrel and spruce 

grouse may be more impacted than other species by the loss of HPOG habitat due to their more 

limited dispersal capabilities.

All WAAs with HPOG concerns would have at least one form of mitigation measures applied 

depending on the alternative. These measures should help to mitigate the effects to HPOG associated 

species.

All action alternatives include some type of timber harvest mitigation measures. Alternative 2 

includes wildlife centric prescriptions for harvest activities within 5 miles of subsistence communities 

(WAAs 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530). In Alternative 3, WAAs 1214, 

1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420 include only 25 percent removal by single tree selection (STS) for oldgrowth harvest on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation. Alternative 5 proposes no harvest 

on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation in WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420.

Alternatives 3 and 5 analyze about four times the amount of helicopter harvest (assume harvest other 

than clearcut) over conventional harvest acres (assume clearcut). Uneven-aged harvest acres are 

assumed to have less of an effect to HPOG habitat and the species associated than clearcut harvest 

acres.

Under Alternatives 3 and 5 WAAs that also include peak flow rate concerns for watersheds with the 

potential for more than 2 percent of their area covered by roads are WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 

1318, 1319, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530. These areas may exclude timber harvest on slopes above 

800 feet in elevation and 29 percent basin area removal below 800 feet in elevation depending on site 

specific characteristics. WAAs with watersheds that have the potential for less than 2 percent of the 

watershed covered by roads are WAAs 1420 and 1421. These areas could include 45 percent basin 

area removal below 800 feet in elevation and 20 percent basin area removal above 800 feet in 

elevation.

In all action alternatives, the Legacy Standard and Guideline would also be applied to VCUs within 

WAAs with HPOG concerns. WAAs with VCUs in which the Legacy Standard and Guideline would 

be applied include 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530.

WAAs with the greatest habitat reduction that are adjacent to each other or on islands would be 

expected to have a greater impact to those species with more limited dispersal capabilities such as 

flying squirrel and grouse; see discussion under previous habitat types for adjacency and Figure 5 and 

Figure 6.

The Forest Plan FEIS concluded that full implementation of the Forest Plan (in 100 or more years) is 

expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood of maintaining habitat to support viable and welldistributed populations of wildlife. The conservation strategy is expected to maintain viable, welldistributed populations across the Forest, even with full implementation of the Forest Plan’s expected 

harvest levels. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, including assumptions 

underlying the design of the old growth reserve (OGR) system, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 

Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 

1997 Forest Plan FEIS.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 201

Cumulatively, 11 WAAs retain more than 70 percent of the estimated HPOG habitat and therefore are 

likely capable of providing habitat for species dependent on the HPOG habitat type. Six WAAs are 

expected to retain between 50 and 70 percent of the estimated 1954 HPOG habitat. Nine WAAs may 

retain between 30 and 50 percent of the estimated 1954 HPOG habitat, four WAAs with between 15 

and 30 percent HPOG, and two WAAs may have less than 15 percent remaining.

WAAs with more than 70 percent of the estimated 1954 HPOG habitat are likely capable of providing

habitat for the species associated with this habitat type, goshawk, murrelet, spruce grouse and flying 

squirrel. Literature thresholds identified for goshawks include a range of down to about 23 percent to 

between 40 and 60 percent.

WAAs with more than 20 percent HPOG habitat should be capable of providing habitat for goshawks 

according to Iverson et al. 1996 while those above 50 percent should be capable of providing habitat 

for goshawks according to Doyle 2005. WAAs with less than 20 percent habitat remaining may not be 

capable of providing habitat for goshawks.

WAAs with more than 20 percent HPOG habitat should be capable of providing habitat for the Prince 

of Wales flying squirrel (Mikusinski and Angelstram 2000) and spruce grouse (Angelstam 2001). 

WAAs with less than 20 percent habitat remaining may not be capable of providing habitat for these 

species.

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). The Forest Plan determined that with the conservation strategy in place even with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan it would be expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood 

maintain viable, well-distributed populations. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan.

HPOG on the Landscape – Deep Snow Deer and Marten Habitat

Deer and marten have been tied to use of HPOG in specific locations on the landscape. Both deep 

snow deer and marten habitat is defined as HPOG below 800 feet elevation in south-facing stands 

(USDA Forest Service 2016c, pp. 3-266 and 3-270). Low-elevation HPOG on south-facing stands 

receive the highest relative value when looking at habitat capability for deer. This analysis uses these 

south-facing stands to represent a worst-case scenario.

Research on deer conducted in Southeast Alaska, and elsewhere, indicates that low-elevation, highvolume old-growth habitats are particularly important to deer, especially during severe winters 

(Hanley and Rose 1987; Schoen and Kirchhoff 1990; Yeo and Peek 1992; B.C. Ministry of Forests 

1996c).

No habitat thresholds have been identified for deer; some research on marten indicate habitat 

thresholds for marten is 30 to 50 percent but prefer more than 70 percent (see discussion under 

average snow habitat).

On NFS lands, the project area currently is estimated to have about 49,449 acres of deep snow habitat 

about 67 percent of the estimated 1954 (73,729 acres) habitat.

WAAs with 70 percent or more of the estimated original 1954 deep snow habitat include WAA 901 

(87 percent), WAA 902 (100 percent), WAA 1105 (100 percent), WAA 1106 (100 percent), WAA 1107 

(96 percent), WAA 1008 (99 percent), WAA 1209 (100 percent), WAA 1210 (99 percent), WAA 1211 

(99 percent), WAA 1212 (100 percent), WAA 1213 (100 percent), WAA 1316 (100 percent), WAA 
3 – Environment and Effects

202 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

1318 (75 percent), WAA 1323 (98 percent), WAA 1332 (79 percent), WAA 1524 (100 percent), WAA 

1526 (83 percent), WAA 1528 (84 percent), and WAA 5015 (100 percent).

WAAs between 50 and 70 include WAA 1003 (59 percent), WAA 1214 (51 percent), WAA 1319 (62 

percent), WAA 1527 (67 percent), and WAA 1529 (66 percent).

The WAAs that either are between 30 and 50 percent of the deep snow habitat remaining include

WAAs 1421 (44 percent remaining), WAA 1422 (35 percent remaining), WAA 1525 (47 percent 

remaining), and WAA 1530 (50 percent remaining).

WAAs with less than 30 percent are WAA 1315 (28 percent remaining), WAA 1317 (26 percent 

remaining), and WAA 1420 (29 percent remaining).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 203

Figure 5. Deep Snow Habitat
3 – Environment and Effects

204 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

Currently on NFS lands in the project area, about 6 percent of POG is HPOG on south-facing stands

at or below 800 feet elevation. This analysis assumes the same percentage of proposed harvest to be 

in this habitat type. This assumption results in about 46,561 acres of deep snow and marten original 

habitat remaining on the project area, a reduction of about 6 percent from current for an overall 63 

percent remaining on NFS lands.

Young-growth treatments or harvest proposed in all action alternatives could help mitigate effects to 

deep snow habitat, especially young-growth treatments or harvest on south-facing low-elevation 

stands that are treated with wildlife centric prescriptions and slash treatments.

No habitat thresholds have been identified for deer, however research has shown that deep snow 

winter range is likely the most limiting habitat for deer. Literature habitat thresholds for marten have 

identified 30 percent habitat remaining but that marten prefer 50 to 70 percent habitat remaining,

Alternative 1

Will have no direct effect to deep habitat at any scale. Indirectly, Alternative 1 could result in negative 

effects to deep snow habitat because of the fewer young-growth acres treated. It is assumed that all 

young-growth treatments or harvest would result in a benefit to wildlife, especially deer at least in the 

short term. Young-growth thinning treatments would continue to occur under Alternative 1 but on 

fewer acres than proposed under the action alternatives.

Alternative 2, 3 and 5

WAAs that retain more than 70 percent of the estimated deep snow habitat after proposed activities 

include WAAs 901 (87 percent), 902 (100 percent), 1105 (100 percent), 1106 (100 percent), 1107 (96 

percent), 1108 (99 percent), 1209 (100 percent), 1210 (99 percent), 1211 (83 percent), 1212 (100 

percent), 1213 (99 percent), 1316 (100 percent), 1318 (74 percent), 1323 (97 percent), 1332 (74 

percent), 1524 (100 percent), 1526 (82 percent), 1528 (79 percent), and 5015 (100 percent).

WAAs that retain between 50 and 70 percent of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat include WAAs 

1319 (54 percent), 1527 (62 percent), and 1531 (52 percent).

WAAs with between 30 and 50 percent include WAAs 1003 (49 percent), 1214 (48 percent), 1421 (38 

percent), 1525 (33 percent), and 1530 (32 percent).

WAAs with less than 30 percent of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat include WAAs 1315 (26 

percent), 1317 (15 percent), and 1422 (24 percent).

The GIS calculations for WAA 1420 for deep snow habitat show that all the deep snow habitat in this 

WAA could be lost.

Alternative 2 includes timber harvest mitigation in the form of wildlife centric prescriptions for 

harvest activities within 5 miles of subsistence communities (WAAs 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1421, 

1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530).

In all action alternatives the Legacy Standard and Guideline would also be applied to VCUs within 

WAAs with deep snow habitat concerns. WAAs with VCUs in which the Legacy Standard and 

Guideline would be applied include 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530. The 

Legacy Standard and Guideline requires that even-aged old-growth harvest in these VCUs where 

openings exceed 20 acres in size must retain 30 percent of old-growth structure. The structure 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 205

retention of the Legacy Standard and Guideline and the mitigation measures in WAAs near 

subsistence communities could both help to mitigate the effects to deep snow habitat.

In WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated DHC, Alternative 3 allows only 25 

percent removal by single tree selection (STS) for old-growth harvest on south-facing stands below 

800 feet in elevation. This would occur in WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420.

Table 42. Percent of Deep Snow habitat remaining by WAA – NFS Land All Alternatives

WAA

Current Post Project

>70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15% >70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15%

901 X X

902 X X

1003 X X

1105 X X

1106 X X

1107 X X

1108 X X

1210 X X

1211 X X

1212 X X

1213 X X

1214 X X

1315 X X

1316 X X

1317 X X

1318 X X

1319 X X

1323 X X

1332 X X

1420 X X

1421 X X

1422 X X

1524 X X

1525 X X

1526 X X

1527 X X

1528 X X

1529 X X

1530 X X

1531 X X

5015 X X

Alternative 5 proposes no harvest on south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation in WAAs with 

10 percent or more of the estimated deer habitat capability (WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 
3 – Environment and Effects

206 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

1420). In Alternative 5, effects to deep snow habitat in these WAAs would be mitigated by these 

restrictions in these five WAAs.

Alternatives 3 and 5 include WAAs with peak flow rate concerns of more than 2 percent of watershed 

in roads in WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530 and would 

include no timber harvest on slopes above 800 feet in elevation and up to 29 percent basin area 

removal below 800 feet in elevation. WAAs with watersheds that have less than 2 percent of the 

watershed in roads include WAAs 1420 and 1421. These areas could include 45 percent basin area

removal below 800 feet in elevation and 20 percent basin area removal above 800 feet in elevation.

Alternative 3 also incorporates portions of the Wolf Plan (see above) and Alternative 5 incorporates 

the Wolf Plan in its entirety.

WAAs 1003 (Heceta) and 1525 (Kosciusko) are on islands. See discussion above under general POG 

above for adjacency discussion in relation to dispersal capabilities. All other WAAs, except one, with 

less than 50 percent of the estimated deep snow habitat remaining on NFS lands are adjacent to at 

least one other WAA that also has less than 50 percent deep snow habitat remaining. WAA 1529 is the 

one exception and it is only separated from other heavily impacted WAAs by narrow strips of WAAs 

with more than 50 percent of the deep snow habitat remaining.

WAAs 1315, 1317, and 1422 are all estimated to have less than 30 percent of the estimated original

deep snow habitat remaining. This is the threshold below which where research (Thompson and 

Harestad 1994) has said marten are absent.

The panel for the 1997 Forest Plan determined that a gap in habitat could be as small as the territory 

of a single marten. A marten territory was considered to be from one to three square miles. The 

consequence of a gap is some measure of reduced gene flow within the population. Panel evaluators 

indicated that a population can accommodate a certain, but unknown, level of gaps and still remain 

viable but the greater the size and number of gaps, however, the higher the risk of reducing gene flow. 

To avoid creation of gaps by forest management practices the panel recommended uneven-aged

harvest. The panel could not identify the threshold of POG remaining at which a landscape or a 

territory would not be suitable for marten reproduction (DeGayner 1997). The panel projected no 

likelihood that marten would be extirpated from the entire forest under the preferred alternative for 

the 1997 Forest Plan. The Forest Plan was strengthened after this evaluation primarily due to the level 

of concern about the likelihood of marten populations remaining well-distributed across the Tongass 

for at least 100 years (1997 Forest Plan FEIS Appendix D pp. D-32 and 33). WAAs 1315, 1317, and 

1422 are not adjacent to each other.

Cumulative Effects

For the project area as a whole, about 8 percent of POG is low elevation HPOG on south-facing 

stands. Using that percentage for estimated harvest on non-NFS lands, about 7,518 acres of this 

habitat type could be harvested in addition to the POW LLA Project; this would result in the project 

area having about 54 percent remaining of the original estimated HPOG below 800 feet elevation on 

south-facing stands.

WAAs that remain above the 70 percent of the original deep snow habitat level include WAAs in 

Wilderness, LUD II and other non-development LUDs, and some WAAs that have less proposed 

harvest. These WAAs include 901 (86 percent), 902 (97 percent), 1105 (82 percent), 1108 (99 

percent), 1209 (92 percent), 1210 (91 percent), 1212 (97 percent), 1316 (100 percent), 1323 (75 

percent), 1524 (100 percent), 1526 (82 percent), 1528 (78 percent), and 5015 (100 percent).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 207

WAAs with between 50 and 70 percent of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat include WAAs 1107 

(61 percent), 1211 (59 percent), 1213 (65 percent), 1319 (53 percent), 1332 (64 percent), and 1529 

(61 percent).

WAAs with between 30 and 50 percent of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat include WAAs 1003 

(43 percent), 1214 (31 percent), 1421 (36 percent), and 1527 (40 percent).

WAAs with less than 30 percent of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat include WAAs 1106 (29 

percent), 1315 (20 percent), 1317 (13 percent), 1318 (15 percent), 1422 (21 percent), 1525 (19 

percent), 1530 (28 percent), and 1531 (26 percent). These WAAs are all estimated to have less than 30 

percent of the estimated original deep snow habitat remaining. This is the threshold below which 

where Thompson and Harestad 1994 has said marten are absent.

The GIS calculations for WAA 1420 for deep snow habitat show that all the deep snow habitat in this 

WAA could be lost.

Timber harvest mitigation measures would be applied on NFS lands (Alternatives 3 and 5) (see direct 

and indirect effects above). WAAs 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530 all would 

have wildlife centric prescriptions applied within 5 miles of subsistence communities in Alternative 2. 

On NFS lands, WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530 are WAAs that 

include VCUs where the Legacy Standard and Guideline will be applied, requiring the retention of 

structure in harvested stands over 20 acres in size. Peak flow rate restrictions would occur in 

Alternatives 3 and 5 in WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1530, and 

1531.

The proposed young-growth treatments and harvest on both NFS land and non-NFS lands as well as 

the timber harvest mitigation measures in some WAAs on NFS lands could help to offset some of 

these effects.

Activities on both NFS and non-NFS lands would contribute to the cumulative effects; see Appendix 

C.

Table 43. Comparison of effects to deep snow habitat post project between NFS and all lands all 

alternatives

WAA NFS lands Post project Cumulative effects post project

>70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15% >70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15%

901 X X

902 X X

1003 X X

1105 X X

1106 X X

1107 X X

1108 X X

1210 X X

1211 X X

1212 X X

1213 X X

1214 X X

1315 X X
3 – Environment and Effects

208 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

WAA NFS lands Post project Cumulative effects post project

>70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15% >70% 50-70% 30-50% 15-30% <15%

1316 X X

1317 X X

1318 X X

1319 X X

1323 X X

1332 X X

1420 X X

1421 X X

1422 X X

1524 X X

1525 X X

1526 X X

1527 X X

1528 X X

1529 X X

1530 X X

1531 X X

5015 X X

Conclusion

Between NFS lands and non-NFS lands there are or will be several WAAs with less than 30 percent 

of the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat. According to some research these WAAs may be at greater 

risk for not being able to support populations of species dependent on this habitat over the long term; 

however in Alternatives 3 and 5, WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420 all have the additional 

timber harvest mitigation measures which should help to reduce the negative effects to deep snow 

habitat. Alternative 2 includes mitigation measures in WAAs around subsistence communities (1420, 

1421, and 1530) that could also help to lessen the effects to deep snow habitat. WAAs 1525 and 1531 

includes peak flow rate restrictions in Alternatives 3 and 5.

Young-growth thinning treatments and harvest proposed in the WAAs with deep snow habitat 

concerns under all action alternatives would help mitigate the effects to deep snow habitat. All younggrowth treatments and harvest are assumed to improve habitat over the current condition, at least in 

the short term, especially if slash treatment is included in the prescription.

Young-growth treatments or harvest on the low elevation south-facing stands in WAAs with deep 

snow habitat concerns may include a more wildlife-centric prescription and slash treatment. These 

mitigations measures should be implemented to try to prevent WAAs that currently have more than 50 

percent deep snow habitat remaining from dropping to less than 50 percent. In WAAs that already 

below 50 percent value, these mitigation measures should be implemented to try to prevent the habitat 

decreasing any further.

Marten and migratory deer both have dispersal capabilities that should enable them to move between 

habitats that have been more heavily impacted to those with less impact. Resident deer have more 

limited dispersal capabilities and would likely be more impacted by effects to deep snow habitat than 

either migratory deer or marten. Deep snow habitat has been identified as the limiting factor for deer 

and this is the habitat that has seen the greatest impact, along with large tree POG, since 1954. This 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 209

should be of greater concern in areas where WAAs of greatest impact are adjacent to each other or 

where WAAs with habitat remaining on NFS lands are adjacent to WAAs with a high percentage of 

non-NFS lands (see Figure 5. Deep Snow Habitat).

While no thresholds have been identified for deer, deep snow habitat is likely the limiting factor for 

deer and WAAs with the greatest impact to this habitat type would have the greatest effect to deer. As 

a result of the proposed activities none of the WAAs may be expected to retain less than 50 percent of 

the 1954 deep snow habitat and one of these WAAs may not retain any of the 1954 deep snow habitat. 

Cumulatively thirteen WAAs (42 percent of the project area WAAs) may retain less than 50 percent of 

the estimated 1954 deep snow habitat.

Literature thresholds for marten include 30 percent and a range between 50 and 70 percent. On NFS 

lands it is estimated that four WAAs could retain less than 30 percent of the estimated 1954 deep 

snow habitat and therefore may not be capable of providing habitat for marten. Cumulatively none 

WAAs may retain less than 30 percent of the 1954 habitat. See discussion above for 50 percent 

habitat. On NFS lands 19 WAAs are estimated to retain 70 percent of more of the estimated 1954 

deep snow habitat and cumulatively 13 WAAs are estimated to retain at least 70 percent of the 1954 

original deep snow habitat.

The Forest Plan FEIS concluded that full implementation of the Forest Plan (in 100 or more years) is 

expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood of maintaining habitat to support viable and welldistributed populations of wildlife. The conservation strategy is expected to maintain viable, welldistributed populations across the Forest, even with full implementation of the Forest Plan’s expected 

harvest levels. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, including assumptions 

underlying the design of the old growth reserve (OGR) system, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 

Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 

1997 Forest Plan FEIS.

Large Tree POG (SD67)

Brown creepers (Kissling, et al., Forest Bird Presentation, Conservation Strategy Meeting, 2006) and 

the endemic bat Keen’s myotis are both associated with large-tree POG (Boland et al. 2009).

Large-tree POG is defined as the SD67 type, representing the most productive of the POG types, and 

typically containing the highest density of large trees. SD67 is defined as highly productive forests 

associated with riparian areas, alluvial fans, karst geology, and wind-protected uplands.

Forest Plan Appendix B (pp. 25 and 26) explains how original HPOG and SD67 are calculated for 

1954 on both NFS and non-NFS lands. To estimate original high volume and large-tree POG, an 

estimate was first made of the percentage of past harvest in these categories using the 

SizeDensity1954 layer, which was based on timber type mapping from the mid-1980s and other GIS 

layers. The following compositions of harvest were conservatively determined for NFS and non-NFS 

lands:

• For NFS lands, prior harvest was estimated to have been 30 percent large-tree POG and 75 

percent high-volume POG.

• For non-NFS lands, prior harvest was estimated to have been 37 percent large-tree POG and 65 

percent high-volume POG.
3 – Environment and Effects

210 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Affected Environment

The current estimated acres of SD67 on NFS lands is 158,805 acres and the historical estimate is 

217,322 acres; this is about 73 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat. There are no habitat 

thresholds specific to the brown creeper or Keen’s myotis.

Blewett and Marzluff (2005) about a 27 percent forest cover contained all nine species of birds, 

including brown creepers, which suggests that this amount of forest can maintain cavity-nesting bird 

following urban development. Blewett and Marzluff (2005) suggested that urban planners in the 

Pacific Northwest design developments have 27 percent to 60 percent. Blewett and Marzluff (2005)

found that brown creeper density was similar between managed forests sites and forested urban sites 

included in the study. Martensen et al. 2012 indicated a threshold of between 30 percent and 50

percent for understory birds in Atlantic Forest. For this analysis, these percentages of 30, 50, and 60 

were used for habitat thresholds for brown creeper.

Muylaert et al. 2016 indicated that the threshold value for richness, below which bat diversity 

declines precipitously, was estimated at 47 percent of remaining forest. Muylaert et al. 2016 found a 

precipitous decline in species number and abundance in more degraded landscape due to forest loss. 

Different habitat types did not seem to affect richness when considered separately; instead, what 

seems matters for increased bat richness is greater amount of forest within the landscape.

Recommendation for bats in Ávila-Gómez et al. 2015 included a tree cover between 50 and 80 

percent in heterogeneous landscapes and to promote the conservation of tree and riparian corridors. 

Muylaert et al. 2016 also suggested a drop in biodiversity, and species richness in particular, when 

less than 30 percent of the original amount of habitat in the landscape remains. For this analysis the 

percentages of 30, 50, and 80 were used for the Keen’s myotis.

Currently all WAAs have at least 30 percent SD67 habitat.

WAAs with greater than 80 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include WAAs 902, 1105, 

1106, 1107, 1108, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1316, 1323, 1524, 1526, and 5015 (48 percent of 

WAAs in project area).

WAAs with about 60 to 80 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include WAAs 901, 1214, 

1318, 1319, 1421, 1525, 1528, 1529, and 1531 (29 percent of project area WAAs)

WAAs with about 50 to 60 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include: 1003, 1332, 1420, 

and 1527 (13 percent of project area WAAs).

WAAs with about 30 to 50 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include WAAs 1315, 1317, 

and 1530 (about 10 percent of project area WAAs).

According to literature thresholds all WAAs have SD67 habitat to support brown creepers and Keen’s

myotis.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 211

Figure 6. Large Tree Habitat
3 – Environment and Effects

212 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

The current estimated acres of SD67 on NFS lands is 158,805 acres and the historical estimate is 

217,322 acres; this is about 73 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat. The POW LLA Project

could harvest an about 4,421 acres of SD67 habitat across the entire project area resulting in about 

1154,384 acres remaining. This is about 97 percent of the current SD67 and about 71 percent of the 

estimated 1954 SD67 habitat.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 will have no direct or indirect effect to SD67 habitat.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

Alternative 2 could harvest about 4,421 acres of SD67 resulting in about a retention of about 97 

percent of the current SD67 habitat and about 71 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat. 

Alternative 3 could harvest about 1,162 acres of SD67 habitat and Alternative 5 about 568 acres both 

resulting in about a 99 percent retention of current SD67 habitat and 73 percent of the estimated 1954 

SD67 habitat.

Table 44 shows the effects of timber harvest proposed in the POW LLA Project on the current 

estimated SD67 habitat.

As a result of the proposed activities in the POW LLA Project, WAAs 902, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 

1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1316, 1323, 1524, 1526, and 5015 all retain more than 80 percent of 

the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat (48 percent of project area WAAs). Of these WAAs, only two retain 

less than 90 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat.

Post-project WAAs with between 60 to 80 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include 901, 

1214, 1318, 1319, 1525, 1528, and 1529 (23 percent of project area WAAs).

Post-project WAAs with between 50 to 60 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include 1421, 

1527, and 1531 (10 percent of project area WAAs).

Post-project WAAs with between 30 to 50 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include 1003, 

1332, 1420, and 1422 (13 percent of project area WAAs).

Post-project WAAs with less than 30 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include WAA 1315, 

1317, and 1530 (about 10 percent of the project area WAAs).

Alternative 2 includes wildlife centric prescriptions for harvest activities within 5 miles of subsistence

communities within the project area (WAAs 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 

1530).

Alternative 3 allows for 25 percent removal by single tree selection (STS) for old-growth harvest on 

south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation in WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of 

the estimated DHC: 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318 and 1420. Alternative 5 allows no harvest of old-growth 

harvest in south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation. The proposed timber harvest mitigation in 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 will help to offset the effects of harvest of SD67 habitat.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 213

Table 44. Categories of SD67 habitat remaining by WAA – NFS Land All Alternatives

WAA Current % of 1954 Post Project

>80 60-80 50-60 30-50 <30 >80 60-80 50-60 30-50 <30

901 X X

902 X X

1003 X X

1105 X X

1106 X X

1107 X X

1108 X X

1209 X X

1210 X X

1211 X X

1212 X X

1213 X X

1214 X X

1315 X X

1316 X X

1317 X X

1318 X X

1319 X X

1323 X X

1332 X X

1420 X X

1421 X X

1422 X X

1524 X X

1525 X X

1526 X X

1527 X X

1528 X X

1529 X X

1530 X X

1531 X X

5015 X X

Shaded rows indicate the WAAs that changed category of percent habitat remaining.

Under Alternatives 3 and 5, WAAs that also include peak flow rate concerns for watersheds with the 

potential for more than 2 percent of their area covered by roads are WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 

1318, 1319, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530. These areas may exclude timber harvest on slopes above 

800 feet in elevation and 29 percent basin area removal below 800 feet in elevation depending on site 

specific characteristics. WAAs with watersheds that have the potential for less than 2 percent of the 

watershed covered by roads are WAAs 1420 and 1421. These areas could include 45 percent basin 
3 – Environment and Effects

214 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

area removal below 800 feet in elevation and 20 percent basin area removal above 800 feet in 

elevation.

The Legacy Standard and Guideline would also be applied to VCUs within WAAs. WAAs with VCUs 

in which the Legacy Standard and Guideline would be applied include 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1420, 

1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530.

All WAAs with SD67 habitat concerns include at least one form of mitigation depending on the 

alternative.

Figure 6 Large Tree Habitat shows WAAs with SD67 concerns and if they are adjacent to each other.

Cumulative Effects

Lands in other ownerships are estimated to have about 45,671 acres of SD67 currently and about 

114,810 acres in 1954. The project area as a whole has about 62 percent of the original large tree 

SD67 habitat remaining; this is slightly higher than the estimated percent of deep snow habitat 

remaining. This is because deep snow habitat is a more restrictive habitat type. For this analysis it is 

assumed that all SD67 on non-NFS lands would be harvested.

As a result of the proposed activities on all lands, WAAs 902, 1108, 1209, 1210, 1212, 1316, 1524 

and 5015 all retain more than 80 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat (23 percent of project 

area WAAs).

As a result of the proposed activities on all lands, WAAs with between 60 and 80 percent of the 

estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include 901, 1105, 1213, 1319, 1323, 1528, and 1529 (23 percent of 

project area WAAs).

As a result of the proposed activities on all lands, WAAs with between 50 and 60 percent of the 

estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include 1107, and 1421 (6 percent of project area WAAs).

As a result of the proposed activities on all lands, WAAs with between 30 and 50 percent of the 

estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include 1003, 1211, 1214, 1420, 1525, 1526, and 1527 (23 percent of 

project area WAAs.

As a result of the proposed activities on all lands, WAAs with between 20 and 30 percent of the 

estimated 1954 SD67 habitat include WAAs 1332 and 1422 (6 percent of project area WAAs).

As a result of the proposed activities on all lands, WAAs with less than 20 percent of the estimated 

1954 SD67 habitat include WAAs 1106, 1315, 1317, 1318, 1530, and 1531 (19 percent of the project 

area WAAs).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 215

Table 45. Comparison of effects to deep snow habitat post project between NFS and all lands all 

alternatives

WAA Post project NFS Post Project All lands

>80 60-80 50-60 30-50 <30 >80 60-80 50-60 30-50 <30

901 X X

902 X X

1003 X X

1105 X X

1106 X X

1107 X X

1108 X X

1209 X X

1210 X X

1211 X X

1212 X X

1213 X X

1214 X X

1315 X X

1316 X X

1317 X X

1318 X X

1319 X X

1323 X X

1332 X X

1420 X X

1421 X X

1422 X X

1524 X X

1525 X X

1526 X X

1527 X X

1528 X X

1529 X X

1530 X X

1531 X X

5015 X X

Shaded rows indicate the WAAs that changed category of percent habitat remaining.

Conclusion

On NFS lands, WAAs with greater than 80 percent (45 percent of the project area WAAs post project)

of the original estimated of SD67 habitat remaining are likely to be able to continue to provide habitat 

capable to support both brown creepers and Keen’s myotis and WAAs with greater than 60 percent

(65 percent of the project area WAAs post project) are likely to be able to continue to provide habitat 

capable to support brown creepers. Bat diversity decline was estimated at 47 percent of remaining
3 – Environment and Effects

216 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

forest, and post-project there are four WAAs or about 13 percent of the project area that have between 

30 and 50 percent habitat remaining and one WAA is projected to have less than 30 percent of the 

estimated 1954 SD67 habitat. The loss of habitat in these WAAs may result in a lower diversity of 

bats. One study on birds, Blewett and Marzluff (2005), found that about a 27 percent forest cover 

contained all nine species of birds, including brown creepers. As a result of the proposed activities on 

NFS lands, all WAAs except one are projected to retain more than 30 percent of the estimated 1954 

SD67 habitat and therefore should be capable of providing habitat for brown creepers.

As a result of activities on all lands, about 23 percent of project area WAAs are likely to be able to 

continue to provide habitat capable to support both brown creepers and Keen’s myotis and WAAs 

with greater than 60 percent (23 percent of the project area WAAs post project) are likely to be able to 

continue to provide habitat capable to support brown creepers. Bat diversity decline was estimated at 

47 percent of remaining forest and post project there are seven WAAs or about 23 percent of the 

project area WAAs have between 30 and 50 percent habitat remaining, two WAAs (about 6 percent of 

the project area WAAs) that are projected to have between 20 and 30 percent of the estimated 1954 

SD67 habitat, and six WAAs (23 percent of project area WAAs) may have less than 20 percent of the 

estimated 1954 SD67 habitat. Combined about 46 percent of the project area on all lands could retain 

less than 50 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat resulting in these areas not being capable of 

providing habitat for bats. One study on birds, Blewett and Marzluff (2005), found that about a 27 

percent forest cover contained all nine species of birds, including brown creepers. As a result of the 

proposed activities on all lands, seven WAAs or about 23 percent of the project area WAAs are 

projected to retain less than 30 percent of the estimated 1954 SD67 habitat and therefore may not be 

capable of providing habitat for brown creepers; or, 70 percent of the WAAs would be expected to 

retain at least 70 percent of the 1954 SD67 habitat.

WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420 have harvest mitigation measures in Alternatives 2, 3, and 

5. WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1420, 1422, 1525, 1529, and 1530 all include VCUs that would 

have the Legacy Standard and Guideline implemented in all alternatives.

The amount of past harvest may also have a greater impact to species with more limited dispersal 

capabilities in areas of concentrated harvest, such as WAAs with greater past impact in proximity to 

each other, or on islands. WAA 1003 is Heceta Island so all adjacent WAAs are separated by 

saltwater. Adjacent to WAA 1003 are WAAs with varying amounts of original SD67 habitat WAA 

(see Figure 6 for adjacency). The fact that some of these WAAs are separated by saltwater means that 

even species with higher dispersal capabilities may have a more difficult time dispersing from areas 

with greater impacts to habitat to areas with less impacts.

WAAs 1003 (Heceta) and 1531 (Tuxekan) have concerns because they are islands and adjacent 

WAAs are separated by saltwater. This may increase the risk for species with more limited dispersal 

capabilities. Clusters of impacted WAAs may increase the risk to species with limited dispersal 

capabilities (see Figure 6). There may also be an increased risk to species with limited dispersal 

capabilities in the areas of overlap between the heavily impacted WAAs on Prince of Wales (see 

Figure 6).

Based on the limited information on dispersal patterns for the brown creeper and the Keen’s myotis, it 

appears that Keen’s myotis may be more likely to be negatively impacted by the loss of habitat than 

the brown creeper due to the more limited dispersal capabilities of the Keen’s myotis; however, both 

species do have the ability to fly and disperse between habitats. The brown creeper may be more 

limited by the decrease in the size of forest patches. Habitat for the brown creeper and Keen’s myotis 

would be maintained in the project area under the Forest Plan conservation strategy.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 217

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). The Forest Plan determined that with the conservations strategy in place even with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan it would be expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood 

maintain viable, well-distributed populations. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan.

Overall Comparison

Table 46. Percent of the 1954 habitat type remaining by WAA NFS lands only – post project

WAA POG Avg.

snow

HPOG Deep 

snow

SD67

Wolf

Ranking

*

Deep snow 

habitat 

mitigation

Alts 3 & 5

Sub. 

Alt 2

Legacy* 

(WAA)

Peak 

Flow

901 91 91 83 87 75 #1

1003 40 39 34 49 43 #2 X X

1214 74 71 56 48 66 #2 X X X

1315 28 26 14 26 15 #2 X X X X

1317 48 40 40 15 23 #1 X X X

1318 87 85 74 74 77 #1 X X X

1420 30 23 22 0 34 #2 X X X X

1421 67 66 44 38 57 #2 X X

1422 47 44 32 24 33 #3 X X X

1525 33 32 37 33 62 #4 X X X

1530 40 40 13 32 5 #3 X X X

1531 54 54 41 51 52 #4 X X

*Wolf Ranking is defined in the Wolf Mortality section

Differences in SD67 values due to GIS data

The Forest Plan FEIS concluded that full implementation of the Forest Plan (in 100 or more years) is 

expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood of maintaining habitat to support viable and welldistributed populations of wildlife. The conservation strategy is expected to maintain viable, welldistributed populations across the Forest, even with full implementation of the Forest Plan’s expected 

harvest levels. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation Strategy, including assumptions 

underlying the design of the old growth reserve (OGR) system, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 

Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 

1997 Forest Plan FEIS.

Harvest of young growth will pose a very low risk to the function and integrity of the Conservation 

Strategy. Therefore, there will be no change to the functioning of this contributing element of the 

Conservation Strategy (Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix D). The Conservation Strategy maintains oldgrowth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying squirrels).
3 – Environment and Effects

218 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 47. Overall percent of the 1954 habitat type remaining by WAA Lands in all ownerships – post 

project

WAA POG Nonwinter

Average 

snow HPOG Deep snow SD67 Subsistence

Alt 3 & 5

Subsistence

Alt 2

Legacy

(WAA)

Peak 

Flow

1003 37 43 35 31 43 38 X X

1106 48 23 48 30 29 14

1214 55 60 49 38 31 36 X X X

1315 20 32 19 10 20 10 X X X X

1317 42 61 34 34 13 14 X X X X

1318 57 42 33 28 15 19 X X X X

1332 72 64 54 41 64 24

1420 27 52 20 20 0 30 X X X X

1421 65 80 64 43 36 53 X X X

1422 45 63 42 30 21 24 X X X

1525 21 28 21 24 19 41 X

1526 93 95 92 86 82 39

1527 47 61 40 38 40 36 X

1530 36 60 36 12 28 5 x X X

1531 29 35 29 19 26 20 X X

*WAAs 1005, 1106 and 1107 all have between 20 and 50 percent of the original SD67 remaining but include either little 

NFS land or NFS lands that have not been harvested; percent reductions are due to Non –NFS lands

Legacy values in table are WAAs with legacy VCUs.

Blank cells indicate values greater than 50 percent

Differences in SD67 values due to GIS data

Young Growth

Despite the localized effects of POG harvest, the transition to young-growth proposed under the 

action alternatives is likely to minimize effects to species such as goshawks, flying squirrels, 

murrelets, and spruce grouse by reducing the amount of POG harvest that would occur over the 

planning horizon, thereby maintaining more old-growth forest that provides potential foraging, 

nesting, and post-fledging habitat, compared to the current Forest Plan. Given the localized nature and 

extent of young-growth harvest in the beach and estuary fringe, RMAs, and non-development LUDS, 

all of the action alternatives would be expected maintain the long-term viability of goshawk. The 

Legacy Forest Structure Standard and Guideline protects habitat features that are important for 

goshawks on a stand level (see Appendix D for a detailed discussion of effects to the Conservation 

Strategy). Collectively, all of the action alternatives would reduce the amount of old-growth timber 

harvest that would occur over the planning horizon which would maintain more suitable habitat for 

several species than what was anticipated under the 2008 Forest Plan. This would offset to some 

extent the potential for loss of high quality habitat associated with young-growth harvest within the 

beach and estuary fringe, RMAs, and old-growth reserves. Added measures under Alternative 2 (the 

1,000-foot inland buffer) and Alternative 5 (the 200-foot no-harvest shoreline buffer) would further 

reduce effects.

It is generally assumed that the acres currently in the stem exclusion stage of development provide 

little habitat for most wildlife species. The conversion of the stands in the stem exclusion stage back 

to an early seral stage may provide better habitat for a short time for some species. Clearcut 

harvesting does produce an immediate flush of high quality understory biomass, though it typically

only lasts 10 to 25 years, and is not available to deer during periods of heavy snow (Alaback 2010).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 219

Species, such as deer and bear, may benefit from the increase in forage availability that the early seral 

stands provide in comparison to the stem excluded stands.

Species that could be affected by the proposed treatments or harvest in the beach buffer include the 

ermine and marten. Ermine are adapted to a wide variety of habitats but seem to prefer wooded areas 

with thick understory near water. They rarely occur in heavily forested regions but often occupy

early-successional or forest-edge habitats, wet meadows, marshes, ditches, riparian woodlands, or 

river banks with high densities of small mammals and adequate undercanopy foraging space (Simms 

1979a, Simms 1979b, King 1983). Coastal ermine may exhibit a preference for low elevation riparian 

and marine shoreline and estuarine habitats (Reid et al. 2000). Subspecies M. e. seclusa has been 

documented in varied habitat including old-growth and successional forest, brush, alpine meadows, 

marshes, and riparian areas (Hall 1951).

Returning stands to an early seral stage can have a short-term benefit for some wildlife species such 

as deer. Cole 2010 states that, when compared to unthinned stands, the thinned stands had greater 

understory cover. According to Cole 2010, summer food resources were increased for deer and winter 

food values were increased by thinning for a snow-free condition. Cole also found that in the first 7

years, thinning had a major effect but the differences in the spacing of the thinning was not 

significant. According to Cole (2010), thinning released all vegetation similarly. Evergreen forbs are 

especially important due to their high digestibility (Parker et al 1999). Blueberry, another important 

winter food source, responded inconsistently. Other food species that respond to thinning are either 

non-existent in winter (fireweed) or have poor winter nutritional value (salmonberry twigs). Cole 

(2010) also discusses that slash may reduce the value of the thinning treatments. Stands that are 

thinned at younger ages should produce more forbs while those stands thinned at older age may 

produce more shrubs. Overall, the increase in forage was short lived (less than 10 years), but thinned 

stands provide higher forage values than unthinned stands (Cole 2010).

Coastal habitats and riparian areas, including beach fringe, have the highest habitat value for marten

(USDA Forest Service 2008b, p. 3-234) and, therefore, marten habitat could be impacted by the 

proposed activities in this area. Because ermine were live trapped in young-growth forest and in the 

beach buffers, effects to ermine habitat are also discussed here under Young Growth (Reid et al.

2000).

Young-growth treatments within non-development LUDs, such as beach buffer and OGRs, that have 

to meet the goals and objectives of the LUD while providing for a commercial timber by-product, 

provide the opportunity to treat areas to attain more old-growth characteristics more rapidly than with 

no treatments. Impacts to beach and estuary habitats differ among the alternatives based on younggrowth and road management within and near habitats and in riparian habitats for downstream 

influences. Actions that could result from the alternatives include tree harvesting, transport of logs,

floating or shoreline accumulation of loose logs, personnel presence along shorelines, and

development and operation of log transfer facilities. The application in all alternatives of Forest-wide 

Standards and Guidelines as well as BMPs developed to meet soil protection, fish-habitat protection, 

and water-quality standards (USDA 2012) will help minimize impacts of contaminants to riparian 

habitat and downstream beach, estuary, and marine habitats. The 200-foot buffer along the beach and 

estuary fringe will minimize disturbance and adjacency impacts to TES species using beach, estuary, 

and marine habitats as will 15-year and single-entry restrictions.

Among the alternatives, the number of acres of commercial young-growth harvest by all prescriptions 

within beach and estuary fringe habitat within 100 years will vary. Forest Plan objectives include the 

dual intent of facilitating recovery of late-seral (more old-growth-like) forest characteristics, while 

also producing commercial timber byproducts in these areas.
3 – Environment and Effects

220 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

The scale of young-growth harvest and road building within the beach fringe is relatively small. 

There are about 460,705 acres within 1,000 feet of the shoreline in the project area. About 3,194 acres 

of beach fringe (0.7 percent of the project area beach fringe) were identified for potential younggrowth commercial harvest, and only about 1,118 acres (35 percent of the identified young growth 

between 200 feet and 1,000 feet of the shoreline, and 0.24 percent of the beach fringe within the 

project area) could be harvested, per Forest Plan standards. Most of the beach fringe harvest will 

occur by road and helicopter, which reduces potential nearshore disturbance. About 36 miles of roads 

could be constructed or reconstructed within 1,000 feet of the mean high tide line, of which about 2 

miles could be within the 200-foot no harvest buffer. Forest Plan standards for commercial younggrowth harvest within the 1,000-foot beach buffer (Forest Plan p. 5-5) limit the amount of harvest to 

35 percent of the original stand acreage, limit the size of the opening to 10 acres or less, allow onetime only entry and include a minimum 200-foot no commercial harvest buffer from the mean high 

tide line. Protective measures in Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines and BMPs developed to meet 

soil protection, fish habitat protection, and water-quality standards (USDA 2012) will be applied.

All action alternatives analyze more young-growth stands by even-aged harvest than by uneven-aged

harvest. Alternatives 3 and 5 propose about twice as much young growth by even-aged harvest over 

uneven-aged harvest and Alternative 2 about four times as much.

The interagency approved deer model assigns different relative values to different habitat types. The 

stem exclusion stage gets one of the lowest values while early seral stage acres get a higher value. 

The conversion of the stem exclusion acres back into early seral stage acres may improve habitat for 

deer.

Young-growth treatments and restoration activities on NFS lands may provide additional foraging 

opportunities for species such as cavity nesters through the increase in downed wood and decaying 

slash. These treatments could collectively improve habitat conditions for old-growth associated 

species.

Many older young-growth stands in biogeographic provinces with high levels of past old-growth 

activities would begin to recover back into the understory reinitiation stage over the next 40 to 50 

years. However, the POW LLA Project proposed harvest activities would delay this recovery process 

so that clearcut second-growth forests would require 50 to 60 years to reach the same stand conditions 

present today, and another 40 to 50 years to recover into understory re-initiation structure. This may 

be inconsistent with the need to provide long-term understory forage production and habitat quality 

for wildlife. Under the current Forest Plan, all of the alternatives in the POW LLA Project, over the 

long term, would result in some NFS land remaining at the stem exclusion stage or lower. Although 

clearcut harvesting does produce an immediate flush of high quality understory biomass, it typically 

lasts only 10 to 25 years, and is not available to deer during periods of heavy snow. The stem 

exclusion phase lasts for as much as 150 to 200 years and can create a long-lasting deficit of wildlife 

habitat for a given watershed or region (Alaback 2010). Short rotations are “insufficient for 

development of forest stand attributes approximating the composition, structure, and function of oldgrowth forests” (Iverson 1996).

There are risk/benefit tradeoffs between allowing a stand in the stem exclusion stage to continue to 

mature on a natural trajectory versus manually resetting it back to the stand initiation stage. In the 

short term, there are benefits to some species by resetting the stands back to the stand initiation stage 

and increasing the forage availability, at least in the summer. Overall, however, the long-term effects 

are unknown.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 221

Precommercial Thinning (PCT)

In young-growth stands, generally less than 25 years old, the most common intermediate treatment is 

PCT. PCT removes excessive trees through the cutting of less desirable trees while leaving the most 

desirable trees in a more free-to-grow condition. PCT can be performed to various residual stand 

densities depending on overall resource objectives.

Commercial Young-Growth Harvest

Commercial harvest (such as commercial thinning and even-aged and uneven-aged management 

prescriptions) of young-growth stands may have potential beneficial effects to biodiversity associated 

with promoting stand development in previously harvested stands such as opening the tree canopy 

and promoting understory development.

Commercial harvest could result in habitat improvements in young growth, potentially benefiting 

deer, and thus wolves, over the long term. Commercial harvest could improve deer habitat quality by 

increasing forage availability (Hanley 2005). The harvest of older young-growth stands without slash 

removal may create unacceptable levels of slash, which can persist for about 10 years or longer. The 

slash levels may inhibit forage maintenance or reestablishment. Various methods of reducing slash 

depth or amounts have proven to be expensive.

The use of open areas by deer may increase the risk of predation. Important factors in influencing 

predation included slope, flat terrain, and a north aspect. These factors combined with an increase in 

predation in open areas means managers should avoid creating large openings on flat or gently rolling 

terrain.

The Kosciusko DEIS (June 2002) indicated that limited surveys conducted on Kosciusko Island 

(included in the project area), showed that previously thinned stands were producing substantial 

amounts of forage that should be available for deer and other wildlife.

The structure in commercial-aged young-growth stands is predominantly stem exclusion, but is 

trending toward understory re-initiation. Many of these stands were precommercially thinned in the 

past. PCT has positively influenced stand development moving them toward understory re-initiation 

sooner. Understory re-initiation is the stage where the stand overstory begins to open up allowing for 

new understory plants to develop due to the increase in light. The process of under story re-initiation 

would continue without any stand treatments, though, over a longer time frame. Over time, the base 

of the overstory crown moves upward and more sunlight reaches the forest floor from side lighting. 

As these stands age, increasingly larger trees succumb to mortality from various causes, resulting in 

the potential for opening to form in the canopy creating greater vertical and horizontal diversity. 

Eventually these stands naturally develop old-growth structural characteristics. The time it takes for 

these stands to move through this process is contingent on a number of factors like species 

composition, site index, natural events, and past treatments. On average it is expected that 

commercial sized stands would be in transition between stem exclusion and understory re-initiation 

until about age 100. After age 100 they would likely be more fully into the understory re-initiation 

stage.

The benefits of letting a stand return to old-growth habitat on its own compared to either returning it 

to the stand initiation stage and having the stand have to go through the all the successional stages 

again before returning to old growth has been debated. At this time on the Tongass, there is no 

research that indicates the that the value of returning a stand back to the stand initiation stage is better 

than letting it return on a more natural trajectory to old growth; however, in the short term, returning a 

stand the stand initiation stage should provide more forage especially when uneven-aged harvest 

methods are used.
3 – Environment and Effects

222 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

One effect of the proposed treatments or harvest to the young-growth acres would be the increase in 

light to the forest floor thereby increasing forage. Many wildlife species, including deer and bears, 

would benefit from the increased forage. Proposed riparian treatments would likely result in longterm improvements to the habitat around Class I streams. Young-growth treatments or harvest may 

provide additional foraging opportunities for cavity nesters due to the increase of downed wood and 

decaying slash.

All action alternatives would result in a positive direct effect to deer by converting stem excluded 

stands with little to forage into stands with more forage available, thereby benefiting deer (and 

indirectly wolves) and bear. Indirectly, the proposed activities in the young growth may result in 

improved connectivity in the long term by leaving some acres untreated or unthinned.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 will have no direct effect to young-growth habitat. There will be indirect effects as acres 

currently providing some deer habitat move from the early seral stage into the stem exclusion stage. 

WAA 901 will decrease DHC by about 5 percent, WAA 1003 about 2 percent, WAA 1211 about 3 

percent, WAA 1214 about 5 percent, WAA 1315 about 8 percent, WAA 1317 about 2 percent, WAA 

1318 about 3 percent, WAA 1319 about 2 percent, WAA 1420 about 5 percent, WAA 1421 about 3 

percent, WAA 1422 about 4 percent, and WAA 1527 about 3 percent. The DHC in all the other WAAs 

in the project area would decrease by 1 percent or less under the No-Action Alternative.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

It is assumed that the direct effect of young-growth treatments or harvest could result in a positive 

effect to wildlife over the current condition, either by increasing the amount of forage available or by 

maintaining corridors. The indirect effects would occur as acres currently providing deer habitat move 

from the early seral stage into the stem exclusion stage, resulting in a more negative effect.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 proposes to treat about 3 MMBF of young growth in the first 1 to 7 years of the POW 

LLA Project. In years 8 to 15 it would treat about 50 MMBF.

Alternatives 3 and 5

These alternatives propose to treat about 7 MMBF of young growth in the first 1 to 7 years of the 

POW LLA Project. In years 8 to 15 they would treat about 60 MMBF.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 incorporates parts of the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program. Alternative 3 

includes retaining un-treated leave strips in young-growth stands with the intent to provide corridors

and travelways for wildlife. The Wolf Plan recommends that these strips be about 400 feet apart from 

each other. Alternative 3 also includes the recommendation to consider a variety of treatment and 

harvest combinations to include forage production, corridors, and reduce slash. Vulnerability of deer

to predation can be reduced on flatter slopes by creating smaller and more dispersed treatments or 

harvest. All of these recommendations benefit deer but also other wildlife species by increasing 

forage availability and reducing slash.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 223

Alternative 5

The Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program (available in the project record) 

recommendations would be implemented fully.

Cumulative Effects

It is assumed that while some acres of young-growth on non-NFS land would continue to move from 

early seral stage stands into stem exclusion stands, other acres would likely be treated in some way 

that would improve wildlife habitat over the current condition. The amount of acres that would be 

treated are unknown, but any acres converted from stem exclusion back into the early seral stage 

would be assumed to provide a beneficial effect to deer and thus wolves.

Conclusion

Since Alternatives 3 and 5 could result in more acres of young-growth being converted from stem 

exclusion back to stand initiation or being treated using an uneven-aged harvest prescription, these 

alternatives would result in a greater benefit to habitat overall than Alternative 2. All actions 

alternatives would result in a benefit to wildlife greater than Alternative 1.

The treatment and harvest of young-growth acres would affect different species differently. Some 

species, such as deer (and indirectly wolves), bear, and grouse, could be expected to benefit in the 

short term from the even-aged harvest of young-growth stands. The beneficial effect to deer may also 

benefit subsistence hunters if the deer population increases. Most species could be expected to benefit 

in the long term from the uneven-aged harvest treatments or harvest of young-growth stands because 

these treatments and harvest would be expected to provide more old-growth-like characteristics 

quicker over the long term. If these treatments or harvest also include slash treatments, then these

stands could provide less dispersal restrictions to some species. The uneven-aged harvest treatments 

could also mean that there would be some structural retention remaining in these stands which could 

be beneficial to species such as the squirrel.

Alexander Archipelago Wolf

In 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded there was reasonable risk that 

wolves could be significantly reduced, or perhaps even extirpated, from Prince of Wales Island and 

the smaller surrounding islands as a result of declining prey abundance and increasing density of 

roads and subsequent human-induced mortality risk to wolves. The GMU 2 wolf population relies 

solely on deer as an ungulate prey species. Although other non-ungulate species are also food sources,

it is more vulnerable to declines in deer numbers compared to all other populations. Logging has 

occurred disproportionately in GMU 2 and deer are projected to decline by approximately 21 to 33 

percent over the next 30 years, and, correspondingly, the wolf population is predicted to decline by an 

average of 8 to 14 percent (Gilbert et al. 2015, pp. 19, 43).

The USFWS in their response to the petition to list the wolf determined that the Conservation 

Strategy provided adequate habitat for wolves and that listing the wolf was not warranted (Federal 

Register /Vol. 81, No. 3 /Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules).

The USFWS response to the petition to list the wolf in the Federal Register states that the wolf 

population in GMU 2 is about 6 percent of the overall population (also citing Person et al. 1996 p. 13 

and ADF&G 2015a p. 2). The Federal Register also states that the gene flow was most restricted to 

and from the GMU 2 wolf population (Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 923; Cronin et al. 2015, 

Supplemental Table 3), although this population does not appear to be completely isolated. the 

frequency of private alleles (based on nuclear DNA) in the GMU 2 wolf population is low relative to 

other Alexander Archipelago wolves (Weckworth et al. 2005, p. 921), and the population does not 
3 – Environment and Effects

224 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

harbor unique haplotypes (based on mitochondrial DNA), both of which suggest that complete 

isolation has not occurred. Thus, although some genetic discontinuities of Alexander Archipelago 

wolves is evident, likely due to geographical disruptions to dispersal and gene flow, genetic 

connectivity among populations seems to be intact, albeit at low levels for some populations (e.g., 

GMU 2). The USFWS determined that the subspecific identity, if any, of wolves in southeastern 

Alaska and coastal British Columbia remains unresolved (Federal Register /Vol. 81, No. 3 

/Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules). Other literature finds that wolves inhabiting Prince 

of Wales Island are genetically isolated from other populations in Southeast Alaska (Person 2001; 

Weckworth et al. 2005, 2010, 2011). Research presented at the Tongass Conservation Strategy

Review Workshop 2006 indicated that the population on Prince of Wales Island is genetically isolated 

from other Tongass populations. This presents implications for maintaining well-distributed wolf 

populations in light of local declines, given that these populations may be more sensitive to human 

activity and habitat disturbance than wolf populations elsewhere in the state (Schoen and Person 

2007).

The USFWS acknowledges in the Federal Register response on the petition to list the wolf indications 

that gaps in wolf population may occur but that these gaps did not warrant the listing of the wolf. The 

USFWS determined that the loss of the GMU 2 population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf, when 

considered in relation to the taxon as a whole, would not result in a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon. The GMU 2 population constitutes only 6 percent of the current rangewide population, only 4 

percent of the range, and only 9 percent of the range below 1,312 feet in elevation where the 

Alexander Archipelago wolf selectively occurs (Federal Register /Vol. 81, No. 3 /Wednesday, January 

6, 2016 / Proposed Rules). In the Federal Register response to list the wolf, the USFWS found that 

even though deer and wolf populations are expected to decline in GMU 2, in part as a result of timber 

harvest, these declines would not result in a rangewide impact to the Alexander Archipelago wolf 

population. The USFWS goes on to state that the GMU 2 population contributes little to the viability

of the taxon as a whole given that it composes a small percentage of the current rangewide population 

and it occupies a small percentage of the range of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. Given the 

insularity and peripheral geographic position compared to the rest of the range, the GMU 2 

population contributes even less demographically and genetically than it does numerically. Due the 

fact that it is insular and geographically peripheral, and that it appears to be functioning as a sink 

population, the GMU 2 population represents a small percentage of the range and rangewide 

population of the Alexander Archipelago wolf. The USFWS concluded that, although there are 

potential threats in GMU 2, the GMU 2 contribution to the viability of the taxon as a whole is not so 

important that, without the members of GMU 2, the Alexander Archipelago wolf would be in danger 

of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range (Federal 

Register /Vol. 81, No. 3 /Wednesday, January 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules).

Deer Habitat

Affected Environment

The Tongass Conservation Strategy provides habitat for wolves and their prey (deer). The 

Conservation Strategy was determined to maintain viable and well-distributed populations.

Habitat suitability/capability modeling is a useful method for identifying habitat that is potentially 

suitable for a species. During modeling, the suitability or capability of habitat types is rated based on 

known habitat associations of the species. Differences in carrying capacity of winter habitat for deer

is referred to as habitat capability. Good habitat capability may not equate to a good deer population 

due to other environmental factors such as disease, over-predation or overhunting.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 225

Table 48. Deer Habitat Capability by Biogeographic Province – 2016 Forest Plan

Province Existing DHC Percent maintained with full implementation of 2016 Forest Plan

14 31,134 95 percent or more depending on Forest Plan alternative

16 9,043 100

17 5,272 100

18 11,358 100

Numbers from Table 3.10-10 2016 Forest Plan FEIS p. 3-264

The Forest Plan estimated that with full implementation of the plan for biogeographic provinces

within the POW LLA Project, that only Province 14, the North Central Prince of Wales 

Biogeographic Province, would experience a reduction in DHC and that even this Province would 

maintain at least 95 percent of the current DHC. All other provinces in the POW LLA Project area 

were estimated to maintain 100 percent of the current estimated DHC. All effects discussed below 

would be assumed to be in Province 14.

Environmental Effects

Direct and Indirect Effects

It is assumed that all LSTA proposed harvest acres would be harvested and the harvest method would 

be clearcut.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no direct effect to wolves. There will be indirect effects as acres currently 

providing deer habitat move from the early seral stage into the stem exclusion stage. WAA 901 will 

decrease DHC by about 5 percent, WAA 1003 about 2 percent, WAA 1211 about 3 percent, WAA 

1214 about 5 percent, WAA 1315 about 8 percent, WAA 1317 about 2 percent, WAA 1318 about 3 

percent, WAA 1319 about 2 percent, WAA 1420 about 5 percent, WAA 1421 about 3 percent, WAA 

1422 about 4 percent, and WAA 1527 about 3 percent. All the other WAAs in the project area would 

decrease by less than 1 percent under the No-Action Alternative.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 includes timber harvest mitigation in timber harvest polygons within 5 miles of a 

subsistence community in WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated DHC. This 

would occur in WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420. See discussion on deer habitat above. See 

discussion above for impacts to non-winter, average snow, and deep snow deer habitat and the effects 

of young-growth treatments and harvest.

Alternative 3

In WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated DHC, allow only 25 percent 

removal by single tree selection (STS) for old-growth harvest on south-facing stands below 800 feet 

in elevation. This would occur in WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, and 1420. WAAs 1315, 1317, and 

1420 are also areas where more than 50 percent of the original deep snow deer habitat has been 

harvested. In Alternative 3, effects to DHC in these three WAAs (1315, 1317, and 1420) would be

mitigated by the restrictions in these three WAAs. These WAAs may also include other mitigation 

measures such as the Legacy Standard and Guideline or peak flow rate measures (See Issue 5). See 

discussion above for impacts to non-winter, average snow, and deep snow deer habitat and the effects 

of young-growth treatments and harvest.

Alternative 3 incorporates portions of the Wolf Plan.
3 – Environment and Effects

226 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 we would propose no harvest in south-facing stands below 800 feet in elevation in 

WAAs with 10 percent or more deer harvested of the estimated DHC (WAAs 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, 

and 1420). WAAs 1315, 1317, and 1420 are also areas where more than 50 percent of the original 

deep snow deer habitat has been harvested. This mitigation will help to offset the effects to deer 

habitat capability. These WAAs may also include other mitigation measures such as the Legacy

Standard and Guideline or peak flow rate measures (see Issue 5). See discussion above for impacts to 

non-winter, average snow, and deep snow deer habitat and the effects of young-growth treatments and 

harvest.

Alternative 5 incorporates the Wolf Plan in its entirety.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 227

Figure 7. Wolf Mortality and Road Density with LSTA displayed
3 – Environment and Effects

228 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects on Lands in All Ownerships

Harvest on non-NFS lands would move both young-growth acres and old-growth into the early seral 

stage, assuming clearcut harvest would be used. It is assumed that while some acres of young-growth 

on non-NFS land would continue to move from early seral stage stands into stem exclusion stands,

other acres would likely be treated in some way that would improve wildlife habitat over the current 

condition. The amount of acres that would be treated is unknown, but any acres converted from stem 

exclusion back into the early seral stage would be assumed to provide a beneficial effect to deer and 

thus wolves.

Conclusion

Overall effects to wolves are due to effects to deep snow habitat (deer); see discussion above under 

deep snow habitat. However, the POW LLA Project does focus on maintaining the limiting habitat for 

deer (deep snow habitat) in Alternatives 3 and 5 which should help to mitigate the effects to wolves.

The Forest Plan Conservation Strategy is intended to maintain the persistence of the old-growth 

ecosystem (and the predator-prey dynamic of wolves and deer which it supports) (USDA Forest 

Service 2008b, p. 3-232).

Wolf Mortality

Affected Environment

A study, Person and Logan 2012, was done to attempt to quantify which WAAs may have 

unsustainable or greater wolf mortality on Prince of Wales Island. In 1999 the season was temporarily 

closed by emergency order which Person and Logan felt may have affected the reliability of reported 

take. Person and Logan (2012) stated that the occurrence of both unsustainable and pack depletion 

harvests peaked prior to 1999.

This report suggested that some WAAs on Prince of Wales Island may have periodically experienced 

unsustainable wolf harvest, which is annual harvest rates greater than or equal to 3 wolves per 300 

square kilometers with some WAAs experiencing chronic unsustainable wolf harvest, which is 

unsustainable harvest at least 5 times between 1985 and 2009.

The risk criteria used to rank the WAAs were defined in Person and Logan 2012. The wolf harvest in 

the highest risk WAAs may benefit the most from road management. Risk category #1 is defined as 

greater than or equal to seven wolves per 300 square kilometers for at least 2 years at least 5 times 

from 1985 to 2009. The WAAs included in risk category #1 are WAAs 1317 and 1318. Risk category 

#2 is defined as greater than or equal to 7 wolves per 300 square kilometers at least once from 1985 to 

2009 and includes WAAs 1003, 1214, 1315, 1420, 1421, 1527, 1528, and 1529. Risk category #3 is

defined as WAAs that have experienced chronic unsustainable harvest (greater than or equal to three 

wolves per 300 square kilometers) for greater than or equal to 5 years from 1985 to 2009. Risk 

category #3 includes WAAs 1422 and 1530. The least risky category, #4, is defined as unsustainable 

harvest (greater than or equal to 3 wolves per 300 square kilometers at least one time from 1985 to 

2009) and includes WAAs 1525 and 1531. The rest of the WAAs in GMU 2 either do not have a wolf 

mortality concern or a high road density.

Road Density

Although most wolves (about 59 percent) are harvested by hunters and trappers working from boats, 

harvest-related wolf mortality is correlated with road density and type of habitat, which influence 

their vulnerability to harvest (Person and Russell 2008; Person and Logan 2012). Person and Russell

2008 found that the rate of harvest of wolves increased with density of roads, which provide access to 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 229

hunters and trappers; however, road densities of about 1.5 miles per square mile or greater had little 

additional effect on harvest rates. Road building in WAAs that does not result in road densities that 

exceed 0.7 mile per square mile would have the least negative effect to wolf mortality.

The Forest Plan states that a road density of 0.7 to 1.0 mile per square mile or less may be necessary 

to reduce harvest-related mortality risk where locally unsustainable wolf mortality has been 

identified. Person et al. (1996) reported that wolf harvest increased twofold when total road density

below 1,200 feet elevation exceeded 0.7 miles per square mile. This study did not differentiate 

between open and closed roads, though the authors stated that road status likely had an important 

influence on wolf mortality. Similarly, wolves are more easily observed in open habitats such as 

muskegs, meadows, and young clearcuts; therefore, use of these habitats, particularly in areas 

accessible to humans (i.e., the beach and roaded areas), increases the risk of harvest-related mortality 

(Person and Russell 2008).

New roads constructed in drainages with existing roads would be expected to have less of an effect on 

harvest-related mortality risk than new roads entering undisturbed areas. Such effects could be 

mitigated to some extent through road closures. Open roads would be expected to have a greater 

effect than roads that are closed (either through storage or decommissioning) following their use 

(Person and Russell 2008). However, Person and Logan (2012) modeled the effects of such closures 

and found them to have little influence on mortality risk.

Currently, total road density below 1,200 feet elevation for National Forest System roads only on 

Prince of Wales Island is about 0.99 mile per square mile. The road densities in some WAAs exceed 

both the Forest Plan recommendation (0.7 to 1.0 mile per square mile) as well as the 1.5 miles per 

square mile suggested by Person and Russell (2008). There are five WAAs (1315, 1429, 1422, 1529, 

and 1530) that exceed the 1.5 miles per square mile and have higher mortality concerns. There are 

also WAAs 1003, 1525, and 1531 that exceed this road density, but where only the least level of wolf

mortality concern (unsustainable harvest greater than or equal to three wolves per 300 square 

kilometers at least once) has been identified (WAAs 1003, 1525, and 1531).

There can be a high rate of illegal harvest on wolves. Person and Russell 2008 found that illegal take 

can approach about 46 percent of the total wolf mortality. The 46 percent was rounded up to 50 

percent to estimate illegal take. The reported take was doubled because Person and Russell 2008 

concluded that the illegal take may at times equal the legal harvest on Prince of Wales.

The project area is about 2.3 million acres (all lands) which equals to about 31 packs (300 square 

kilometers). When this value is multiplied by 3 for unsustainable harvest it equals about 93 wolves

harvested and when multiplied by 7 this is about 217 wolves harvested. Reported harvest did not 

exceed the defined unsustainable harvest.

Double the legal harvest only exceeded unsustainable harvest once in 2004. When reported harvest 

was doubled, it exceeded unsustainable harvest in 2004, 2005, and 2013. No levels harvest exceeded 

the chronic unsustainable harvest levels.
3 – Environment and Effects

230 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 49. Reported Legal and Estimated Illegal Wolf Take in GMU 2 WAAs*

GMU 2

Year Reported +50% 2X

2003 33 50 66

2004 77 116 154

2005 60 90 120

2006 38 57 76

2007 36 54 72

2008 38 57 76

2009 36 54 72

2010 24 36 48

2011 23 35 46

2012 20 30 40

2013 52 78 104

2014 30 45 60

2015** 7 11 14

2016 30 45 60

TOTAL 504 756 1008

Avg. take per year 36 54 72

*Harvests pulled from sealing data from ADF&G; J. Reeves; numbers rounded

**Season closed by ADF&G emergency closure

Environmental Effects

Road Density

Table 50 is a compilation of information from Person and Logan 2012. This table shows that there are 

several WAAs that have wolf mortality concerns but have low road densities (below 0.7 mile per 

square mile): WAAs 901, 1106, 1107, 1211, 1215, 1316, 1332, and 1526. All of these WAAs provide 

beach access for potential wolf harvest. This table also shows the following:

• WAAs, 1319, 1525, and 1531 have road densities above 0.7 mile per square mile, but have only 

the least level of wolf mortality concern, which is unsustainable harvest greater than or equal to 

three wolves per 300 square kilometers at least once.

• WAAs 902, 1105, 1108, 1209, 1210, 1213, 1323, and 1524 all have low road densities and low 

wolf mortality concerns.

• The remaining WAAs, 1003, 1214, 1315, 1317, 1318, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1527, 1528, 1529, and 

1530, all have both high road densities and high wolf mortality concerns.

• WAAs 1104 (Forrester Island) and 1524 (Coronation Island) are not included, as neither WAA has 

any roads, though both provide beach access.

Adverse effects due to increased road density may occur in other WAAs that currently have less than 

0.7 mile per square mile of road, but is less likely because of the current lower road densities in these 

WAAs. However, WAAs that would not have increased road density due to either being in 

Wilderness, LUD II or roadless are: 902, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1209, 1210, 1212, 1213, 1316, 

1323, and 1524. WAAs 901, 1211, 1318, 1332, and 1528 are all near the 0.7 mile per square mile 

value, but less than 1.0.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 231

Table 50. Wolf Mortality Risk 1985 to 2009 and Road densities by WAA

WAA Unsustainable 

harvest1/

Chronic 

unsustainable 

harvest2/

unsustainabl

e rates ≥10 

years

pack turnover 

or pack 

depletion 

possible3/

high risk of 

pack 

depletion4/

risked pack 

depletion ≥5 

times

Total Rd 

density5/

mi/mi2

Area

901 X X X X X X 0.6 Suemez

902 X X X X X 0 Outer Is.

1003 X X X X 2.3 Heceta

1105 X 0 Dall

1106 X X X X 0 Long Is.

1107 X X X 0.1 Nutkwa

1108 X 0 South POW

Wilderness

1209 X 0 Bokan

1210 0 Moira

1211 X X X X X 0.5 Chasina

1212 X X 0 Dr. Point

1213 X X X 0 Cholmondeley

1214 X X X X 1.1 Polk

1315 X X X X 1.9 Kasaan

1316 X X X X X Maybeso*

1317 X X X X X 1.0 12 mile

1318 X X X X X 0.8 Craig

1319 X 1.1 N. Thorne

1323 X 0.2 Shinaku

1332 X X X X X X 0.5 Trocadero

1420 X X X X X 2.0 Coffman

1421 X X X X 1.4 Logjam

1422 X X X 1.9 Naukati

1524 0 Warren Is

1525 X 2.1 South 

Kosciusko

1526 X X X X 0.2 North 

Kosciusko

1527 X X X X 1.3 Calder

1528 X X X X 0.7 Salmon Bay

1529 X X X X 1.6 Lab Bay

1530 X X X 1.8 Whale Pass

1531 X 1.8 Tuxekan

1/ ≥3 wolves per 300 km2 harvested at least once between 1985 and 2009

2/≥3 wolves per 300 km2 harvested for ≥5 years

3/≥7 wolves per 300 km2 harvested at least once between 1985 and 2009

4/ ≥7 wolves per 300 km2 harvested for ≥2 years

5/ NFS roads only

*WAA 1316 Maybeso is missing information
3 – Environment and Effects

232 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Figure 8. Wolf Mortality and Roads
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 233

WAAs Ranked by Wolf Mortality Concerns and Road Density

The following table only includes the WAAs that were identified as having a high risk of wolf

mortality or high road densities, as defined in Person and Logan 2012. Not all WAAs are included in 

the following discussion because they either did not rate out as having a mortality concern or high

Table 51. Ranking of WAAs by Concern as Defined in Person and Logan 2012

Concern #1 – WAAs that have risked pack depletion (greater than or equal to seven wolves per 300 square 

kilometers for at least 2 years) at least five times from 1985 and 2009 

WAA Name /Location Road Density mi/mi2 Comments 

901 Suemez Island 0.6 Lower road density may indicate that most of 

the harvest is occurring from the beach.

1211 0.5 Chasina

1316 Maybeso Experimental 

Forest 

No information

1317 Twelvemile Arm 1.0 WAA may benefit from road management

1318 Craig 0.8 WAA may benefit from road management.

Much of the land in this WAA is non NFS.

1332 Trocadero 0.5

Concern #2 – WAAs that have experienced high risk of pack depletion (greater than or equal to seven wolves 

per 300 square kilometers) at least once from 1985 to 2009 

WAA Name /Location Road Density mi/mi2 Comments 

902 Outer Islands 0 No NFS roads

1003 Heceta 2.3 WAA may benefit from road management

1106 Long Island 0 No NFS roads

1107 Nutkwa 0 No NFS roads

1212 Dr. Point 0 No NFS roads

1214 Polk Inlet 1.1 WAA may benefit from road management

1315 Thorne Bay/Kasaan 1.9 WAA may benefit from road management

1420 Coffman Cove 2.0 WAA may benefit from road management

1421 Logjam 1.4 WAA may benefit from road management

1526 N. Kosciusko 0.2 Low NFS road density

1527 Calder 1.3 WAA may benefit from road management

1528 Salmon Bay 0.7 WAA may benefit from road management

1529 Lab Bay 1.6 WAA may benefit from road management

Concern #3 – WAAs that have experienced chronic unsustainable harvest (greater than or equal to three

wolves per 300 square kilometers) for greater than or equal to 5 years from 1985 to 2009

WAA Name /Location Road Density mi/mi2 Comments 

1422 Naukati 1.8 WAA may benefit from road management.

1530 Whale Pass 1.9 WAA may benefit from road management.

Concern #4 – WAAs that have experienced unsustainable harvest (greater than or equal to three wolves per 

300 square kilometers) at least once from 1985 to 2009 

WAA Name /Location Road Density mi/mi2 Comments 

1525 Kosciusko Island (southern 

half)

2.1 Most of the land in this WAA is non NFS. 

1531 Tuxekan Island 1.8 Almost all of the land in this WAA is non NFS. 
3 – Environment and Effects

234 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

road densities. See Table 51 for a relative ranking of the WAAs in the project area by the different 

levels of mortality concern, as defined by Person and Logan 2012.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The POW LLA Project proposes to harvest timber and build roads under all action alternatives, but it 

is unknown at this time where on the landscape this would occur; maps showing WAAs with wolf

mortality concerns and potential road building and timber harvest are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8. 

It is likely that timber harvest and road building would continue to occur on lands in other ownership.

Alternative 1

Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on wolves related to access; however, roads would be 

continued to be closed under the POW ATM. Closing roads would benefit wolves by reducing access 

for hunting and trapping.

Alternative 1 does not result in the loss of any old-growth habitat and, therefore, there is no reduction 

in the amount of currently available deep snow deer winter range, which is the most limiting factor 

for deer. The POW LLA Project Alternative 1 would not build any roads but would continue to close 

roads under the POW ATM, resulting in an overall decrease in road density at least on NFS lands. No 

old-growth harvest would occur under Alternative 1 resulting in no direct change to deer habitat 

capability; however, indirectly deer habitat capability would continue to decrease as acres in the stand 

initiation stage move into the stem exclusion stage. Some young-growth treatments would continue to 

occur under Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 proposes to build about 35 miles of NFS road and 129 miles of temporary road at the 

project area scale. It is unknown where on the landscape the road building would occur.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 proposes to build about 48 miles of NFS road and about 175 miles of temporary road at 

the project area scale. It is unknown where on the landscape the road building would occur.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 proposes to build about 49 miles of NFS road and about 180 miles of temporary road at 

the project area scale. It is unknown where on the landscape the road building would occur.

Cumulative Effects

About 566 miles of road could be built on non-NFS lands. The effects of road building on non-NFS 

lands would increase the effects of road access on NFS lands.

WAAs 901, 1211, 1318, 1332, and 1528 are all near the 0.7 mile per square mile value, but less than 

1.0 mile per square mile. All these WAAs have non-NFS lands within them as well. Road building in 

these WAAs would result in an increased negative effect to wolves due to the increased access that 

roads provide to hunters and trappers.

It is likely that road building would continue to occur on non-NFS lands. The road closures that 

would occur on NFS lands under the POW ATM could offset some the road building on non-NFS 

lands. Road building on non-NFS lands in WAAs that already exceed the 1.5 miles per square mile, 

the value suggested by Person and Russell 2008 to have little additional effect to wolf harvest rates, 

would be in WAAs 1003, 1315, 1420, 1421, 1422, 1525, 1529, 1530, and 1531.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 235

Conclusion

Effects to wolves from reductions in deer habitat capability would occur under all alternatives. 

However, taking only NFS lands into account, long-term (stem exclusion) deer habitat capability 

would be similar under all action alternatives. When taking both NFS and non-NFS lands into 

account, deer habitat capability would be comparable under any of the alternatives. Project-related 

effects to deer habitat capability under the action alternatives, and reductions due to forest succession 

in previously harvested stands, have the potential to reduce the prey base for wolves. Accordingly, 

there would be some reduction in the ability of project area WAAs to maintain a sustainable wolf

population, based on deer habitat capability alone.

Benefits to wolves in the project area would be provided indirectly (by improving habitat for deer) 

through young-growth management. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 could also result in the commercial 

harvest of young-growth acres which could improve deer habitat quality.

Cumulatively, road densities may increase under all action alternatives and be similar under all 

alternatives. Road densities in many project area WAAs (below 1,200 feet elevation) currently exceed 

the Forest Plan recommended level of 0.7 to 1.0 mile per square mile for managing harvest-related 

morality risk, both when considering only NFS lands and all landownerships. Further increases in 

road density have the potential to increase wolf harvest mortality risk; however, Person and Russell 

(2008) concluded that road densities above 1.5 miles per square mile (0.9 kilometer per square 

kilometer) had little additional effect on harvest rates. Therefore, minor increases in road density

under any of the alternatives would not be expected to substantially increase harvest risk because of 

existing road densities in the project area WAAs that are above this number. If wolf harvest levels 

appear unsustainable, ADF&G has the ability to implement a wolf harvest cap in GMU 2.

The proposed activities under the POW LLA Project would have no direct effect to wolves. The 

proposed activities would result in an indirect effect to wolves through the direct effects to deer

habitat and increased access due to increased access for hunters and trappers.

Overall, indirect effects to wolves in WAAs where the estimated percentage of deep snow habitat 

remains above 50 percent and the road densities do not exceed 0.7 mile per square mile, could be the 

least of all WAAs impacted, due to level of habitat retention and low road densities.

In WAAs where the deep snow habitat drops below 20 percent habitat remaining and have a road 

density currently below 0.7 mile per square mile, and the POW LLA Project results in the road 

density exceeding this value, the effects to wolves would be greatest relative to WAAs with more 

deep snow habitat and lower road densities.

Of the WAAs in the project area, six are calculated to be in the ranking of greatest concern (#1) 

according to Person and Logan 2012. These are WAAs that have risked pack depletion (greater than 

or equal to seven wolves per 300 square kilometers for at least 2 years) at least five times from 1985 

and 2009. Eight WAAs are included in Concern Level #2 for WAAs that have experienced high risk 

of pack depletion (greater than or equal to seven wolves per 300 square kilometers) from 1985 to 

2009. The WAAs in Concern Level #1 is equal to 19 percent of the WAAs in the project area, and the 

WAAs in Concern Level #2 is equal to 58 percent of the project area. Two WAAs, about 6 percent of 

project area WAAs, are included in Concern Level #3; these are WAAs that have experienced harvest 

that could have resulted in pack turnover or pack depletion (greater than or equal to seven wolves per 

300 square kilometers). Two WAAs (about 6 percent of project area WAAs) are in Concern Level #4,

WAAs that have experienced unsustainable harvest (greater than or equal to three wolves per 300 

square kilometers) at least once from 1985 to 2009. Overall, about 89 percent of the project area 

WAAs have some level of wolf mortality concern as defined by Person and Logan 2012.
3 – Environment and Effects

236 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

The Conservation Strategy maintains old-growth associated species (marten, goshawks, flying 

squirrels). The Forest Plan determined that with the conservation strategy in place, even with full 

implementation of the Forest Plan, it would be expected to have a moderate to very high likelihood to 

maintain viable, well-distributed populations. For a complete review of the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, refer to Appendix D of the 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Appendix D of the 2008 

Forest Plan FEIS, and Appendix N of the 1997 Forest Plan.

See conclusion discussion above under deep snow deer winter range for effects to deer.

Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186 provides for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats, and 

requires the evaluation of the effects of Federal actions on migratory birds, with an emphasis on 

species of concern. The Executive Order directs agencies to take certain actions to further comply 

with the migratory bird conventions, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act, and other pertinent statutes. Agencies are required to avoid or minimize, to the 

extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions 

(Forest Plan FEIS pp. 3-242 to 3-245).

Priority migratory bird species identified in the Landbird Conservation Plan (BPIF 1999; Rich et al.

2004) for Southeast Alaska with the potential to occur on the Tongass National Forest are listed 

below. Of these species, 14 use hemlock/spruce/cedar forest (both old-growth and young-growth) as 

primary habitat for known or probable breeding; the remaining 6 use this forest as secondary habitat.

The main management issue for some migratory birds is the harvest of old-growth coniferous forests. 

Timber harvest directly removes perching, foraging, and nesting habitat, and results in habitat 

fragmentation, which may reduce the suitability of remaining forest for species associated with oldgrowth interior forest conditions, such as the Pacific-slope flycatcher, varied thrush, golden-crowned 

kinglet, Townsend’s warbler, and brown creeper (BPIF 1999, Kissling 2003; Sperry 2006). Of these 

species, 14 use hemlock/spruce/cedar forest (both old-growth and young-growth) as primary habitat 

(Forest Plan FEIS pp. 3-242 to 3-245).

Migratory and Resident Birds Identified as Species of Concern in 

Southeast Alaska

The 2016 Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, Table 3.10-6 pp. 3-244-245 lists migratory birds for the 

Tongass from the Boreal Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan for Alaska Biogeographic 

Regions (1999). The species that may occur in POW LLA project area include the following: western 

screech-owl (Megascops kennicottii), black swift (Cypseloides niger borealis), Vaux’s swift 

(Chaetura vauxi), rufous hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus), red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus 

ruber), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), western wood-peewee (Contopus sordidulus),

Hammond’s flycatcher (Empidonax hammondii), Pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis),

Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), northwestern crow (Corvus caurinus), chestnut-backed chickadee 

(Poecile rufescens), American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus), varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius),

Townsend’s warbler (Dendroica townsendi), blackpoll warbler (Dendroica striata), McGillivray’s 

warbler (Oporornis tolmiei), golden-crowned sparrow (Regulus satrapa), and golden-crowned kinglet 

(Zonotrichia atricapilla).

Conclusion

All of the action alternatives would result in a reduction of perching, foraging, and potential nesting 

habitat and an increase in fragmentation associated with timber harvest and road building. After 

timber harvest, there would be a short-term increase in the habitat for species associated with early 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 237

successional habitats and forest edges. However, reductions in this habitat would be expected as 

forest succession progresses. Habitat removal would reduce the effectiveness of interior forest habitat, 

and increase the potential for nest predation and nest parasitism for some species, which can 

ultimately reduce reproductive success (Robinson et al. 1995). Migratory birds would be most 

susceptible to impacts from harvest activities occurring in suitable nesting habitat during the 

nesting/fledging period, which generally begins in mid-April and ends about mid-July, when young 

birds have fledged.

The migratory bird species most likely to be adversely affected by the harvest of POG forest under all 

of the alternatives are those that primarily nest in POG forests, including the Western screech-owl, 

rufous hummingbird, red-breasted sapsucker, Pacific-slope flycatcher, Steller’s jay, northwestern 

crow, chestnut backed chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, Townsend’s warbler, 

blackpoll warbler, northern goshawk, and marbled murrelet. Alternatives that harvest more POG and 

result in greater increases in the number of POG patches on the landscape would be expected to have 

greater effects to these migratory bird species. Species associated with early successional habitat, 

such as the McGillivray’s warbler, golden-crowned sparrow, and golden-crowned kinglet, may 

benefit through increases in suitable habitat over the short term from timber harvest. All migratory 

bird species would benefit from the transition to young-growth harvest proposed under the Forest 

Plan due to the reduced POG harvest.

See discussion above under the various habitat types: POG, HPOG, and SD67.

Under all alternatives, migratory bird habitat would be maintained by the Forest Plan Conservation 

Strategy, and the Legacy Forest Structure Standard and Guideline.
3 – Environment and Effects

238 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Environment and Effects for Other Resources

The following sections describe the environmental effects of each of the alternatives as they relate to 

other resources for this project. Concerns, suggestions, and design recommendations are discussed as 

they relate to the project’s affected environment and potential effects of the alternatives on resources.

Botany

This section provides a summary of existing conditions for sensitive and rare plants in the POW LLA

project area. No proposed or federally listed plant species are known on the Tongass National Forest.

Methodology

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information, Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) rare 

plant list, and on-line herbaria searches all were used to determine the present locations of sensitive 

and rare plants in the project area. Prior to implementation a qualified Botanist/Ecologist must 

conduct a site-specific review to determine if the activity location has the potential to support any 

Region 10 sensitive plants or Tongass National Forest rare plants.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to sensitive and rare

plants is Prince of Wales Island and the neighboring islands that make up the Thorne Bay and Craig

Ranger districts. Forests and other habitats of the southwestern Tongass contain similar dominant tree 

species and the various non-forested plant communities. Additionally, a sizable proportion of the 

documented sensitive and rare plant populations from the Tongass National Forest occur in the 

southwestern region of the Alexander Archipelago.

The temporal boundary for direct effects to sensitive and rare plants is short term, such as 

immediately after project implementation. The indirect and cumulative effects temporal boundary is 

short and long term, such as within a few days after disturbance, but also can be up to several years 

after project implementation before deleterious effects are evident in relation to sensitive and rare

plant populations. To measure effects of management activities on sensitive and rare plants, a 

qualitative evaluation is used to assess how much natural vegetation has grown back at a site that has 

been disturbed, if invasive or native plants have become established or not, and if soil or other 

substrates for vegetation remain unchanged or are restored to pre-activity conditions.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

The documented occurrences of sensitive and rare plants are associated with surveys from past 

project activities including two recent rare plant studies that focused on potential habitat on the 

northern portion of Prince of Wales Island (Meridian Environmental 2011, 2014). Comprehensive 

habitat surveys have not been conducted for sensitive and rare plants within the entirety of the project 

area and it is likely that additional populations occur in un-surveyed areas.

Affected Environment

Sensitive Plants

There are 17 plant species and 1 lichen designated as sensitive on the Alaska Regional Forester’s list; 

16 of these are known or suspected to occur on the Tongass National Forest. Six of these species have 

been documented within the project area. The project area is within the potential range of an 

additional 5 species, which are suspected to occur within the project area. Table 52 summarizes the 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 239

general habitat requirements of the 11 sensitive species that are either known or suspected to occur 

within the project area.

Table 52. 2009 Alaska Region Sensitive Plants Known or Suspected to Occur Within the Project Area1

Common Name

(Scientific Name) Range and Habitat2

Spatulate moonwort

(Botrychium spathulatum)

Habitat includes coastal forests, stabilized coastal dunes, upper beach 

meadows, well-drained open areas, alpine habitats, and riparian forests.

Suspected in project area.

Moosewort fern

(Botrychium tunux)

Moosewort fern grows on upper beach meadows, coastal dunes, stream 

terraces, river bars and subalpine and alpine slopes. Suspected in project 

area.

Large yellow lady’s slipper

(Cypripedium parviflorum var. 

pubescens)

On the Tongass, this orchid grows in peatlands on calcareous substrates 

(USDA Forest Service 2015a). There are five known populations of large 

yellow lady’s slipper on the Tongass, all within the project area on northern 

Prince of Wales Island (Carlson & Fulkerson 2017a).

Calder’s lovage

(Ligusticum calderi)

Habitat includes alpine and subalpine meadows, boggy slopes, open 

mixed conifer forests, and rocky areas. There are 24 known occurrences 

on the Tongass; 23 on the Craig Ranger District and one on the Thorne 

Bay Ranger District. 

Lichen, no common name

(Ricasolia amplissima ssp.

sheiyi)

There are 10 known populations on National Forest System lands on 

Prince of Wales and the surrounding islands. This lichen grows on trunks 

and main branches of Sitka spruce, Pacific crab apple (Malus fusca), and 

western hemlock in old-growth beach buffer forest (K. Dillman et al. 2017). 

Alaska rein orchid

(Platanthera unalascensis)

This plant is known from 17 populations on the Tongass, with 9 on the 

Thorne Bay Ranger District. Habitat includes dry open sites, under tall 

shrubs in riparian areas, mesic meadows, drier areas in coniferous and 

mixed evergreen forests, and bogs and heath habitat from low to 

subalpine elevations. On the Tongass, this plant generally grows in lowproductivity forests at lower elevations in poorly drained soils (Nawrocki et 

al. 2017). 

Lesser round-leaved orchid

(Platanthera orbiculata)

In Alaska, it grows in low elevation forested wetlands, medium to high 

volume old-growth hemlock forests with high bryophyte cover and a 

redcedar component, forest edges or near gaps in shady forests, and near 

muskegs, open water, or boggy areas (Fulkerson et al. 2017). There 22 

populations known in the project area (Fulkerson et al. 2017). 

Kruckeberg’s swordfern

(Polystichum kruckebergii) Habitat includes open ultramafic rock outcrops. Suspected in project area.

Unalaska mist-maid

(Romanzoffia unalaschcensis)

This plant grows on ledges and crevices in rock outcrops and in gravelly 

areas along stream banks, often along coasts. There are two known 

populations on the Tongass, both on the Thorne Bay Ranger District. 

Henderson’s checkermallow

(Sidalcea hendersonii)

On the Tongass, the one documented population grows at the upper edge 

of an upper beach meadow near the edge of a hemlock and spruce forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2015a). Suspected in project area.

Dune tansy

(Tanacetum camphoratum)

Habitat for this species includes upper beaches, sand dunes, and well 

drained and calcareous soils. Suspected in project area.(Carlson & 

Fulkerson 2017b)

1 Sensitive Plant list updated February 2009. Currently being updated in 2018.

2 Range, habitat, and occurrence information, unless otherwise noted, based on USDA Forest Service 2009; Carlson & 

Fulkerson 2017 a&b, K. Dillman et al. 2017, Fulkerson et al. 2017, and Nawrocki et al. 2017

Rare Plants

Rare plants have similar protection in the Forest Plan as sensitive plants. Rare plant species known or 

suspected to occur on the Tongass National Forest are evaluated based on a list derived from the 
3 – Environment and Effects

240 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP; USDA Forest Service 2009). Included are species with a 

State Ranking of S1 (critically imperiled in the state), S2 (imperiled in the state), or occasionally S3 

(rare within the state), excluding species that are already listed as Sensitive on the Tongass National 

Forest. The list may change with plants added or dropped as additional information on plant 

distribution and taxonomy is learned. The following rare plants have been documented within the 

project area and are included as examples of species that may be encountered during Implementation 

Plan surveys: subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), silver bur ragweed (Ambrosia chamissonis), 

maidenhair spleenwort (Asplenium trichomanes), moonwort (Botrychium spp.), watershield (Brasenia 

schreberi), northern golden saxifrage (Chrysosplenium tetrandrum), fragile rock brake 

(Cryptogramma stelleri), mountain bladderfern (Cystopteris montanum), boreal bedstraw (Galium 

kamtschaticum), slender-spiked mannagrass (Glyceria leptostachya), sickle leaf rush (Juncus falcatus

var. sitchensis), broadlipped twayblade (Listera convallarioides), twinberry honeysuckle (Lonicera 

involucrata), inundated clubmoss (Lycopodiella inundata), tree groundpine (Lycopodium 

dendroideum), adder’s tongue orchid (Malaxis spp.), Alaska oniongrass (Melica subulata), cleftleaf 

ragwort (Senecio moresbiensis), Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus), white piperia (Piperia 

candida), looseflower bluegrass (Poa laxiflora), straightbeak buttercup (Ranunculus orthorhynchus

var. alaschensis), rannoch-rush (Scheuchzeria palustris), swaying bulrush (Scirpus subterminalis), 

and Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia).

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No new activities are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in the least 

direct and indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants for this project. Under Alternative 1, none of the 

specific management activities proposed in the FEIS would be implemented to accomplish project 

goals and objectives. However, natural disturbances and current management of the project area 

would continue as before. Ongoing activities such as recreation, firewood gathering, road and trail

maintenance, and other routine forest management activities not associated with this decision would 

continue at current levels. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this project.

Under the No-Action Alternative 1, invasive plant infestations would continue to be treated by 

manual and mechanical methods under an integrated pest management approach, as provided in the 

Forest Plan for invasive species. Treatment of infestations by chemical methods would also occur at 

current levels in areas authorized under an existing Categorical Exclusion (CE) for five administrative 

and recreation sites within the project area (36 CFR 220.6 (d) (3) and (6)).

Cumulative Effects

The Forest Plan direction for invasive plant management (USDA Forest Service 2016a) includes a 

provision for reviewing the implementation and effectiveness of conservation actions for sensitive 

and rare plants. This review provides information to improve conservation efforts and reduce the 

likelihood of adverse effects to sensitive and rare plant species due to management actions. Under 

Alternative 1, the effects to previously documented sensitive and rare plant populations or their 

habitats have been analyzed under past NEPA decisions. No additional cumulative effects to sensitive 

and rare plants on NFS lands are anticipated.

Conclusion

There are no significant direct and indirect effects to sensitive and rare plants. No additional 

cumulative effects are anticipated.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 241

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

A review of the habitat and a possible site visit to survey for sensitive and rare plants will be 

conducted as part of the Implementation Plan for all activities for all proposed actions. The process of 

a pre-field review will include sufficient detail to determine if sensitive and rare plant species are 

present or their habitat. The intensity and scope of inventories selected to provide information are 

required to be commensurate with the potential risk of a proposed project to sensitive and rare plant 

species. The review is used to evaluate project-level impacts to sensitive and rare plants in order to 

ensure that proposed project activities do not contribute to population or habitat declines that could 

lead to federal listing or loss of viability in the Planning Area (the Tongass National Forest). In 

addition, existing Forest Plan direction will be applied to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive and 

rare plants and their habitat. If sensitive plants are found, the botanist will evaluate the survey results 

for consistency with the determination of effects in the EIS for any sensitive taxa found in the project 

area and document. Mitigation actions may be required to be consistent with the May Affect or No 

Effect determination for sensitive plants found in a project area (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 4-39,

PLA1.II).

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects are not expected to occur on the known populations of sensitive and rare

plants in the project area on NFS lands (K. Dillman 2018b). Botanical review of the proposed activity 

including field surveys and assignment of appropriate mitigation measures will occur before activities 

begin in all the alternatives. The direct and indirect effects for those populations not yet discovered, or 

undocumented sensitive and rare plant populations within other landownerships include possible 

changes in species abundance and/or distribution as a result of disturbance, light change, and/or 

moisture changes that may be caused by proposed activities.

Cumulative Effects

For this analysis, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest and road 

construction for forestry and other uses and development on all land ownerships within the project 

area boundary were considered to qualitatively compare the risk that the action alternatives would add 

to cumulative effects to sensitive and rare plants. Considering present and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions in the project area on NFS lands, as well as on and state and private lands, cumulative 

effects may occur to the species that inhabit old-growth forests such as Platanthera orbiculata and 

Platanthera unalascensis. Old-growth habitat will have the most direct and indirect disturbance over 

the life of this project compared to other sensitive and rare plant habitats in the project area. The 

effects of land exchanges will compound these effects with the assumption that old-growth habitat 

would likely be harvested over the short and long term. Therefore, Alternative 3 has the most 

potential for cumulative effects with the most proposed timber harvest acreage, followed in 

decreasing potential by Alternatives 5 and 2. Proposed road building has the potential to affect 

sensitive and rare plant habitat as well. The greatest cumulative effects to sensitive and rare plants due 

to proposed road construction are possible in Alternative 5 followed by Alternatives 3, and 2.

Present and future non-timber activities within the project area have not had or are not expected to 

have cumulative effects to sensitive and rare plant populations. Lack of cumulative effects is due to 

the small footprint size of many of these types of activities (trails, restoration, etc.), along with 

implementation of appropriate mitigation measures as needed through future botanical surveys for 

sensitive plants before project initiation.

Impacts to sensitive and rare plant habitat cannot be completely avoided since most proposed actions 

include some ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, the Forest Service acknowledges the 

importance of maintaining habitat through a network of old-growth reserves and conservation areas 
3 – Environment and Effects

242 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

within the Planning Area. Please see the Biodiversity section of Chapter 3 of the Forest Plan (USDA 

Forest Service, 2016c), which describes the Conservation Strategy for the Tongass National Forest. In 

addition to certain old-growth forest ecosystems, this reserve system embodies the full spectrum of 

habitat types where sensitive and rare plants are known or suspected to occur within non-development 

LUDs (e.g., wilderness areas). In addition, other areas that are protected either through legislation or 

by Forest Plan direction, including TTRA stream buffers, Riparian Management Areas and beach and 

estuary buffer, also represent high value habitat for some sensitive and rare plant species. The full 

suite of conservation areas embodied in the Tongass Conservation Strategy contains areas of potential 

habitat for all 10 sensitive plants and one lichen on the Regional Forester’s list and those rare plants

known to occur in the project area.

Additionally, timber harvesting on state, municipal, and private land is governed by the Alaska Forest 

Resources and Practices Act (Alaska Statute 41.17). Alaska Forest Resources and Practices 

Regulations (ADNR 2013) do not address threatened, endangered, or rare plants; however, they do 

recommend minimizing road construction and limiting disturbance in marshes and muskegs, which 

would provide some protection for some of the sensitive and rare plants in these habitats.

Conclusion

Based on the rationale described above, the relative impacts from the alternatives and determinations 

for sensitive plant species are summarized in Table 53 by plant taxon and alternative. The 11 sensitive 

species in the project area have a low to moderate risk5 to be affected in all the alternatives; no 

alternative would result in a trend toward federal listing. See Biological Evaluation for Sensitive 

Plants (K. Dillman 2018b) in the project record for risk assessment of each sensitive plant taxon.

Table 53. Summary of the relative impacts of the alternatives and determinations for sensitive plant 

species in the project area.

Species Relative Impacts of 

the Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2, 3, and 5

Spatulate moonwort 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Moosewort fern 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Large yellow lady’s slipper 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Calder’s lovage 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Ricasolia amplissima ssp. sheiyi lichen 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Alaska rein orchid 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Lesser round-leaved orchid 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Kruckeberg’s swordfern 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Unalaska mist-maid 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Henderson’s checkermallow 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

Dune tansy 1<3<5<2 No Effect May Affect

 5 Risk is determined using Region 10 Sensitive Plant Risk Assessment Process for Plant Biological Evaluations
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 243

Cultural Resources

This section provides a summary of existing conditions and an analysis of environmental effects for 

cultural resources in the POW LLA project area.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and implementing regulations (36 CFR 800) define 

“historic properties” as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in, or eligible for, 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP is the Nation’s inventory of significant 

historic places. Section 106 of the NHPA is used to inform the NEPA process and requires federal 

agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties. Section 106 also requires 

consultation with tribes, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and in some instances the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to ensure that historic properties are not adversely 

affected by federal undertakings, and if they are, that appropriate mitigation is completed.

The NEPA definition of “cultural resources,” by contrast, encompasses both eligible and non-eligible 

cultural resources, including districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. The definition of 

cultural resources may also include sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and other areas that are 

culturally important to stakeholders, including tribes. This FEIS evaluates effects to eligible and noneligible cultural resources within the POW LLA project area.

Methodology

The preparation of the POW LLA Project FEIS is considered an undertaking within Section 106 (and 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act. As a planning 

document, it has been determined to have no potential to affect historic properties in accordance with 

the 2017 Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, the Advisory 

Council On Historic Preservation, and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding 

Heritage Program Management On National Forests in the State Of Alaska (PA; USDA Forest 

Service, 2017) Appendix B.I. Administrative Actions.

However, activities (referred to in this section as “undertakings”) implemented based on this FEIS 

may have potential effects to cultural resources. Undertakings are defined under 36 CFR 800.16(y) as 

being a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction 

of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out 

with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring Federal permit, license or approval.

Undertaking-specific details are presently lacking for Section 106 analysis and a finding of effect 

cannot be made at this time. Once specific undertakings are identified, Section 106 procedures shall 

be followed in order to determine whether historic properties exist, and whether they will be affected. 

The Forest Service shall review each future proposed undertaking within the POW LLA project area 

on a case-by-case basis. The Record of Decision (ROD) shall document that Section 106 procedures 

are not concluded with the signing of the ROD and that no new activities (undertakings) would be 

authorized without Section 106 procedures being completed.

As undertakings are developed the Forest Service may use either the PA or standard Section 106 

procedures, whichever is applicable. The PA utilizes an alternative approach to the standard Section 

106 procedures. It is authorized for use in undertakings with findings of “no historic properties 

affected” or “no adverse effects.” Standard Section 106 procedures apply to undertakings with 

findings of “adverse effects.”

As discrete undertakings are identified, the Heritage Professional will identify the Area of Potential 

Effects (APE), and then will determine whether the area has been adequately investigated for historic 

properties.
3 – Environment and Effects

244 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Heritage Professionals use probability zones during an undertaking’s implementation phase to 

determine what level of identification effort is required. Probability zones are defined as areas of land 

where the probability that a cultural resource will be discovered is either “high” or “low” based on 

models that take into account geology and history of those areas. The basic premise is that areas with 

suitable habitat or resources, both currently and in the past, are more likely to have cultural resources 

than areas without suitable habitat or resources.

Survey strategies are defined in the PA (USDA Forest Service, 2017: Appendix D). If the probability 

of encountering cultural resources is low (low probability area/zone), the Heritage Professional may 

rely on literature reviews and other non-field research, and shall use their best professional judgement 

in deciding what, if any, level of field survey is deemed necessary. The need for intensive survey 

within the low probability zone shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. If the probability of 

encountering cultural resources is high (high probability zone), the Heritage Professional may 

conduct an appropriately designed survey of all locations of direct, indirect, and cumulative impact in 

the undertaking’s APE. Cultural resource surveys performed specifically for compliance with NHPA 

or NEPA shall be designed and executed in such a manner as to demonstrate that a reasonable and 

good faith effort has been made to locate historic properties in the APE. Tribal consultation shall take 

place, when appropriate, to determine whether scared sites or traditional cultural properties exist 

within an undertaking’s APE.

If a cultural resource is identified within an undertaking’s APE, the Heritage Professional shall follow 

provisions within the PA (USDA Forest Service 2017) for treating the resource as eligible or apply the 

“Criteria for Evaluation” (36 CFR 60.4), in consultation with the SHPO to determine eligibility. 

Cultural resources found to retain integrity and meet eligibility Criteria are considered historic 

properties. It is the Forest Service’s policy to protect and/or mitigate adverse effects to historic 

properties (USDA Forest Service 2016a p. 4-17, HSS1.IV; FSM 2360.3). If a cultural resource is 

determined not eligible to the NRHP, it may still warrant protective measures (such as sacred sites, or 

ethnographically important sites that are generally not eligible). Such determinations shall be made by 

the Heritage Professional on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the SHPO and Tribal 

representatives.

As undertakings are developed, should a determination be made that an undertaking will have an 

adverse effect on historic properties, Standard 106 procedures at 36 CFR 800.5 shall be followed 

including consultation with the SHPO, and potentially the ACHP. A Memorandum of Agreement or a 

Programmatic Agreement may be prepared to mitigate adverse effects. At every step in the Section 

106 process there shall be ongoing consultation with federally recognized tribes, non-federally 

recognized tribes, ANCSA corporations, certified local governments, and other interested parties.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The POW LLA project area includes all NFS lands within the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts 

on Prince of Wales Island and the surrounding islands, and non-NFS lands between Township 64 

South and Township 83 South, and between Range 71 East and Range 90 East, Copper River 

Meridian, North American Datum 1983. Cultural resources within the POW LLA project area shall be 

analyzed for the purposes of this FEIS.

For cultural resources, historic context is of paramount importance in evaluating a cultural resource 

for eligibility to the NRHP. The historic context is equated with the POW LLA project area’s affected 

environment for the purpose of analyzing the potential effects to cultural resources.

The Alexander Archipelago, Queen Charlotte Islands, and the narrow mainland coast of Southeast 

Alaska and northern British Columbia are the ancestral homeland of the Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 245

Eyak, and Tsetsaut peoples. The POW LLA project area lies within the traditional territory of the 

Klawock and Stikine Tlingits, and the Kasaan and Hydaburg Haida (Goldschmidt and Haas 1998). 

The Tlingit and Haida settlement system consisted of occupying at least one main village during the 

winter and moving to the outer islands as seasons progressed. This settlement pattern is reflected in 

the site types that include, but are not limited to, petroglyphs and fish traps, shell middens, 

winter/summer village sites, seasonal habitation sites, food processing sites, petroglyphs and 

pictographs, lithic manufacture area, culturally modified trees (CMT), and human burials.

Significant Euro-American impact on the Tlingit and Haida people’s subsistence activities were not 

experienced until the late 1870s. In Klawock the first cannery was established in 1878, and a school 

with a teacher in 1886.

Site types that represent the fishing industry today include canneries, salteries, smokehouses, moorage 

locations, and subsistence fishing camps.

Trapping and fox fur farming is represented throughout the project area by historic cabins and ruins, 

fox farm remains, and trapping lines.

In 1907, President Roosevelt established the Tongass National Forest and consolidated it with the 

Alexander Archipelago Forest Reserve, which had been previously established in 1902.

The early timber industry is represented by two types of lumber mills: town-based lumber mills, 

which produced hewn wood for local use, and mills associated with building salmon canneries and 

mines.

Growth in Southeast Alaska’s industries and communities spurred a need for specialty services such 

as U.S. Coast Guard rescue response infrastructure and navigational features, as well as increased 

radio-communication facilities near ports and remote camps.

Prospecting and mining activities began in 1867 and are represented in the historic record at the 

mines at Jumbo Mountain and on the Kasaan Peninsula, a local smelter at Hadley, Prince of Wales 

Island, at the Salt Chuck Mine, and at Tokeen, Calder, and El Capitan where marble deposits were 

quarried. During the Cold War the initial development and implementation of nuclear power was 

begun. To spur the discovery and development of new uranium deposits, the United States Atomic 

Energy Commission offered incentives to the mining industry. A direct result of this was the 

establishment of the Ross-Adams Mine in 1955 on the southeast tip of Prince of Wales Island (Dean 

and Marshall 2010).

Affected Environment

There are 866 cultural resources recorded within the POW LLA project area. These sites are 

predominantly prehistoric in nature with some dating to over 10,000 years before present (YBP). 

These sites are typically identified between the beach fringe and 120 feet above mean lower low 

water (MLLW).

Historic site types (sites dating from 50 years of age to European contact), can generally be found in 

predictable locations. For example, historic sites such as canneries, salteries, fur farms, marine access

facilities, fur and fish processing stations, older Forest Service infrastructure, U.S. Coast Guard 

infrastructure, and logging camps are typically observed between the beach fringe and 100 feet of 

shore, and along the mouth of larger freshwater creeks and large-body lakes. Archaeologists 

commonly find logging equipment near logging camps, marine access facilities, and at the end of 

roadways at all elevations. Radio-communication infrastructure has been identified between the 

coastline and mountain tops. Rare earth element mines such as gold, copper and uranium are 
3 – Environment and Effects

246 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

identified between the beach fringes and the alpine, and are most commonly found at the southern and 

northwestern ends of Prince of Wales Island.

Many cultural resources identified within the project area have been impacted to some degree by 

natural disturbances or anthropogenic activities. Cultural resources in the project area range from 

being relatively intact (good condition) to heavily disturbed (poor condition). Cultural resources in 

good condition are potentially eligible for the NRHP, provided they retain certain elements of 

integrity (36 CFR part 63).

Environmental Effects

For the purposes of this section all culturally significant features and items, regardless of NRHPeligibility, shall be called cultural resources.

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No-Action Alternative would not result in direct or indirect effects to cultural resources because 

no new activities would occur and existing conditions would remain unaffected. Natural disturbances 

and current management of the project area would continue as before.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects to cultural

resources because no new activities would occur.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Action Alternatives

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives

Because the effects analysis covers a large area and the exact location and nature of the activity for 

proposed projects are undeveloped, specific effects cannot be analyzed except under general terms 

and policy. All alternatives that include ground-disturbing activities have the potential to adversely 

affect cultural resources if they are carried out in locations of cultural resources. Some activities, such 

as dispersed camping in undeveloped areas using Leave No Trace principles, may have no adverse 

effect to cultural resources even if carried out in the vicinity of cultural resources. Additionally, some 

activities, such as manual or herbicidal invasive plant treatments, may be considered an authorized 

undertaking under the terms of the PA (USFS 2017: Appendix B). Proposed activities under all action 

alternatives and a summary of potential effects to cultural resources can be found in the project 

record.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects an activity has on cultural resources is determined largely by the 

location and nature of the activity, the characteristics of the soils, and the degree of use the area will 

receive. Large-scale changes to the landscape affect the integrity of a cultural resource, including its 

historic setting and feeling of association, which in turn affects its NRHP-eligibility.

Ground-disturbing activities have the most potential to directly affect cultural resources. Timber 

harvesting, mining, stream restoration, and road construction have the potential to affect cultural

resources or sacred sites through alteration of environmental settings, which affects the integrity of 

location and setting, or direct damage or destruction as projects are implemented. Movement of 

material over the ground surface and excavating stream banks can negatively affect buried cultural
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 247

resources by disturbing the context of the deposit. Some trees are considered cultural resources, 

namely those that have been modified by humans. Examples include bark stripping for textile 

manufacture or cutting a notch in the trunk for a trap set. Recreation and public use may destroy 

cultural sites or sacred sites inadvertently or by intent. Inadvertent damage primarily results from site 

access and consists of compaction and other ground disturbing activities. Intentional damage is 

defined by looting and vandalism activities and includes relic collecting, theft, and defacement, which 

result in the loss of information and destruction of the resource.

Indirect effects include those that are initiated by, and may be unintended consequences of, the 

activity. For example, along the margins of timber harvest units, trees are more likely to blow down in 

windstorms, potentially upending and damaging prehistoric sites. The installation of new public 

facilities and/or access into the Forest may increase visitor use to nearby cultural resources resulting 

in looting or damage. Indirect effects cannot always be anticipated, particularly for as yet identified 

cultural resources.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources may result from ongoing and increasing encroachment on 

cultural resources. Increasing access to formerly remote and relatively protected cultural resources 

increases the chance that adverse impacts will occur without direct intervention and preservation. 

Congressionally legislated land exchanges may, or may not, have an adverse effect on historic 

properties. For NFS land exchanges to the State, state historic preservation laws will govern the 

transfer of any historic properties out of NFS ownership, thereby mitigating any potential effects. A 

review of a catalog of events showing present and reasonably foreseeable future activities indicates 

type of projects that may occur in the project area that have a ground disturbing or reconstruction 

component. Past activities have generally been modified to avoid impact to cultural resources. If 

discovered unintentionally, practices have focused on mitigating adverse effects to the best 

foreseeable outcome.
3 – Environment and Effects

248 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Invasive Plants

This section provides a summary of existing conditions and effects of proposed activities on the 

introduction or spread of invasive plants in the POW LLA project area as a result of proposed 

activities, such as timber harvest, road construction, watershed restoration activities, and/or recreation

activities or other ground disturbing actions. The specific analysis of invasive plant treatment 

methods (manual, mechanical and chemical) are discussed further in Issue 1: Invasive Plant 

Management because it was specifically identified a project issue. Species are considered invasive if 

they are not native to an ecosystem and are likely to cause harm to human health, the economy, or the 

environment (Executive Order [EO] 13112).

Methodology

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information, Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse 

(AKEPIC) invasive plant list, and online herbaria searches all were used to determine the present 

locations of invasive plants in the project area. Prior to any specific project implementation a 

qualified Botanist/Ecologist must conduct a site-specific review and risk assessment to determine if 

the activity location has the potential to spread existing invasive plants.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct, indirect and cumulative effects is Prince of Wales 

Island and the neighboring islands that make up the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. The 

spatial boundary for effects of proposed road construction are increased with a buffer within the road 

corridor by 12 feet on either side of road bed where invasive plants occur, for a total of 50 foot wide 

linear feature that is converted to acres. The invasive plant treatment activity of this project also 

includes non-National Forest System lands in the analysis area to allow a comprehensive approach to 

weed management, and enable future partnerships with other landowners if funding becomes 

available to local communities through federal grants or other initiatives.

The temporal boundary for direct effects is short term (days), such as immediately after project 

implementation. The indirect and cumulative effects temporal boundary is short and long term, such 

as within a few days after disturbance, but also can be up to several years after project 

implementation before deleterious effects are evident in relation to invasive plant introduction and 

spread. Units of measure are how much natural vegetation has grown back at a site that has been 

disturbed, if invasive plants have become established, re-established, or have spread, or if soil or other 

substrates for vegetation remain unchanged or are restored to pre-activity conditions.

Because of the difficulty in estimating the amount of disturbance that will be caused by each 

alternative, a relative estimate of total acres is used to compare each alternative’s potential for 

establishment and spread of invasive plants. However, it should be noted that the acres of actual 

disturbance is many times greater than the soil disturbance that would result from these activities. 

Road construction is a direct source of soil disturbance; therefore, total miles or acres of road 

construction may be interpreted as a relatively accurate account of the level of soil disturbance 

created as a result of this activity.

Affected Environment

Undeveloped lands in the project area have relatively few invasive plant infestations. Known 

infestations are primarily in areas that have experienced previous disturbance, such as along roads, 

rock pits, and log transfer facilities, at recreation sites and within some riparian areas. Alaska has been 

relatively insulated from the introduction and subsequent problems that invasive plants have caused 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 249

other states. However, existing infestations of weeds are spreading and new introductions are 

increasingly being discovered.

Current Inventory of Non-native Plants

The main sources of invasive plant data in the project area are the USFS Natural Resource Manager

(NRM-INVP) and the State of Alaska’s Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC). The 

inventory data is primarily based on a 2005 roadside inventory with a limited amount of detailed 

surveys that occurred during clearances for other program activities, namely timber sale projects, 

wilderness monitoring, recreation facilities inspections, and special use permit applications. Field 

inventories have identified 92 different non-native plant species infesting approximately 2,288 acres 

within the boundaries of the project area (Krosse 2018d).

Invasive Plant Transportation Vectors

Roads are conduits for the spread of weeds, facilitating their rapid transport and dispersal (e.g., by 

seeds and vegetative reproductive parts attached to vehicles), and providing disturbed ground and 

altered habitat for easy colonization and establishment of invasive plants. Roads and trails may also 

serve to introduce weeds into areas with intact native plant communities and where ecological 

integrity are highly valued. The road system across the project area is concentrated around 

communities and in areas where extensive timber harvest has previously occurred, such as the 

northern and central portions of Prince of Wales Island as well as Kosciusko, Heceta, and Suemez 

Islands.

Timber harvest, road building, and other ground-disturbing activities contribute to the spread of 

weeds, as the habitat conditions that facilitate colonization are created, such as changes in sunlight 

from forested conditions to open sun and/or soil disturbance that result from these activities. 

Recreation activities (e.g., hiking, camping) can spread weeds along trail systems and at both remote 

and developed recreation sites. In addition, weeds are spread through the movement of water in 

creeks and across wetlands. Floods move weed seeds and materials into adjacent riparian areas. Wind 

and sea wave action may also move lightweight and/or buoyant seeds long distances to infest new 

areas.

Intentional and accidental introductions have primarily occurred over the past century, but major 

introductions have occurred most rapidly over the past 50 to 60 years. Intentional introductions of 

weeds for erosion control have contributed to a number of infestations that are now targets for 

control. Commercial landscape nurseries or other vendors (such as grocery and hardware stores in 

local communities) sell, or once sold, exotic species for domestic landscaping that have later been 

found to be invasive. While most ornamental plants have not yet spread to federal lands, the potential 

for them to do so exists.

Invasive Plant Management Activities

Invasive plant infestations have been treated via manual methods (hand pulling, digging, or tarping) 

in previous years, with a very minor amount of herbicide treatment at selected administrative and 

recreation sites (36 CFR 220.6 (d) (3) and (6)). The total acreage of treatments since 2010 is 337

acres with the annual accomplishments varying based on available funding and project workload. 

Annual targets mainly prioritize re-treating existing infestations. While some treatments have been 

effective at reducing or eradicating infestations, many treatments have been repeated at the same 

location over multiple years. This has occurred due to ineffective treatment methods and the 

appearance of new plants from a persistent seed bank at some infestation sites.
3 – Environment and Effects

250 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No new activities are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in the least 

direct and indirect effects from invasive plants for this project. Under Alternative 1, none of the 

specific management activities proposed in the FEIS would be implemented to accomplish project 

goals and objectives. However, natural disturbances and current management of the project area 

would continue as before. Ongoing activities such as recreation, firewood gathering, road and trail

maintenance, and other routine forest management activities not associated with this decision would 

continue at current levels. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this project.

In all alternatives, the continued use of categorical exclusions (CE) (36 CFR 220.6 (d) (3) and (6)) is 

anticipated to continue to allow limited treatment of invasive plants using manual, mechanical, and 

chemical methods at designated Forest Service administrative and recreation sites. These two 

categories applicable for this project are listed in 36 CFR 220.6(d) (3) and (6):

• Repair and maintenance of administrative sites, including applying registered pesticides for 

rodent or vegetation control.

• Repair and maintenance of recreation sites and facilities, including applying registered pesticides 

for rodent or vegetation control.

For this project, designated administrative sites and recreation sites and facilities include the 

following locations: Forest Service offices, visitor centers, employee housing, warehouse compounds, 

developed campgrounds, day use areas, parking areas, boat launches, and public use cabins. 

Infestations of invasive plants located outside these areas are not currently treated with herbicides. 

See Issue 1 Invasive Plant Management for an analysis of effects from manual and mechanical

treatment methods to control the spread of invasive plants in the project area.

Conclusion

There are no significant direct and indirect impacts to the spread of invasive plants. However, 

ongoing and continuous spread of invasive plants will continue through time given the relatively low 

level of control. Cumulative effects are anticipated. Highly invasive plants that can only be 

successfully treated with herbicides that are outside administrative and recreation areas or other areas 

that can be treated under the CE (see above) will remain untreated. Since we do not have complete 

information on the infestations of invasive plants on non-NFS lands, we can only assume that nonForest Service projects may continue to introduce and spread invasive plants.

Alternative 2, 3, and 5 – Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects of proposed activities on the spread of invasive plants are moderate to high 

and may occur within known populations of invasive plants in the project area on NFS lands. 

However, an invasive plant risk assessment of the proposed activity and invasive plant surveys will 

occur before activities begin in all the action alternatives. For invasive plant populations not yet 

documented, direct and indirect effects are uncertain but are expected.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 251

Table 54. Comparison of activities, site types, level of risk and recommended Weed Best Management 

Practices (WBMP).

Proposed 

Activity

Proposed 

acres1 or 

action by 

Alternative 

(includes 

old-growth

and younggrowth)

Site types 

and 

vulnerability 

level: high 

moderate or 

low

Level of Risk for 

Direct and 

Indirect 

compared by 

Action 

Alternative

Level of Risk for 

Cumulative 

effects 

compared by 

Action 

Alternative

WBMP 

recommended to 

reduce risk

(Krosse 2017)

Young- and oldgrowth harvest, 

thinning, tree 

planting, slash 

treatments, 

pruning etc.

Alt 1: 0

Alt 2: 42,635

Alt 3: 49,683

Alt 5: 43,034

Forested 

areas: low to 

moderate 

depending on 

disturbance

Alt 3 > Alt 5 > Alt 

2

Alt 3>Alt 2> Alt 5 WBMPs 1-6 and 

17-18 for forest 

management 

Road 

construction, 

Quarry 

development, 

maintenance, 

decommissionin

g, storage, 

reconstruction

Alt 1: 0

Alt 2: 212

Alt 3: 290

Alt 5: 297

Disturbed 

areas: High, 

wetlands: low 

to moderate, 

forested 

areas: low to 

moderate

Alt 5 >3 > Alt 2 Alt 5 >3 > Alt 2 WBMPs 1-6 and 7-

13 for roads

Watershed 

restoration, 

Riparian 

enhancement, 

fish pass 

improvement, 

stream 

restoration, 

harvesting root 

wad trees

Expand 

restoration 

opportunities

Disturbed 

areas: High; 

wetlands: low 

to moderate, 

forested 

areas: low to 

moderate

All action Alts 

same level of risk

All action Alts 

same level of risk

WBMPs 1-6, 22 

and 7-13 if road 

equipment is used

Campground, 

outhouses, 

parking, trails

kayak and 

canoe access

route 

development

Expand rec 

opportunities

Campgrounds

, outhouses, 

parking, trails

kayak and 

canoe access

routes

Disturbed areas: 

High, wetlands, 

low to moderate, 

forested areas: 

low to moderate, 

alpine areas: low 

to moderate, 

estuaries and 

beach meadows: 

moderate to high

All action Alts 

same level of risk

WBMPs 1-6, 7-13 if 

road equipment is 

used in a project, 

and 14-15 for all 

recreation projects

Calculated acres of timber harvest are for 15 years, including old and young-growth forests. Calculated acres for roads was 

determined with a 50 foot wide area of disturbance by the number of miles proposed by alternative, converted to square feet 

and then converted to acres.

Cumulative Effects

Considering the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions on NFS lands, as well as on and 

state and private lands in the project area, cumulative effects may occur to the invasive plant species 

that inhabit previously disturbed areas such roads and timber harvest units, mines, restoration areas,

and recreation sites. Old-growth and young-growth forest habitats will have the most disturbance over 

the life of this project compared to other habitats in the project area. However, invasive plants 

generally do not occur within the old-growth forest, but rather on the edges of this habitat. 

Disturbance of the old-growth and young-growth forest habitats can introduce invasive plants into the 
3 – Environment and Effects

252 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

bare mineral soil exposed during logging operations. Young-growth forested areas between ages 0 to 

15 years have higher potential for weeds to spread due to the higher likelihood of weeds present along 

existing road systems adjacent to young-growth stands coupled with the open sunlight created by 

timber harvest.

Alternative 3 has the greatest potential for cumulative effects because it has the most amount of 

proposed timber harvest acreage, followed in order of decreasing risk for Alternatives 5 and 2. As 

mentioned above because of the difficulty in estimating the amount of disturbance that will be caused 

by each alternative, a relative estimate of total acres is used to compare each alternative’s potential for 

establishment and spread of invasive plants. Proposed road building has the highest potential to affect 

the spread or introduction of invasive plants if a road goes through their habitat. Road construction is 

a direct source of soil disturbance; therefore, total miles or acres of road construction may be 

interpreted as a relatively accurate account of the level of soil disturbance created as a result of this 

activity. Therefore, the greatest cumulative effects from the introduction of invasive plants due to 

proposed road construction would occur in Alternative 5, followed by Alternatives 3 and 2.

Mitigation Measures

Weed Best Management Practices (WBMP) (Krosse 2017) put into action measures that prevent 

spread within the project area and from the project area to surrounding non-project lands. Some 

examples of WBMPs include but are not limited to use of weed-free gravel sources, and use of noninvasive weed-free seed materials for erosion control measure and other restoration activities. These 

practices will help project managers assist in the prevention of invasive plants in their project 

implementation.

Control measures of the known invasive plants or new infestations of invasive plants within or 

adjacent to the project area will continue to be prioritized before treatment. Invasive plant treatments 

proposed for this project are more fully discussed within Issue 1: Invasive Plant Management. As part 

of any treatment activity, a specific treatment plan for all sites will be prepared prior to treatment. The 

plan will include the location, target species, treatment method, and herbicide, application method and 

rate (if applicable). A Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) will be prepared for all proposed herbicide use.

Future control measures may not necessarily be implemented in association with other proposed 

activities. Control measures for some high priority species are currently being implemented based on

the site type where the infestation is growing, the size of the populations, the invasiveness ranking of 

the plant, and the threat it may pose to sensitive features of the landscape such as sensitive plant 

populations, or other wildlife and fish habitats.

Conclusion

In summary, Alternative 3 has the most acres proposed for disturbance and therefore has an expected 

greater risk to the spread or introduction of invasive plants. For road building, Alternative 5 has the 

greatest risk to weed spread due to this alternative having the most road building planned in the 

project area. Most vulnerable habitats include all disturbed areas from current and future activities in 

the project area. Weed Best Management Practices and Forest Plan direction used in project 

implementation will help in the prevention and spread and to lower the risk of the proposed actions on 

invasive plant movement and introduction for all alternatives.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 253

Karst and Cave Resources

Applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, regulations, policies which govern the management of 

karst include: The Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (FCRPA) of 1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301-4309; 

102 Stat. 4546), 36 CFR Part 290, 36 CFR part 261, Forest Service Manuals 2356 and 2880, and the

Forest Plan, Karst and Cave Resources, Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines pp. 4-23 to 4-25, 

Standard S-YG-KC-02 p. 5-6, and Appendix H.

The FCRPA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue such regulations as he deems necessary to 

achieve the purposes of the Act on National Forest System lands. FSM 2880.5 states that, “associated 

ecosystems shall be inventoried and classified based on resource value and sensitivity to disturbance. 

Cave inventories should include information about the geology, hydrology, biology, paleontology, 

archaeology, cave climate, abundance and quality of cave formations, recreation potential, 

educational and scientific values, and be considered in the preparation of land management plans. 

Inventory and management guidelines for associated resources, such as ground water, shall be 

followed where appropriate.”

To meet the direction from the above, the Tongass National Forest strives to maintain, to the extent 

practical, the natural karst processes and the productivity of the karst landscape while providing for 

other land uses, where appropriate. This strategy is designed to assess a karst resources vulnerability 

or sensitivity to a proposed land use, and recognize the differences in degree of karst development 

and glacial history across the karst landscape.

Units of Measure

To compare the effects to karst and cave resources between the four different alternatives the 

following measures will be used:

• estimated acres of past management,

• miles of existing road,

• acres of proposed management, and

• miles of proposed roads, either NFS or temporary.

These measures align with the Forest Plan Karst and Cave Resource direction and direction in 

Appendix H.

Methodology

A karst resource vulnerability assessment is conducted for each project regardless of its scale.

A Karst Vulnerability Assessment is a four-step process. It includes:

1. Identify Potential Karst Lands. Identify those lands underlain by carbonate rocks. As a practical 

matter, all lands underlain by carbonate rocks within the project area should be considered a karst

landscape. These include outcrops of limestone, marble, and dolomite.

2. Inventory Karst Resources. At the beginning of any land-disturbing project planning effort, 

determine the project’s proximity to or position on a karst landscape. If it is determined that karst 

occurs in the project area, require an inventory adequate to characterize the resources. Assess the 

degree and location of karst development.

3. Delineate Karst Hydrologic System and Catchment Area. Define, to the extent feasible, the karst

hydrologic system and the recharge area watershed or catchment area for each karst system. The 
3 – Environment and Effects

254 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

character of the catchment area (i.e., the area, slope gradient, vegetation, water quality, soils, etc.) 

controls the nature of the receiving karst system and defines the volume of runoff available for 

infiltration into the system. Recharge area delineation is a crucial component of vulnerability 

mapping; it is important to know where the water comes from and resurges to credibly assess and 

characterize possible impacts.

4. Assess Vulnerability of Karst Terrain to Management Activity. The final step is to delineate the 

land under investigation into various vulnerability categories. An area’s vulnerability rating must 

be sensitive to potential surface management practices based on the extent to which epikarst has 

developed and the openness of the karst system. Where recharge is diffused through deep soils, 

the underlying karst is less vulnerable to increased sediment inputs and other pollutants than in 

areas where recharge is discrete and soils are thin or nearly absent. Where soils are thin or nearly 

absent, surface disturbances will almost always result in exposure of the epikarst, providing an 

easy pathway for sediment and other pollutants to enter the subsurface drainage network. Discrete 

recharge areas are especially vulnerable to ground-disturbing activities because the flowing 

surface water can carry sediment and other pollutants directly to the subsurface drainage network. 

Karst vulnerability mapping recognizes the variability in karst terrain and uses the vulnerability 

concepts described here to assign a high, medium, or low vulnerability rating to an area of karst 

terrain. The proposed ground disturbing activity is considered when determining mitigation or 

applying karst management guidelines.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The boundary selected for the following analysis of karst and cave resources is the same as the POW 

LLA Project boundary. According to the karst and cave resources inventory, the project area is 

approximately 2,300,436 acres and includes federal, state, and private lands. Of this, 298,297 acres

(13 percent of the project area) are underlain by karst. Also of concern are the adjacent land whose 

waters flow to the karst, sinking along its margins. This number may be inconsistent from other 

resources due to the number of different variable combinations used in the GI tool but the differences 

are negligible.

Analysis Areas for Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Karst and Cave 

Resource

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to karst and cave resources are assessed at the stand or harvest 

unit scale and by karst watershed or catchment area when defined.

The time frame for the effects analysis looks at all past disturbance, i.e., past harvest, road 

construction, and quarry development on karst and within the karst watershed catchment areas, and 

proposed activities, in this case for the next 15 years. Recovery rates for impaired karst systems have 

not been established. For purposes of this analysis we rely on the vulnerability assessment to protect 

karst features and the discrete and diffuse recharge to those systems.

Data Limitations

Though focused geologic mapping has been completed for much of the project area, some boundaries 

of the karst polygons have not been field verified. These boundaries will be verified during field 

reconnaissance.

Past karst resource inventory has been focused on proposed timber harvest units and the lands 

immediately adjacent to those units in proposed timber sale projects since 1990. Approximately 72 

percent of the NFS karst lands within the project area have not been assessed as to their vulnerability. 

Many of these acres underlie young growth. Much of the karst lands that were assessed have recently 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 255

been transferred to Sealaska Corporation and Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. There are 37,764

acres of karst lands that have not been assessed in the LSTA, 10,271 old growth acres and 27,493 

young growth acres. One of the benefits of this project may be completing a vulnerability assessment 

for these acres.

Affected Environment

Karst lands impose land management challenges not encountered in non-karst areas because this 

three-dimensional landform functions differently than other landforms. Karst resources must be 

evaluated according to their vulnerability to land uses affecting karst systems. Vulnerability mapping 

recognizes that some parts of the karst landscape are more sensitive than others to surface activities 

and groundwater contamination. These differences in vulnerability may be a function of the extent of 

karst development, the openness of the karst systems, and the sensitivity of other resources that 

benefit from karst groundwater systems. The vulnerability categories and their criteria are discussed 

below:

Low Vulnerability Karst Lands

Low vulnerability karst lands are those areas where resource damage threats associated with land 

management activities in the areas are not likely to be appreciably greater than those posed by similar 

activities on non-carbonate substrate.

A generalized characterization of these lands would be that they are underlain by carbonate bedrock 

that is moderately well to well drained, most commonly internally drained, but surface streams may 

be present. Generally, these areas have been greatly modified by glaciation, and a deep (greater than 

40 inches deep) covering of glacial till or mineral soil, and little or no epikarst showing at the surface. 

The epikarst may be buried and/or ground off, depending on the intensity of glaciation. These lands 

pose little or no threat to organic, sediment, debris, or pollutant introduction into the karst hydrologic 

systems beneath through diffuse recharge. Often these are areas of little or no slope (less than 20 

percent).

Moderate Vulnerability Karst Lands

The moderate vulnerability karst lands are those areas where resource damage threats associated with 

land management activities in the areas are appreciably greater than those posed by similar activities 

on low vulnerability karst lands.

A generalized characterization of these areas would be areas underlain by carbonate bedrock that are 

well drained internally. Surface streams are rare. The soils of moderate vulnerability areas are a 

mosaic of shallow organic (20 to 40 percent, McGilvery Soils) and mineral (80 to 60 percent, Sarkar 

[less than 20-inch depth] and Ulloa [greater than 20-inch depth] Soils) with minor amounts of glacial 

till. The epikarst is moderate- to well-developed and is visible at the surface. These areas tend to be at 

higher elevations (i.e., greater than 500 feet, and on knobs, ridges, and on the dip-slope of carbonate 

bedding planes when near the surface). The surface of these areas tends to be irregular and 

undulating, following the epikarst development, which is the result of solution of the bedrock surface 

rather than solution and/or collapse features such as sinkholes.

High Vulnerability Karst Lands

The high vulnerability karst lands are those areas where resource damage threats associated with land 

management activities are appreciably greater than those posed by similar activities on low or 

moderate vulnerability karst lands. These are the areas contributing to or overlying significant caves 

and areas containing a high density of karst features.
3 – Environment and Effects

256 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

These are areas underlain by carbonate bedrock that are well drained internally. Surface streams are 

rare. Karst systems and epikarst are extremely well-developed and collapse karst features may be 

numerous. These include all collapse karst features, caves, sinking or losing streams, insurgences, 

open resurgences, and open grikelands (i.e., those without soil or moss infilling and with open 

connections to the subsurface). The highest vulnerability features are those that could produce and

transport the greatest amount of sediment, debris, and/or organics if disturbed. These include till-lined 

sinkholes and cave entrances accepting a sinking stream, whether intermittent or not. Also considered 

high vulnerability are karst lands in which the epikarst is well- or extremely well-developed and the 

soils are predominately (greater than 50 percent) very shallow organic (less than 10 inches deep, 

McGilvery) and (less than 50 percent) mineral (less than 20 inches deep, Sarkar). The subsurface 

drainage network is highly vulnerable to sediment, organic matter, logging debris, and other 

pollutants generated as the result of surface activities.

Within areas labeled as high or moderate vulnerability there are features that require buffering under 

current Forest Plan direction. These buffers were drawn as the “minimum” 100-foot radius buffer. 

However, these buffers will need to be designed and laid out by a karst specialist during unit layout 

taking into account factors such as aspect, slope, wind throw potential, soils, etc., at which point 

certain buffers may need to be enlarged or modified in response to these concerns.

Since 1991, within the project area karst and cave resources have been inventoried and karst features 

buffered and protected. Tracer Dye Studies have been conducted to determine karst ground water 

flow paths. This has been accomplished through efforts in support of numerous timber sale and road 

building projects. The current karst resource data base has evolved from those efforts. The table 

below summarizes the acres of karst within the project area and the acres of karst disturbed by various 

management activities.

Analysis of GIS data shows that 298,297 acres of karst exist in the project area, 197,003 acres on 

National Forest System (NFS) lands. Of these, 45,548 acres are designated as Geologic Special Areas 

or LUDII/Geologic Areas. Of the 154,455 acres remaining, 141,732 acres are known to be karst but 

their vulnerability has not been assessed. 65,859 acres of the karst lands mapped on NFS lands have 

had timber harvest, 33 percent of the karst lands (Table 55).

Table 55. Existing Karst Resource Condition in the POW LLA project area

POW LLA Project Karst Resource Acres

Total Karst Acres Acres Percent

Karst within Project Boundary 298,297 100

USFS Karst within Project Boundary 197,003 66

Karst by LUD and Vulnerability Acres Percent

Karst within Project Boundary but not Assessed 141,732 72

USFS Karst within Project Boundary within Geologic Special

Interest Area LUD 28,856 15

USFS Karst within Project Boundary within LUDII/Geologic 

Area 13,692 7

USFS Karst within Project Boundary High Vulnerability 4,852 2

USFS Karst within Project Boundary Moderate Vulnerability 6,830 3

USFS Karst within Project Boundary Low Vulnerability 1,041 1

Sum 197,003 100

Harvested Karst Acres in the Project Area Acres Percent

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested but not Assessed 54,513 83
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 257

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested High Vulnerability 1,773 3

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Moderate Vulnerability 5,098 7

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Low Vulnerability 564 1

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested GSA and LUD II/Geological 

Area 3,941 6

Total POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested (33% of USFS karst in 

project area ) 65,859 100

LSTA Karst Acres Acres Percent

Acres of karst in the LSTA potential units 42,934 100

Acres of karst in the LSTA Old-growth potential units 11,875 28

Acres of karst in the LSTA Young Growth 55 years or Older 31,059 72

Old-growth, On NFS Lands in the POW LLA LSTA by 

Vulnerability Acres Percent

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Karst but not Assessed 10,271 87

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested High Vulnerability 274 2

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Moderate Vulnerability 1,103 9

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Low Vulnerability 227 2

Total USFS Young Growth on Karst in the LSTA 11,875 100

Young Growth 55 years or Older, On NFS Lands in the 

POW LLA LSTA by Vulnerability Acres Percent

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Karst but not Assessed 27,493 89

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested High Vulnerability 800 3

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Moderate Vulnerability 2,603 8

POW LLA USFS Karst Harvested Low Vulnerability 163 0

Total USFS Young Growth on Karst in the LSTA 31,059 100

Roads Miles

Miles of Existing Roads on Karst on all Ownership 638

Miles of NFS Roads on USFS Karst 388

Miles of New NFS Roads on USFS karst Projected to Access 

volume for Alts 2, 3, and 5*** 33

Miles of New Temporary Roads Projected to Access volume 

for Alts 2, 3, and 5*** 74

*NFS, State and Private Lands all Harvest.

**It was assumed that all previous harvest on karst was POG. This value equals existing and past POG on karst of all land 

ownerships.

*** Road miles vary by Alternative

Environmental Effects

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All action alternatives propose similar activities but the amount of each activity varies between 

alternatives. Activity Cards include specific karst and cave resource mitigation. One Activity Card 

was developed specifically to “Restore Altered Karst Surface Water Flow Paths”. The alternatives are 

described in Chapter 2 and that information will not be repeated here.
3 – Environment and Effects

258 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

All alternatives will have differing effects both possibly adverse and/or desirable. Assuming all Forest 

Plan karst and cave management direction and Activity Cards are fully implemented there should be 

no detrimental effects to those resources.

It is projected that for the LSTA acres, 352 miles of road will be maintained, 138 miles of NFS road 

will be constructed and 505 miles of temporary road will be constructed. Not all these miles will be or 

are on karst. Any new road construction on karst will follow the Forest Plan Karst and Cave 

Resources Standards and Guidelines for road construction and quarry development (Forest Plan pp. 4-

23 to 4-25 and Appendix H pp. H-5 to H-7).

Karst Watersheds

Karst watersheds where defined do not follow the USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) boundaries. 

Karst watershed boundaries are controlled for the most part by groundwater flow intensity, hydrologic 

head, and geologic structure (Prussian and Baichtal, 2007). Many karst watersheds have been 

intensely managed, i.e., greater than 60 percent harvested with associated roads. The Forest is 

working to develop a Karst Disturbance Index (KDI) for the karst watersheds and their catchment 

areas. Some of the index indicators of the KDI will be the geomorphic, surface karst development, 

soils, caves, past management, roads and quarries, windthrow, and young-growth management. These 

indicators will be scored and a rating developed for each karst watershed. The KDI is not an 

alternative defining process, it would be a method to drive future harvest prescriptions and harvest 

spacing on the landscape. It is believed that carefully planned commercial thinning of second growth 

stands would be a positive attribute within the KDI. Though not statistically proven (Prussian, 2011), 

it is believed that some of the harvest treatments would return the stand to closer-to-pre-harvest tree 

Table 56. Past Harvest and Possible Proposed harvest within select Karst Watersheds

Karst Watershed Cataract Cave West Neck Lake

North CentralNeck LakeCoastal EastHonkin' SpringSnoose CreekCoastal NWBeaver FallsCaveCavern LakeSouthSouth Neck LakeExchangeCove

Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

Karst 

Watershed 

Acres

869 501 833 545 913 1,305 223 1,202 992 3,101 3,735 14,218

Karst 

Watershed 

Historical

Harvest Acres

522 282 351 335 483 715 106 849 796 2,235 2,040 6,674

% Historical

Harvest 60 56 42 61 53 55 48 71 80 72 55 47

LSTA POG

Acres 29 6 119 31 107 170 13 8 21 430 761 934

Total Past and 

LSTA Harvest

Acres

551 288 470 366 590 885 119 857 816 2,665 2,801 7,608

% Watershed 

Harvest with 

LSTA

63 57 56 67 65 68 53 71 82 86 75 54

% Change 3 1 14 6 12 13 6 1 2 14 20 7
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 259

spacing, thus hastening the hydrologic recovery of the site. Reducing the canopy cover could restore 

the ‘health’ of second growth forests on karst lands by increasing the volume of throughfall, flushing 

sedimentation out of diffuse and discrete karst openings, and reconnecting surface to subsurface flow 

pathways.

Not all karst watersheds have been delineated by tracer dye studies. We have enough tracer dye 

studies to tentatively define some of the karst watersheds within the project area. As an example, we 

have selected 11 of the known karst watersheds to illustrate the past harvest disturbance in these 

watersheds. Table 56 above shows the percentage of historic harvest within these defined karst 

watersheds and the total possible cumulative harvest per watershed within the LSTA.

Alternative 3 would have the highest percentage of disturbance, mostly in young-growth harvest 

acres. Alternative 2 would harvest the most acres of old growth (Table 57 below). All action 

alternatives effects could initially increase in flow through karst systems after initial harvest in low 

and moderate vulnerability karst areas and subsequent (approximately 15 years post-harvest) decrease 

to flow through these karst systems due to dense forest regeneration (Aley et al. 1993). An increase of

turbidity and changes in water chemistry through the karst system could also occur due to these 

changes in flow (Aley et al. 1993). Tracer dye studies have shown that some downstream effects may 

be as much as a mile away within a 24-hour period, often at spring-fed anadromous streams (Prussian 

and Baichtal, 2007). Karst resource mitigation and prescription development will strive to minimize 

these effects.

34.2 percent of the LSTA is on karst, some 42,934 acres. These include 11,875 acres of old-growth

and 31,059 acres of young-growth harvested prior to 1978. For analysis we assume that harvest of 

old-growth will be spread evenly across the landscape (Table 57).

Table 57. Potential Acres of Harvest and Miles of Road Construction on Karst by Alternative and percent 

change from existing.

Total Acres 

% LSTA 

Acres on 

Karst

Estimated 

Acres of 

Harvest on 

Karst?

Estimated 

Miles of NFS 

and Temp 

Road

% Karst 

Acres/miles 

Change

Alt 2 Total Old Growth 23,269 25 5,818 33 8

Total Young Growth 19,366 40 7,746 41 1

Total 13,564 73 9

Alt 3 Total Old Growth 13,014 25 3,254 18 5

Total Young Growth 33,670 40 13,468 74 6

Total 16,722 92 11

Alt 5 Total Old Growth 6,365 25 1,592 9 2

Total Young Growth 33,670 40 13,468 74 8

Total 15,443 83 10

All action alternatives will likely consider a portion 31,059 acres of young growth 55 years or older in 

the LSTA on karst. Of these acres, 27,493 acres of karst have not been assessed. Based on previous 

inventory within the project area, Table 55 predicts the vulnerability classifications expected.

Because of the requirements of Standard S-YG-KC-02 (Forest Plan p. 5-6), the maximum size of any 

created opening for commercial timber harvest must not exceed 10 acres with a maximum removal of 

35 percent of the acres of the original harvested stand. That would mean that of the 19,245 acres of 
3 – Environment and Effects

260 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

modeled moderate vulnerability karst on young growth 55 years or older, only 6,735 acres would be 

available to manage.

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No-Action Alternative, none of the specific management activities proposed in the FEIS 

would be implemented to accomplish project goals and objectives. Natural disturbances and current 

management of the project area would continue as before.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to karst and cave resources occur at a stand or harvest unit scale and by karst 

watershed or catchment area when defined. Since no areas are proposed for harvest and no new roads 

will be constructed, no cumulative effects will occur in those stands or areas on karst.

According to Forest Service GIS, on karst there are 31,059 acres of young growth 55 years or older in 

the LSTA. Under this alternative, these acres would not be commercially thinned. By commercial 

thinning of older young-growth stands on karst, the stand will have closer-to-pre-harvest tree spacing, 

thus hastening the hydrologic recovery of the site. The canopy of these stands are closed to varying 

degrees. Reducing the canopy cover could restore the ‘health’ of young-growth forests on karst lands 

by increasing the volume of throughfall precipitation which flushes the sedimentation out of diffuse 

and discrete karst openings, and reconnects surface to subsurface flow pathways. The management of 

older young-growth stands can also hasten the return to more natural stand characteristics and 

conditions. Considering the above discussion, a commercial thinning prescription that minimizes 

ground disturbance and treats the whole stand, decreasing the canopy closure to increase throughfall 

would be best for the karst systems and the streams and creeks which the karst systems contribute to 

(Karst Review Panel, 2002; Prussian, 2011). By not commercial thinning these stands possible 

benefits to the karst systems will not be realized.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Karst disturbance would increase by a modeled 13,564 acres (5,818 acres of old-growth harvest and 

7,746 acres of young-growth harvest) and 73.47 miles of road. This equates to an 8.9 percent increase 

in harvest of old-growth on karst and an 8.8 percent increase in miles of road on karst (Table 57).

Approximately 5,422 acres of young-growth management would be on moderate vulnerability karst. 

The maximum size of any created opening for commercial timber harvest must not exceed 10 acres 

with a maximum removal of 35 percent of the acres of the original harvested stand (S-YG-KC-02). 

This would allow for management of 1,898 acres of the expected moderate vulnerability karst. A 

commercial thinning prescription that minimizes ground disturbance and treats the whole stand, 

decreasing the canopy closure to increase throughfall would be best for the karst systems and the 

streams and creeks which the karst systems contribute to.

Effects from harvest could initially increase flow through karst systems after initial harvest in low and 

moderate vulnerability karst areas and subsequently (approximately 15 years post-harvest) decrease 

flow through these karst systems due to dense forest regeneration (Aley et al. 1993). Increase to 

turbidity and changes in water chemistry through the karst system could also occur due to these 

changes in flow (Aley et al. 1993). Karst resource mitigation and unit prescription development will 

strive to minimize these effects.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 261

Cumulative Effects

All action alternatives will have differing effects both possibly adverse and/or desirable. Until the 

exact extent and location of any proposed action it determined, a determination of specific effects 

cannot be made. Assuming Forest Plan karst and cave management direction and Activity Cards are 

fully implemented there should be no detrimental effects to those resources. The karst vulnerability 

assessment will be used to approximate the disturbance index of specific karst watersheds and 

catchment areas.

Disturbance in the karst watersheds will continue to change through time, with stands aging and 

canopy closing in younger stands. Active management of the older stands appropriate for commercial 

thinning could help lessen the hydrologic effects of throughfall and canopy closure.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Karst disturbance would increase by a modeled 16,722 acres (3,254 acres of old growth and 13,468

acres of young growth) and 92 miles of road. This equates to a 5 percent increase in harvest of oldgrowth on karst and an 11 percent increase in miles of road on karst (Table 57).

Approximately 9,428 acres of young-growth management would be on moderate vulnerability karst. 

The maximum size of any created opening for commercial timber harvest must not exceed 10 acres 

with a maximum removal of 35 percent of the acres of the original harvested stand (S-YG-KC-02). 

This would allow for management of 3,300 acres of the expected moderate vulnerability karst. A 

commercial thinning prescription that minimizes ground disturbance and treats the whole stand, 

decreasing the canopy closure to increase throughfall would be best for the karst systems and the 

streams and creeks which the karst systems contribute to.

Effects could initially increase in flow through karst systems after initial harvest in low and moderate 

vulnerability karst areas and subsequent (approximately 15 years post-harvest) decrease to flow 

through these karst systems due to dense forest regeneration (Aley et al. 1993). Increase to turbidity 

and changes in water chemistry through the karst system could also occur due to these changes in 

flow (Aley et al. 1993). Karst resource mitigation and unit prescription development will strive to 

minimize these effects.

Cumulative Effects

All action alternatives will have differing effects both possibly adverse and/or desirable. Until the 

exact extent and location of any proposed action it determined, a determination of specific effects 

cannot be made. Assuming Forest Plan karst and cave management direction and Activity Cards are 

fully implemented there should be no detrimental effects to those resources. As an interim measure, 

the karst vulnerability assessment procedures will be used to approximate the disturbance index of 

specific karst watersheds and catchment areas.

Disturbance in the karst watersheds will continue to change through time, with stands aging and 

canopy closing in younger stands. Active management of the older stands appropriate for commercial 

thinning could help lessen the hydrologic effects of throughfall and canopy closure.

Management on non-NFS lands in the project area, such as timber management and road 

construction, could change the percentage of disturbance within a karst watershed, thus affecting our 

management of that watershed.
3 – Environment and Effects

262 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Karst disturbance would increase by a modeled 15,443 acres (1,592 acres of old growth and 13,468

acres of young growth) and 83 miles of road. This equates to a 2 percent increase in harvest of oldgrowth on karst and a 10 percent increase in miles of road on karst (Table 57).

There is a potential for approximately 9,428 acres of young-growth management on moderate 

vulnerability karst. The maximum size of any created opening for commercial timber harvest must 

not exceed 10 acres with a maximum removal of 35 percent of the acres of the original harvested 

stand (S-YG-KC-02). This would allow for management of 3,300 acres of the expected moderate 

vulnerability karst. A commercial thinning prescription that minimizes ground disturbance and treats 

the whole stand, decreasing the canopy closure to increase throughfall would be best for the karst 

systems and the streams and creeks which the karst systems contribute to.

Effects could initially increase in flow through karst systems after initial harvest in low and moderate 

vulnerability karst areas and subsequent (approximately 15 years post-harvest) decrease to flow 

through these karst systems due to dense forest regeneration (Aley et al. 1993). Increase to turbidity 

and changes in water chemistry through the karst system could also occur due to these changes in 

flow (Aley et al. 1993). Karst resource mitigation and unit prescription development will strive to 

minimize these effects.

Cumulative Effects

All action alternatives will have differing effects both possibly adverse and/or desirable. Until the 

exact extent and location of any proposed action it determined, a determination of specific effects 

cannot be made. Assuming Forest Plan karst and cave management direction and Activity Cards are 

fully implemented there should be no detrimental effects to those resources. As an interim measure, 

the karst vulnerability assessment procedures will be used to approximate the disturbance index of 

specific karst watersheds and catchment areas.

Disturbance in the karst watersheds will continue to change through time, old-growth stands aging 

and canopy closing in younger stands. Active management of the older stands appropriate for 

commercial thinning could help lessen the hydrologic effects of throughfall and canopy closure.

Management on non-NFS lands adjacent to the project, such as timber management and road 

construction could change the percentage of disturbance within a karst watershed affecting our 

management of that watershed.

Conclusions

The karst management analysis shows similar direct and indirect effects between Alternatives 2, 3,

and 5. Alternatives 3 and 5 involve fewer acres of old-growth timber harvest than Alternative 2, but 

have the same young-growth component. Alternative 2 involves more acres of old-growth harvest and 

fewer acres of young-growth. Cumulative acres of karst disturbance are very similar between the 

action alternatives. Assuming Activity Cards and Forest Plan karst and cave management direction 

are fully implemented there should be no adverse effects to those resources.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 263

Recreation

Methodology

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and infrastructure data were used to identify current locations 

and extent of recreation assets in the project area. Input from the public regarding potential recreation 

activities were used to provide measurable effects and comparisons between alternatives. Potential 

activities would be vetted during the biannual workshops and proposed for implementation based on 

public input and available agency resources.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The recreation analysis considers Forest Service recreation assets in the project area. The current 

inventory of approximately 77 assets, includes cabins, shelters, campgrounds, trails, and day-use

sites. The El Capitan interpretive site, cabins, and campgrounds are the only sites with visitor use 

information.

Existing recreation assets are widely distributed across the project area. See Figure 9. Most assets are 

found within the northern two-thirds of the project area. Recreation assets are typically discrete sites 

with limited footprints; that is, these are sites located in single, well defined areas on the landscape. 

Trails traverse broader areas of landscape, but are limited to their trail corridors and may be defined 

as linear sites. Enhanced recreation opportunities may combine multiple types of recreation assets, 

such as trails associated with discrete sites.

The effects analysis of proposed recreation activities would consider lands and resources directly 

modified by, and adjacent to, planned activities. An example of concerns to adjacent lands could 

include firewood gathering in proximity to a shelter that may lead to user created trails and timber 

felling. Recreation specialists would consider the effects of proposed activities by other resources on 

adjacent recreation assets, and their consequences to the recreation experience. Views from recreation 

assets is considered in this effects analysis and the results of activities on the landscape.

The temporal scale of this analysis encompasses the present through the 15 years of this project.

Affected Environment

Recreation use on Prince of Wales Island (POW) includes activities such as fresh- and saltwater 

fishing access, big game and waterfowl hunting, OHV use, kayaking and canoeing, hiking and 

wildlife viewing, picnicking, and camping. The following section is divided into three parts that 

present an overview of forest visitation and use, describes Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

settings, and provides a snapshot of current recreation resources in the project area.

Visitation and Use

Prince of Wales Island offers world class fishing and one of the highest populations of black bear in 

the country, and more than 1,500 miles of roads, most of which are gravel. The Alaska Marine 

Highway does not stop at any ports on POW and large cruise ships, which account for the majority of 

visitors to Southeast Alaska, do not visit the island either. There are a few small cruise line companies 

making intermittent stops on POW, with visitation occurring at El Capitan for cave tours up until 

2017. Most visitors to POW Island arrive by float plane from Ketchikan or via the Inter-Island Ferry 

between Ketchikan and Hollis. Generally recreation users can be broken down into three categories: 

resident, regional, and non-resident. The Recreation section of Chapter 3 in the Forest Plan discusses 

resident and non-resident use at the Forest level; based on local knowledge, this information may be 

loosely applied to POW recreation use.
3 – Environment and Effects

264 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Our analysis assumes that outdoor recreation opportunities and activities provided by the Tongass 

National Forest are important to local residents, and that the proportion of Alaskan residents who 

participate in outdoor activities is generally much higher than elsewhere in the United States; 

however, limited data restricts us from accurately quantifying resident recreation use on POW.

Non-resident visitors, or users, can be generally divided into package and independent visitors. 

Package visitors are typically cruise ship clients, though some arrive by ferry and airplane, and most 

often visit on set itineraries. Independent visitors, a large segment of visitors to POW, tend to arrive 

by air or ferry and engage in a variety of activities. Independent visitors spend more time in the 

communities and on the Forest, and may secure the services of outfitters and guides, restaurants, 

motels, and transportation services, such as floatplanes, boats, and gas stations. Independent travelers 

tend to plan their own itineraries, but often secure the services of mini-packages, such as day 

excursions or fishing charters. Independent visitors compete directly with residents for recreation

opportunities on the Forest. There is limited data to accurately quantify non-resident recreation use on 

POW.

The third group of visitors/users are the regional recreationists that come to POW. This segment of 

users are primarily Alaskan residents who travel to POW for fishing and hunting opportunities and 

compete directly with local users. There is limited data that accurately quantifies regional recreation

use on POW.

An estimated 15,000 non-residents visited POW in summer 2006, about 1.5 percent of the total 

visitors to Southeast Alaska (McDowell Group 2007). A study by the University of Alaska Institute of 

Social and Economic Research (ISER) estimated that 12,326 visitors participated in nature-based 

tourism on POW in 2007, bringing in more than $30 million in gross revenues, with most of this 

revenue related to sport fishing (Dugan et al. 2009). The majority of this revenue (over 80 percent) 

comes from the lodges on Prince of Wales Island and its outer islands. The community of Craig has 

large lodges with this type of clientele. All of these lodges have direct waterfront access and focus on 

saltwater fishing. These operations are accessed by float plane from the communities with jet service 

(i.e., Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg). The lodge experience is self-contained; that is, clients 

typically do not visit any of the recreation sites in the project area (Dugan et al. 2009) nor contribute 

to the local economy through the purchases of goods and services.

Most sport fish visitors stay in one of the islands’ lodges, with a smaller number staying in cabins or 

other local accommodations. Fishing lodges are located in Craig, Klawock, Thorne Bay, and Coffman 

Cove, as well as in remote locations scattered around the islands. Sport fish visitors to Craig, 

Klawock, and the remote lodges focus on saltwater fishing. Lodges and day charter operators in 

Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove offer a combination of saltwater and freshwater fishing (Dugan et al.

2009).

Bear hunting is popular on the island, with guided hunting and transporter services available from 

outfitters. Visitor numbers and revenue associated with bear hunting are lower than those associated 

with sport fishing (Dugan et al. 2009). More than 80 percent of all guided hunts are conducted by 

motorized boat in shoreline areas. Hunting guide numbers on POW are allocated, or distributed, based 

on the Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan Decision Notice (USDA Forest Service 

2012).

The existing road system on Prince of Wales Island provides opportunities for sightseeing and 

exploring, and provides access for hunters, fishing opportunities, and OHV enthusiasts. Roads 

designated as open under the POW Access and Travel Management process have been identified as 

important to resident users for recreation, subsistence hunting, and gathering of firewood. Visitors are 

able to travel to POW with their vehicles via the Inter-Island Ferry between Ketchikan and Hollis.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 265

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)

The ROS system, an inventory developed by the Forest Service, aids in identifying and describing 

possible combinations of recreation activities, settings, and experiences for management purposes 

(Appendix I, Forest Plan). The ROS system defines appropriate combinations of activities, settings, 

and experiences along a continuum, which ranges from primitive to highly modified environments. 

Seven classifications are identified along this continuum: Primitive (P); Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM); Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM); Roaded Natural (RN); Roaded Modified 

(RM); Rural (R); Urban (U).

ROS classes represent a spectrum of possible experiences, from those with a high probability of selfreliance, solitude, challenge, and risk, to those with a relatively high degree of interaction with other 

people. The settings, activities, and probable recreation experience opportunities associated with each 

ROS setting are described in Appendix I of the Forest Plan.

The ROS does not specify or prescribe what types of activities are allowed in an area. Land Use 

Designations (LUD) defined in the Forest Plan (Chapter 3) prescribe allowable management 

activities, in conjunction with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. If a LUD allows for 

increased development, timber harvest, or increased recreation use, the ROS character associated with 

the LUD typically aligns with the designation. If expanded development occurs within a project area 

based on an area’s LUD, the Forest Plan allows a change in ROS setting. Changes to existing ROS 

allocations were anticipated as part of Forest Plan Implementation and direction on how to make 

changes was incorporated in the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

The project area encompasses approximately 1.8 million acres of NFS lands, within approximately 

2.3 million acres of Prince of Wales Island and its surrounding islands. Both NFS and non-NFS lands 

are considered in the ROS table below; however, only NFS lands are considered in the ROS analysis.

Over one-third (36.3 percent) of NFS lands have been classified as Primitive (P) (Table 58). This 

setting is situated primarily within the southern extent of the island, on the western outer islands, and 

in more remote sections of the central and northern portions of POW. These areas are typified by their 

remoteness and lack of road connectivity, and in most cases are associated with Wilderness and LUD 

II management areas. Roaded Modified (RM) settings account for approximately 32 percent of NFS 

lands. Over 50 percent of NFS recreation assets on POW are located within, or accessed through, RM 

settings. Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized (SPNM) setting accounts for approximately 21 percent of 

NFS lands, and Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), Roaded Natural (RN), Rural (R), and Urban (U) 

settings account collectively for the remaining 11 percent.

Table 58. ROS Acreages within the Project Area and on NFS Lands

ROS Project Area GIS Acres

(All) Percent NFS Land GIS Acres Percent

P 713,318 31.0 661,622 36.3

SPNM 411,790 17.9 380,163 20.9

SPM 235,816 10.3 178,982 9.8

RN 14,770 0.6 9,834 0.5

RM 910,824 39.6 590,931 32.4

R 10,751 0.5 1,461 0.1

U 1,111 0.0 161 0.0

Total 2,298,380 1,823,154
3 – Environment and Effects

266 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Figure 9. ROS Settings and Resources on NFS Lands
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 267

Recreation Places and Sites

Forest Service recreation assets within the project area are sites and/or facilities where users can 

engage in recreation activities. These locations are generally accessible via road, boat, or float plane 

(see discussion below). These assets include developed recreation sites, such as trails, picnic/day-use

sites, campsites, interpretive sites, and Forest Service cabins and shelters. Undeveloped sites with 

unique natural features such as waterfalls, geological features, and other natural formations are 

recognized opportunities, but are not considered in the asset inventory.

The majority of the project area is undeveloped and primarily used for dispersed recreation activities. 

Dispersed recreation activities include scenery and wildlife viewing, boating, fishing, beachcombing, 

hiking, and hunting. Patterns of use tend to be associated with the existing road system, protected boat 

anchorages/moorings, boat access points, and float plane landing areas. Points for boat access may be 

on or close to NFS land; their use is not monitored. Boat access points often include, but are not 

limited to, launches and docks that are managed and maintained by the Forest Service, and are often 

in proximity to a recreation site. Anchorages and moorings may also be managed and maintained by 

the Forest Service and are typically associated with recreation sites, such as cabins. Salt- and 

freshwater recreation areas may be accessed by floatplanes and may use the same docks as boaters; 

however, in many cases floatplanes will taxi directly onto shorelines in proximity to recreation sites 

and areas. Modes of access to recreation assets may influence visitation levels to remote recreation 

resources (e.g., cabins); however, quantitative measures providing data on modes of access to these 

sites is lacking.

Current recreation assets are discussed in the following sections.

Developed Recreation Sites

There are approximately 77 recognized recreation assets on Prince of Wales Island and its outer 

islands. These resources are monitored and maintained by the Forest Service at different levels based 

on need, use, and capacity or people/funding availability (i.e., program resources).

The Forest Service charges fees for the 20 cabins and at the two developed campgrounds on Prince of 

Wales Island. The balance of recreation assets are fee-free; therefore, a means to quantify use levels is 

not in place for most assets, with the exception of periodic visitor use monitoring that occurs on a 5-

year cycle. Cabins are rented through a centralized reservation system, providing a relatively accurate 

means for quantifying use of those assets. Fees are collected at campgrounds on the honor system. 

The payment system does provide a level of measure for campground use; however, these numbers 

may be under-represented because some users may not fill out and deposit fee envelopes. Use of feefree assets can only be subjectively measured based on program and district staff knowledge, and 

input from the public. National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) data is available for the Tongass 

National Forest for 2014; however, the data set that covers POW includes the Ketchikan-Misty Fjords 

Ranger District (KMRD). It is assumed these data would be skewed toward KMRD due to greater 

accessibility and infrastructure on that district. With the lack of comprehensive visitor use data for 

POW, beyond anecdotal information, quantitative analysis of asset use will be limited to cabins and 

campgrounds.

The following sections provide an overview and brief description of the available recreation assets in 

the project area broken down by structures (cabins and 3-sided shelters), trails, day-use sites, 

interpretive sites, campgrounds, and dispersed camping. Most of these sites are identified on the 2007 

POW Visitor Map. Detailed descriptions of assets and their existing conditions are available in the 

Existing Condition Reports (available in the project record).
3 – Environment and Effects

268 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 59. Distribution of Forest Service Recreation Sites across ROS Settings

Recreation Sites

ROS Overall Structures Trailhead Day-Use Interpretive Campgrounds Dispersed 

P 3 2 1 0 0 0 0

R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RM 51 6 26 7 7 2 3

RN 4 1 1 2 0 0 0

SPM 11 9 2 0 0 0 0

SPNM 7 5 2 0 0 0 0

U 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

NON-FS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total 78 23 33 10 7 2 3

Recreation Structures

Within the project area there are twenty cabins available to users through a centralized reservation 

system. Cabins have an associated outhouse and often have a wood shelter that is occasionally 

stocked with firewood. These sites are maintained regularly by Forest Service staff. Cabin 

maintenance typically involves small repairs and cleaning, toilet maintenance and cleaning, and 

stocking of firewood. Cabin use varies based on location and ease of access. Many cabins are 

accessible only by boat or float plane. Recent efforts have been made to locate newer cabins on roadaccessible sites. Road accessible cabins often involve hikes less than 0.5 mile from parking areas and 

some entail the use of a skiff provided by the Forest Service at shoreline access points. Remote cabins

may experience limited use because access requires the use of boats or float planes; weather variables 

and costs associated with flight times may be prohibitive to users. However, cabins located in 

preferred hunting/fishing areas often experience increased use during seasons for these activities. See 

Table 60 for a list of existing cabins. Use data for these cabins are available in the project record.

Table 60. Forest Service Cabins on POW

Forest Service Cabins: Prince of Wales Island

Barnes Lake Black Bear Control Lake Honker Lake Josephine Lake 

Karta Lake Karta River Kegan Cove Kegan Creek Point Amargura

Polk Inlet Red Bay Sarkar Cabin Salmon Bay Salmon Lake

Shipley Bay Staney Creek Sweetwater Lake Trollers Cove Twelvemile Arm

Cabins are distributed across the project area and can be found in a variety of ROS settings; two 

cabins in Primitive (P), eight in Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), five in Semi-Primitive NonMotorized (SPNM), and five in Roaded Modified (RM) settings.

Descriptions of cabins can be found on the Recreation page of the Tongass National Forest public 

website (https://www.fs.usda.gov/activity/tongass/recreation/) and in the project record.

Three-sided shelters are located at Memorial Beach, Winter Harbor, and the end of One Duck Trail. 

With the exception of the One Duck shelter these sites have a toilet. Shelters are first-come firstserved assets and are fee-free. There are no recent records of shelter use; however, from program staff 

experience it is known that these sites are popular and relatively well used. Recreation staff visit these 

sites at least monthly, if not twice a month, and perform small repairs, pick-up trash, stock firewood, 

and clean the outhouses. Based on staff input, Memorial Beach is the most popular of the three 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 269

shelters. The shelters are located in the following ROS settings: Memorial Beach - Roaded Natural 

(RN); Winter Harbor - Roaded Modified (RM); and One Duck - Semi-Primitive Modified (SPM).

Trails

There are approximately 33 National Forest Service trails within the project area, totaling 

approximately 70 miles. Most trails are less than 2 miles long and are typically associated with a 

particular site or feature. Examples include interpretive trails within day-use areas or starting on the 

roadside and terminating at land features or fish passes. Most trails are barrier free, but may not be 

fully accessible for users with disabilities. Dependent on length, trails often cross multiple ROS 

settings.

The longest trails are canoe trails with portages: Honker Divide and Sarkar. Honker Divide Trail 

reaches approximately 30 miles from the put-in on Hatchery Creek on the Coffman Cove Road, 

following creeks and along lakes crossing the Honker Divide, before terminating close to Thorne Bay

near the outlet of the Thorne River. The Sarkar Canoe Trail starts and ends at the day-use area on 

Road 20 north of Naukati. This trail travels approximately 15 miles, starts and ends across Sarkar 

Lake, and follows a loop consisting of portages, streams, and lakes. Both canoe trails have cabins

associated with them, on Honker (Galea Lake) and Sakar Lakes.

The longest “traditional” trails, used for hiking are the Karta River and Balls Lake Trails. The Karta 

Trail is accessed from the shoreline of Kasaan Bay and extends over 8 miles into the Karta River

Wilderness. The upper end of the trail skirts the north side of Salmon Lake. Based on cabin rentals 

(Karta River, Karta Lake, and Salmon Lake) and local information, this trail is relatively well used. 

Balls Lake Trail loops approximately 2 3⁄4 miles around the lake and ties in with Eagles Nest

Campground. Access to Balls Lake is from the Thorne Bay Road near Control Lake Junction, at the 

trailhead or from Eagles Nest Campground. The trail head for Balls Lake is well established with 

parking, a day-use pavilion, and an outhouse.

Day-Use Sites

There are ten day-use sites within the project area. These sites are fee-free and typically include a 

toilet facility and one or more picnic tables, some also have pavilions and fire rings. Based on local 

knowledge, Sandy Beach is likely the site with the highest level of use, due to its proximity to Thorne 

Bay and its location on the shores of Clarence Strait along Road 3000 (Sandy Beach Road). Gravelly 

Creek sits along the Thorne River, provides good fishing access, and also receives consistent use 

based on its proximity to Thorne Bay. Coffman Cove has a Forest Service day-use site in town that 

receives primarily local use. Luck Lake day-use site is a recently upgraded asset with improved 

infrastructure sitting on the lake’s north shore at its discharge into Eagle Creek. Luck Lake is easily 

accessible from both Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay and is a popular location for fishing and family 

recreation. The Sarkar day-use site is a recently improved site and serves as the gateway to the Sarkar 

Trail, located north of Naukati on Road 2000 (2007 Forest Visitor Map). Based on local knowledge 

the Sarkar site receives relatively consistent use from locals and island visitors.

Other day-use sites include Memorial Beach, Balls Lake, Harris River, Canoe Point, and Neck Lake. 

The Harris River site is accessible via a bridge crossing from the campground entrance situated along 

the road between Hollis and Klawock (Road 925). The site consists of a pavilion with two picnic 

tables and an additional two picnic sites. Use of this site is unknown, but occasional use from 

campground users and transient island visitors is probable. The Balls Lake site is at the trail head for 

the Balls Lake Trail along the Thorne Bay Road near Control Lake junction, its use is most likely 

associated with trail users. The site includes a pavilion, picnic tables, and a fire ring. Memorial Beach, 

on the north end of the island, is a popular site for island visitors and residents due to its remoteness 

and location on Sumner Strait. The day-use area consists of two picnic tables, and it provides an 
3 – Environment and Effects

270 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

opportunity for beachcombing and whale watching. Canoe Point is a relative remote day-use site 

located on Trocadero Bay. This site is only accessible from the bay and is associated with a short trail

to a waterfall. The Neck Lake site is an undeveloped site with a boat launch approximately 4 miles 

west of Whale Pass.

Seven day-use sites are located within Roaded Modified (RM) ROS settings. Coffman Cove is in an 

Urban (U) setting, and the last two sites are within Roaded Natural (RN) settings.

Interpretive Sites

There are seven Forest Service interpretive sites within the project area. Fish passes with overlooks 

may be loosely defined as interpretive sites; however, in most cases they are solely viewing platforms

with limited interpretive information. With the exception of El Capitan Cave, none of these sites are 

staffed and all of them are fee-free. All of the interpretive sites are within Roaded Modified (RM) 

ROS settings.

The El Capitan Cave site is managed for tours and staffed with seasonal Forest Service personnel. El 

Capitan is recognized nationally and is likely the most popular interpretive site on Prince of Wales 

Island. The cave serves as one of three sites on the north end that gives an overview of the island’s 

karst geology and geomorphology. Beaver Falls Trail is the second karst site, located approximately 6 

miles by road east southeast of El Capitan. The trail is a developed boardwalk with an observation 

platform at the falls and interpretive signs at several karst formations along the loop. The third karst 

site is Cavern Lake Trail, a short trail to a viewing platform with a view of an emerging subterranean 

stream and a set of downstream falls.

The Eagles Nest interpretive site is located in the campground on a boardwalk spur trail off of the 

Balls Lake Trail. The interpretive signs discuss hydrologic and riparian systems and their benefits to 

fish and their lifecycles.

Salt Chuck Trail leads to an interpretive site at Salt Chuck Mine located off of tidal flats that flow to 

Kasaan Bay. Visitation to this site is unknown, but it is located in relative proximity to Kasaan and 

Thorne Bay. The site affords the opportunity to explore the remnants of an old mining facility and has 

several interpretive signs providing visitors with a history of the area.

The Harris River interpretive area affords visitors an opportunity to learn about forest management. 

This site is located approximately 2 miles east of the junction with Hydaburg Road on Road 924 

(Klawock–Hollis Highway). The interpretive area is not developed beyond a parking area and trail, 

but does have signage explaining the management of young-growth forests. Visitation to this site is 

unknown, but it does tie in with the Gándlaay Háanaa (translation: in the beautiful creek) Trail that 

follows a portion of the Harris River.

Fish passes on Prince of Wales may be identified as interpretive sites, but as mentioned above they 

may not include informative signs or provide anything else to visitors beyond a viewing platform. 

Examples of fish passes include the Dog Salmon site near Polk Inlet and Big Lake near Ratz Harbor, 

about a mile off Sandy Beach Road (National Forest System road 3000).

Campgrounds

Harris River and Eagles Nest campgrounds are the only developed campgrounds in the project area. 

These are fee sites (honor system) that see moderate, but consistent, use throughout the season 

between May and October. Both campgrounds are within Roaded Modified (RM) ROS settings.

Harris River Campground is located off of Road 924 between Klawock and Hollis. The campground 

has 14 camp sites, two vault toilet units, and a short boardwalk crossing muskeg inside the 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 271

campground loop. In 2017, for the period between May 24th and August 8th (78 days), the Harris 

River Campground recorded 183 user days (i.e., number of days x number of users in party). Based 

on its proximity to the Hollis ferry terminal, use of the campground is likely from visitors arriving on 

or departing the island; however, it is known that the site is often simply used as a rest stop for people 

transiting to or from the ferry.

Eagles Nest Campground is located approximately 2 miles east of the Control Lake Junction on the 

Thorne Bay Road. This campground has ten pull-in campsites, two walk in tent pads, and a double 

vault toilet. Features of the campground are the tie in with the Balls Lake Trail via the lakeshore 

boardwalk and Eagles Nest interpretive trail, as well as lake paddling and fishing. In 2017, the 

campground recorded 211 user days from April 21st to August 14th. The campgrounds location 

between Klawock and Thorne Bay on the primary road system provides a central location for visitors 

to explore the island.

Fee collections for the 2017 season, from approximately April through August, were used to calculate 

user days for both campgrounds. It is assumed that use numbers may be slightly higher because it is 

known that some people do not record, or pay for, their stay. Neither of these campgrounds had a 

Campground Host, nor did the Forest Service have enough staff, to monitor campground use during 

the 2017 season.

Dispersed Camping

There are three inventoried dispersed campsites within the project area. These sites are on the 2007 

Forest Service visitor map and have at least a picnic table and a clearing for setting up camp. This 

does not preclude other sites on the islands that may be favored for camping by users. The three sites 

are associated with fishing and hunting opportunities and their use is probably limited to seasonal 

activity. Levels of use are unknown; however, recreation staff make at least annual visits to the sites 

and report evidence of recent use; indicators include fire-ring use, trash, and site alterations. The 

dispersed sites are Horseshoe Hole, Staney Bridge, and Lake No. 3; all are in Roaded Modified (RM) 

ROS settings.

Horseshoe Hole and Staney Bridge are located in proximity to Staney Creek on the west side of POW 

off of NFS roads 2054 and 2050, respectively. Lake No. 3 is located on the east side of the island near 

Thorne Bay and Kasaan, off NFS road 2030 near the Salt Chuck trail head.

Undeveloped Recreation Sites

Undeveloped recreation sites are used for undeveloped recreation opportunities, including hunting 

and fishing, these sites are not managed or maintained by the Forest Service. Examples include: the 

old Colby Cabin (a.k.a. Trapper’s Cabin) that is popular with Honker Divide Trail users; and Ratz 

Harbor, used as a resident day-use site and for small boats to access Clarence Strait.

Boat Docks, Landings, and Launches

Docks, launches, and landings are affiliated with recreation sites and activities, and are discussed in 

the Transportation section.

Environmental Effects

This analysis looks at the potential effects of developing recreation assets on National Forest System 

lands based on the maximum implementation of proposed activities (Alternatives 2 and 5) and the 

restriction placed in Alternative 3. The data for this analysis are available in the project record. If the 

No-Action Alternative were to be implemented there would be no change to current levels of 

recreation infrastructure.
3 – Environment and Effects

272 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Implementation and operation are terms used frequently in this analysis. Implementation is defined as 

the phase of development when construction of a discrete or linear site is put into effect, after a 

decision is in place and site plans have been approved. Implementation activities for recreation

infrastructure can be found in the Activity Cards (36 through 40 and 43 through 46). Operation is 

defined as the post-implementation phase, for a site’s lifetime, when it is available as a recreation 

opportunity to users. During operation Forest Service staff would, at a minimum, perform regular 

seasonal maintenance. Improvements and repairs would also be performed during the operation 

phase.

Proposed and existing recreation sites can be found on a variety of land types; in the case of trails,

across multiple types. Due to the analysis scale, generalizations are made on land types that recreation 

infrastructure could be located; e.g., coastal, upland, and alpine. For this analysis the coastal zone is 

defined as the 0.2 mile (approximately 1,000 feet) belt of land adjacent to saltwater above the mean 

high water line. Uplands cover the area adjacent to the coastal zone and terminate at tree line. Alpine 

is considered above tree line. To account for landscape variability, uplands have been sub-divided to 

account for lake shores, riparian zones, muskeg, timber, and sub-alpine areas. These sub-divisions 

recognize that development of recreation infrastructure could affect these upland land types in 

different ways.

Access to and connectivity between recreation sites within the project area have historically been via 

float plane or boat, and more recently, with improvements to the island’s transportation infrastructure, 

by vehicle. Forest Service recreation cabin data shows that sites only accessible by floatplane see the 

lowest levels of annual use. This could be attributed to increased costs of chartering flights (flights 

originate from Ketchikan) and a lack of local flight services on Prince of Wales Island. Based on the 

maritime culture of Southeast Alaska, boating will remain a viable means of recreation access into the 

future. Therefore, future development of recreation infrastructure would concentrate on creating 

recreation opportunities that are road or boat accessible.

For this analysis, recreation infrastructure is divided into two types: discrete and linear. 

Campgrounds/campsites, cabins and shelters, day-use/picnic sites, interpretative sites, and winter 

recreation areas are considered discrete. Discrete sites are defined as sites contained within a defined 

area at a specific location. Depending on site type, and a site’s ancillary infrastructure, the extent of a 

discrete site can range from a couple of hundred square feet to a few acres. Trails are defined as linear 

sites. Linear sites are comprised of a series of segments covering a linear distance, across varying 

landscapes, and are defined by trail length and tread width.

Discrete sites may be subdivided into three types based on the extent of ground coverage that may 

result in potential ground disturbances. We do not have site specific designs for proposed sites; 

therefore, for this analysis an allowance of 80 percent of a site’s base structure(s) area has been added 

to account for design variables such as boardwalks, trails, and accessibility considerations, as well as 

to account for user activities (exploring, firewood gathering, etc.) adjacent to the site. The extent of 

campgrounds, camp sites, day-use/picnic areas, and interpretative areas are based on conceptual 

perimeters that would contain all of a site’s features; therefore, the 80 percent allowance is not added.

Types of proposed discrete sites and their ground coverage:

• Single structure (shelter) with no ancillary buildings or infrastructure: less than 300 square feet.

• Structures (cabins and shelters) with ancillary buildings and infrastructure: typically less than 

1,000 square feet.

• Campgrounds, campsites, day-use/picnic areas, and interpretative sites: variable acreage.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 273

Ground coverage for trails (linear sites) is measured by the length of the route and the width of the 

trail plus immediately adjacent ground. For this analysis trail coverage is 2.4 acres per mile. This 

measure accounts for variability of trail widths, potential activity within 10 feet of tread centerline, 

and other features such as trail head parking and viewpoints.

There are 33 existing Forest Service trails on Prince of Wales Island and its outer islands. These 33

trails cover approximately 72 miles (approximately 172.8 acres); however, two of these are canoe 

trails. If only the canoe trail portages (ground disturbing sections) are accounted for, existing trail 

miles drops to approximately 32 miles or 76.8 acres. Existing trails include cabin and skiff spur trails, 

loop and out and back trails, interpretive and day-use trails, and canoe portages. These trails come in 

a variety of tread styles and widths, which are dependent on variables such as land type and slope.

Alternatives 2 and 5 propose up to 50 miles with a coverage of 120 acres of trail activities, and 

Alternative 3 proposes no new trails, but focuses improvements to popular and high use trails. For 

Alternatives 2 and 5, these additions could increase the existing trail network by approximately 155

percent. Trail routes have not been designed or surveyed; therefore, coverage and miles may change 

through the planning and implementation process. There were seven trails that were suggested by 

commenters during scoping for the project. Three of the seven trails are identified for outer islands: 

Noyes, Baker, and Suemez. These trails would provide ocean side beach access from sheltered coves. 

The balance of suggested trails includes an expansion of the Memorial Beach Trail, establishing a 

Luck Creek trail south of Luck Lake, re-establishing the east segment of the Deweyville Trail, a new 

trail at Rio Beaver (8 1⁄2 mile) to the Thorne River, and development of the Hollis-to-Craig Trail. The 

Hollis-to-Craig Trail could be between 15 and 25 miles and would require agreements with private 

landowners. Additional trail miles could be included with the development of future infrastructure, 

such as kayak/canoe access points and spur tails to structures. Trails for kayak/canoe access points 

have not been identified, but would typically be short spur trails (usually less than 0.3 miles) with 

road access.

There are approximately 47 existing discrete Forest Service recreation sites on Prince of Wales and its 

outer islands. These include cabins, shelters, launches/docks, day-use, interpretive, dispersed camp 

sites, and campgrounds. The breakdown of these sites is as follows: 20 cabins, 3 shelters, 6 

launches/docks, 11 day-use, 2 interpretative, 3 dispersed camp sites, and 2 campgrounds. Based on 

the discussion on the extent of discrete sites, existing sites cover approximately 47 acres of National 

Forest System lands on Prince of Wales Island and its outer islands.

Alternatives 2 and 5 propose the development of up to three new cabins and up to twelve new shelters 

that are boat or road accessible, up to eight winter sport access points and areas for over-the-snow 

vehicle use, up to three new campgrounds, the development of a picnic day-use area near Neck Lake, 

and boat launches/docks. The proposed sites could affect approximately 75 acres of National Forest 

System land, resulting in an approximately 160 percent increase of discrete site coverage. Shelter 

sites could be changed to camp sites in Alternative 3 to meet the intent of increasing recreation 

opportunities while minimizing the resource commitment required for maintenance. Alternative 3 

would not develop new cabin or shelter sites, limit the size of the winter access points, and focus on 

maintaining the existing high-use sites. Proposed site numbers do not include kayak/canoe access 

points because these locations have not been specified and the area for ground disturbance would be 

negligible at the landscape level. Winter recreation access areas are being considered as discrete sites 

because we do not have plans or definitive locations for implementation. The acreage values for these 

sites should account for roadside pullouts, trails, and ancillary infrastructure. Thirty-eight sites were 

suggested during scoping for this project (see Chapter 2).

Some segment or segments of 16 existing trails and 3 suggested trails are within 0.2 miles of a 

Logging System Transportation Analysis (LSTA) potential timber harvest unit. Fifteen of 47 existing 
3 – Environment and Effects

274 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

sites, and 9 of 31 suggested discrete sites are within 0.2 mile of LSTA potential harvest units. 

Consideration would be given to developing measures to preserve the recreation experience at 

existing and suggested sites in proximity to these units (refer to Activity Cards, Appendix A).

Decommissioning of recreation infrastructure is proposed for all action alternatives and may occur 

over the life of this project, based on use levels, public safety, and or site conditions. 

Decommissioning would reduce the number, and acreage, of recreation infrastructure on Prince of 

Wales. However, for Alternatives 2 and 5, the quantitative value (number or acreage) of 

decommissioned sites would be held in reserve to provide flexibility for future implementation. This 

flexibility would provide recreation planners the latitude to implement yet unidentified sites to meet 

public requests for new sites or facilitate infrastructure realignment.

Signage is not analyzed because the footprint of sign installation is negligible at the landscape level. 

In most cases signs would be directly associated with discrete and linear site implementation, and 

would provide public safety to, or educational opportunities for, visitors.

For specifics regarding proposed recreation infrastructure see Activity Cards 36 through 40 and 43

through 46.

Available recreation assets would be considered for proposed and existing infrastructure in all 

alternatives because an infrastructure inventory that is not manageable with program resources would 

not be practical. Maintenance and improvements of existing infrastructure keeps recreational 

opportunities viable, improve the recreation experience and public health and safety.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1

No new activities are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in the least 

direct and indirect effects to recreation for this project. Under Alternative 1, none of the specific 

management activities proposed would be implemented to accomplish project goals and objectives. 

This alternative does not meet the purpose and need for this project.

Repair and maintenance of existing recreation infrastructure would continue at present levels based 

on available program resources and prior approved plans.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5

Direct and indirect effects on recreation infrastructure of proposed non-recreation activities are low to 

moderate. There are occurrences where proposed activities could occur in proximity to recreation 

infrastructure. In these cases an analysis of effects would be made to determine the level of 

disturbance to recreation activities and assets. In all action alternatives, regardless of the proximity, an 

assessment of proposed activities on recreation infrastructure and the recreation experience would 

occur before implementation.

Land Use Designation and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum of Proposed Sites

The effects analysis for this project is applied at the landscape level; however, the analysis can make 

assumptions on trends on the distribution of potential recreation infrastructure based on the suggested 

sites from the public. These trends (displayed in the tables below) give an indication of where the 

public is interested in recreating and the type of recreation experience they are seeking. The land use 

designation (LUD) table (Table 61) indicates over a third of the suggested sites fall within Modified 

Landscape and Timber Management LUDs and over half of the suggested sites fall within a Roaded 

Modified recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) setting (Table 62). Although consideration must be 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 275

given to the other designations and classifications, this breakdown shows that most sites fall in areas 

conducive to recreation development because of less restrictive LUD components and ROS 

classifications. Existing recreation infrastructure is not included in this LUD and ROS analysis 

because those sites are already managed under the existing LUD components and ROS 

classifications.

Table 61. Number of suggested sites per land use designation (trails may cross multiple LUDs).

Land Use Designation (LUD) Number of Suggested Sites Percentage of All Suggested Sites

Wilderness 0 0.0

LUD II 7 18.4

Semi-Remote Recreation 5 13.2

Old Growth Habitat 2 5.3

Special Interest Area 3 7.9

Wild, Scenic, or Recreation River 0 0.0

Modified Landscape 10 26.3

Timber Management 6 15.8

Combination of LUDs 3 7.9

non-NFS 2 5.3

Table 62. Number of suggested sites per recreation opportunity spectrum inventory. Combinations of 

ROS are indicative of trails or winter recreation areas.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(ROS)

Number of Suggested Sites Percentage of All 

Suggested Sites

Primitive 10 26.3

Semi-primitive Non-motorized 0 0.0

Semi-primitive motorized 2 5.3

Roaded Natural 2 5.3

Roaded Modified 20 52.6

Rural 0 0.0

Urban 0 0.0

Combination of ROS 4 10.5

Site Access

Public use of existing sites and program maintenance efforts are also influenced by access. Table 63

provides an overview of access to all existing and suggested sites (discrete and linear). Most existing 

sites are accessible via road due to the road network on Prince of Wales Island, and this trend would 

continue with the implementation of proposed activities. Currently 63 percent of existing Forest 

Service recreation sites are road accessible, with implementation of proposed infrastructure this 

percentage could drop to 55 percent. This decrease would be due to the development of more boat 

accessible sites on the outer islands. The percentage of boat accessible sites would increase from 13 

percent to 23 percent if suggested shelters are implemented in the future. Boat accessible sites could 

see high use levels with their availability due to the maritime centric recreation of the area. 

Percentage of sites accessible by floatplane would stay relatively static with future development of 

recreation infrastructure because new fly-in sites are not being proposed.
3 – Environment and Effects

276 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 63. Modes of access to existing and suggested recreation sites (discrete and linear).

Means of Access Existing Sites (All) Suggested Sites 

(All) Total Percent of Total

Road 50 14 64 55

Boat 10 17 27 23

Float Plane 3 0 3 2

Road/Boat 8 7 15 13

Road/ Float Plane 2 0 2 2

Boat/ Float Plane 6 0 6 5

Sum 79 38 117

Land Types

Based on the topography and vegetation of Prince of Wales Island, most existing recreation sites 

(discrete and linear) are found within the coastal band (0.2 mile) around the islands, or in proximity to 

lakes or streams. This trend will continue with the proposed activities considered in this analysis. 

Table 64 shows the number of sites per primary land type; secondary land types are considered for 

linear sites. Linear sites in many case would cross multiple land types, the project record spreadsheet 

accounts for secondary and tertiary land types; therefore, there could be additional land types that 

would need to be accounted for in the implementation process for linear sites.

Table 64. Land types where existing recreation sites (discrete and linear) are located and suggested.

Land Type (Primary) Existing Sites (All) Suggested Sites 

(All) Total Percent of Total

Coastal 23 12 35 30

Coastal - Outer Island 4 14 18 15

Upland - Lake Shore 19 2 21 18

Upland - Riparian 18 3 21 18

Upland - Muskeg 2 0 2 2

Upland - Timber 10 0 10 8

Upland - Sub-Alpine 1 7 8 7

Alpine 2 0 2 2

Sum 79 38 117

Overall Extent

Overall the ground disturbing activity involved with the development of proposed recreation

infrastructure would have a negligible impact on the overall landscape. Existing discrete and linear 

sites total approximately 124 acres, while proposed sites could contribute an additional 195 acres to 

the recreation infrastructure. Existing recreation infrastructure directly effects 0.007 percent of the 

acres of National Forest System land on Prince of Wales Island and its outer islands (approximately 

1.8 million acres). The addition of all the proposed projects would directly affect 0.011 percent of 

National Forest System lands. Based on the quantity of proposed recreation sites and their individual 

footprints their implementation would result in negligible effects at the landscape level of analysis. 

Implementation of proposed activities would result in localized ground disturbing activities, but these 

activities would be contained within limited areas and mitigation measures identified on the Activity 

Cards would be applied, thus reducing effects.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 277

Other Resources

Effects between recreation and other forest resources are considered in the analysis of proposed and 

existing recreation infrastructure. With increased recreation opportunities on the island, there is the 

potential for more visitation to POW. Improved recreation infrastructure and newer facilities would 

provide a safer and more easily accessed recreation experience for the public across the districts; 

shelters on outer islands may increase recreation opportunities on the district(s) and additionally 

provide safe havens for boaters on local waters.

Assumptions:

• Timber harvest has the greatest potential to impact the recreation experience of a site. ROS 

classification and LUD components would be evaluated prior to implementation of an activity. 

The Forest Plan allows a change in ROS setting if the current setting is not aligned with proposed 

activities. Implementation and operations of recreation infrastructure would meet the new setting.

Measures would be established to mitigate existing and proposed, recreation sites and 

opportunities to maintain a site’s desired recreation experience.

• Development of sites may result in user concentrations, but this would be relative to ongoing 

island-wide use levels. This may result in some disturbances, but would generally be of short 

duration and would not result in alterations to the natural state of the landscape.

• Road development and maintenance would provide improved access to some sites, which in turn 

could lead to improved opportunities.

Overview

The development of proposed recreation infrastructure would have a negligible effect to the overall 

landscape on Prince of Wales Island and its outer islands. Variations in the distribution and types of 

recreation infrastructure across the project area would not result in meaningful changes to the 

discussions regarding LUD, ROS, access, and land types, due to the relatively small impact of 

recreation infrastructure proposed in this project.

The differences in alternatives for recreation are driven primarily by the capacity of the Forest Service 

to maintain and improve existing infrastructure, and to develop and maintain proposed sites. This 

driver may indirectly or directly affect social and economic interests associated with local recreation 

opportunities.

Outfitters and Guides

Outfitter and guide activities on Prince of Wales Island and its outer islands would continue at current 

levels. According to a recent report, the number of visitors to Prince of Wales Island and Southeast 

Alaska is on an upward trend. From 2011 to 2016, Prince of Wales Island visitation increased by 7

percent. During that same time period, visitation across Southeast Alaska increased by 17 percent. 

Outfitters and guides serve a portion of those visitors and based on the trends, outfitter and guide 

requests for use in the project area are likely to increase. Currently, outfitter and guide use is set by 

the allocations in the 2012 Prince of Wales Outfitter and Guide Management Plan. The plan allows 

for some allocation adjustments through an adaptive management process. The plan may be 

reevaluated in the future to ensure that it remains relevant to current and projected use trends.

Infrastructure development or improvements may result in changes to current activities, but will not 

affect allocated service days.
3 – Environment and Effects

278 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects examines the impacts to recreation infrastructure from reasonably foreseeable

activities on NFS lands and non-NFS lands, at the landscape level, over the 15 years proposed for this 

project.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities could affect recreation opportunities and infrastructure. 

Generally, activities on non-NFS lands would have minimum to no effect on recreation sites and their 

associated activities; however, some activities (e.g., timber harvests) may change recreation 

experiences associated with a site because of noise, visible transformations to the landscape, and 

temporary or permanent loss of access to the recreation asset. Impacts to recreation experiences could 

result in reduced use levels at sites in proximity to these activities.

Enacted legislation and future land transfers out of federal ownership could reduce recreation

infrastructure inventory and limit resource growth, resulting in fewer Forest Service recreation 

opportunities on Prince of Wales and its outer islands. Loss of opportunities may in turn affect 

communities by impacting local socio-economic activity. Changes in land ownership could disrupt 

accessibility to, and connectivity between, recreation opportunities on National Forest System lands, 

which could result in sites becoming isolated and experiencing reduced or no use. Land ownership 

changes would also effect outfitter and guide activities on Prince of Wales and its outer islands. 

Changes could lead to a reduction of service days because of lost recreation use areas, and could lead 

to greater concentrations of authorized activities on remaining NFS lands.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 279

Wilderness

This section provides a summary of existing conditions and an analysis of environmental effects for 

wilderness resources in the POW LLA project area. The only activity proposed within designated 

wilderness is the treatment of invasive plant species.

Wilderness designation is intended to preserve and protect certain lands in their natural state. The 

Wilderness Act of 1964 identifies wilderness uses and prohibited activities. The Wilderness Act’s 

Statement of Policy, Section 2(c) states that wilderness should be managed “...in such manner as will 

leave them unimpaired for future use as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of these 

areas, the preservation of their wilderness character...” The statutory language of the Wilderness Act 

is used to identify five qualities of wilderness character: Untrammeled, Undeveloped, Natural, 

Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation, and Other Features 

of Value, defined below (Landres et al. 2015).

• Untrammeled: Area is unhindered and free from intentional actions of modern human control or 

manipulation.

• Natural: Area appears to have been primarily affected by the forces of nature and are substantially 

free from the effects of modern civilization.

• Undeveloped: Area is essentially without permanent improvements or the sights and sounds of 

modern human occupation, and it retains its primeval character.

• Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude or Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Area provides 

outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primeval and unrestricted 

recreation including the values associated with physical and mental inspiration, challenge, selfreliance, self-discovery, and freedom.

• Other Features of Value: Area may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of 

scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Though not required of any wilderness, where 

they are present they are part of that area’s wilderness character and must be protected as 

rigorously as any of the other four required qualities.

Activities prohibited under Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act must go through a Minimum 

Requirements Analysis (MRA) before it can be determined whether and how to implement the 

activity. Accordingly the Forest Service has conducted a MRA in order to determine if the treatment 

of invasive plant species is necessary for the administration of wilderness, and the minimum activity 

to accomplish the action. The final MRA determination has been made by the Regional Forester. The 

MRA allows for site-specific, professional judgment when determining weed treatment options, 

including: hand-pulling, tarping, and various means of applying herbicides.

Affected Environment

The POW LLA project area includes all NFS lands within the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts 

on Prince of Wales Island and the surrounding islands.

There are five wilderness areas designated on Prince of Wales Island and the surrounding islands. The 

Coronation Island, Maurelle Islands, South Prince of Wales, and Warren Island Wilderness Areas 

were designated in 1980 through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) and 

the Karta River Wilderness was designated in 1990 through the Tongass Timber Reform Act (TTRA). 

TTRA amended §703 of ANILCA to include the Karta River Wilderness, among others. The Karta 

River Wilderness is therefore managed in concurrence with the provisions of ANILCA.

Approximately 166,200 acres (7 percent) of the project area are within designated wilderness.
3 – Environment and Effects

280 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

All five wilderness areas are naturally functioning. Wilderness character monitoring data compiled in 

2012 indicates no significant impairments or noted concern with any of the qualities of wilderness 

character. Subsequent monitoring has not taken place so no trend has been established.

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No-Action Alternative would not result in direct or indirect effects to wilderness resources 

because no new activities would occur and existing conditions would remain unaffected. Natural 

disturbances and current management of the project area would continue.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects to 

wilderness resources because no new activities would occur.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Action Alternatives

Activities Proposed within Designated Wilderness by Alternative

Alternatives 2 and 5 propose hand pulling and tarping of invasive plants. Alternative 3 proposes hand 

pulling and tarping of invasive plants, but also includes herbicide application such as broadcast 

spraying, spot spraying, and hand/selective treatment.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects an activity has on the wilderness resource is determined largely by the 

location and nature of the activity, and the effect of the activity and its component activities on the 

five qualities of wilderness character: untrammeled, undeveloped, natural, outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, and other features of value. All alternatives that 

include management activities within or adjacent to designated wilderness have the potential to 

adversely affect one or more of the qualities of wilderness character. However, those same actions 

may also positively affect another quality, and therefore it is necessary to carefully consider effects 

and tradeoffs to ensure wilderness character is preserved. In addition to the five qualities of 

wilderness character defined above, the Wilderness Act mentions societal benefits to wilderness that 

go beyond recreational use. These “non-use values” are, for the most part, intangible aspects of 

wilderness character that are difficult or impossible to quantify.

The following terminology is used in describing the degree of effects to the five qualities of 

wilderness character. These terms are used only to compare the effects across alternatives and not to 

reach a conclusion about the significance of potential effects.

• No Effect: No effect to the quality.

• Negligible: Little or no impact to the quality; any change that might occur may be perceptible but 

difficult to measure.

• Minor: Change in the quality would occur, but no substantial impact would result. Change would 

be perceptible and measurable but not alter the quality’s condition.

• Moderate: Noticeable and measurable change would occur and would alter the quality’s 

condition; integrity of the quality would remain.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 281

• Major: Substantial impact to the quality would occur; impact is easily defined, highly noticeable,

and would measurably alter the quality’s integrity.

The treatment of invasive and non-native plant communities is proposed within all wilderness areas in 

the project area. Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 would include hand pulling and tarping. Only Alternative 3 

proposes the use of herbicide.

Effects on Untrammeled Character

Hand pulling would have a minor effect on the untrammeled quality due to the physical removal of 

weeds. Because seed banks can remain viable for a number of years before germination, repeated 

treatment would likely be required over a number of years.

Tarping would have a major effect on untrammeled quality due to the tarp remaining over the entire 

weed infestation for multiple years depending on the viability of the seed bank.

Effects would be localized to the treatment site and would not measurably impact the untrammeled 

quality across any one wilderness as a whole.

Broadcast herbicide spraying would have a major effect on the untrammeled quality as it would 

indiscriminately manipulate all the plants in a treatment area. Drift of herbicide outside the treatment 

area would have an additional minor to moderate adverse effect on untrammeled character. However, 

the duration of the effect would be temporary and the need for repeated treatments would be less 

likely. Effects would be localized to the treatment site and would not measurably impact the 

untrammeled quality across any one wilderness as a whole.

Spot herbicide spraying would have a moderate effect on the untrammeled quality. The manipulation 

that occurs with spot spraying would target individual plants and therefore would have less adverse 

effect on untrammeled character than that associated with broadcast spraying or tarping. However, the 

duration of the effect would be temporary and the need for repeated treatments would be less likely.

Hand/selective herbicide use would have a minor effect on the untrammeled quality because the 

manipulation that occurs with selective herbicide use would be a much smaller foot print to either of 

the other herbicide uses and tarping. However, the duration of the effect would be temporary and the 

need for repeated treatments would be less likely.

Mulching, seeding, and planting of competitive, desirable native vegetation may occur to restore 

treated sites, which would have additional long-term moderate effects.

Effects on Undeveloped Character

Hand pulling and crew campsites would leave evidence of soil disturbance and trampling of 

vegetation in the area for a short duration following treatment resulting in a negligible effect. Because 

seed banks can remain viable for many years before germination, impacts to the undeveloped quality 

could occur year after year in the same area.

Tarping is a temporary installation, and could be accompanied by temporary signs and rope to 

temporarily close severely damaged sites during rehabilitation and restoration. This would have a 

major effect on the undeveloped quality during the time these developments are in place.

Broadcast and spot spraying herbicide treatments would have no effect on the undeveloped quality.

However, while the type of treatment itself would have no effect, the presence of the backpack 

sprayers themselves would be reminders of modern civilization while they are being used on site, and 

would have a negligible effect. These effects would occur each time treatments are conducted at the 

site.
3 – Environment and Effects

282 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

There would be no effect to the undeveloped quality from hand/selective herbicide treatment.

Access to areas by boat or float plane would have a short term minor effect.

Effects on Natural Character

Treatment of invasive and non-native plant species would overall have a long term positive effect on 

the natural quality regardless of treatment method.

Hand pulling could result in a negligible, localized, adverse effect to natural quality because some 

native plants and seeds could be removed along with the weed species.

Tarping is indiscriminate and adversely affects any desirable native plants that are under the tarp. 

Until these areas recover, there is a localized moderate effect to natural character.

Broadcast herbicides would have a localized moderate effect on natural character until the areas 

recover because they indiscriminately kill desirable and non-desirable plants. Drift of herbicide 

outside the treatment area would have an additional minor adverse effect on natural character.

Spot spraying may have a negligible short term and localized effect on the natural quality if some 

desirable native plant species are inadvertently sprayed or effected by drift.

Hand/selective treatment may have a localized negligible short term effect on the natural quality if 

some desirable native plant species are inadvertently treated.

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude

Large crews, their equipment and the presence of more and/or larger temporary structures (i.e., wall 

tents) for longer durations per visit associated with hand pulling treatments would have a major effect 

on solitude. Effects would be localized to the treatment site and would not measurably impact 

opportunities for solitude across any one wilderness as a whole.

The presence of tarps and, if required, temporary signs and rope could have a major effect on the 

visitors opportunities for solitude for the duration the installations are in place. Effects would be 

localized to the treatment site and would not measurably impact opportunities for solitude across any 

one wilderness as a whole.

The ability to use herbicides, regardless of the method, may reduce the amount of time that is spent in 

treatment areas thus decreasing the potential to have a negative impact on visitor's solitude 

expectations, resulting in a minor effect. Short-term, the presence of dead plants in the treatment site 

could adversely affect visitor’s wilderness experiences and feeling of solitude in the local treatment 

area.

Access to areas by boat or float plane, regardless of treatment method, would also have a short term 

minor effect to solitude.

Effects on Outstanding Opportunities for Primitive and Unconfined Recreation

Large crews, their equipment and the presence of more and/or larger temporary structures (i.e., wall 

tents) for longer durations per visit associated with hand pulling treatments would have a major effect 

on unconfined recreation. Effects would be localized to the treatment site and would not measurably 

impact unconfined recreation across any one wilderness as a whole.

The presence of tarps and, if required, temporary signs and rope could have a major effect on the 

visitors unconfined recreation experience for the duration the installations are in place. Effects would 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 283

be localized to the treatment site and would not measurably impact unconfined recreation across any 

one wilderness as a whole.

The ability to use herbicides, regardless of the method, may require temporary closure of areas during 

and directly following spraying and could have a minor effect to the unconfined visitor experience.

There would be no effect to the primitive recreation experience with any treatment method.

Effects on Other Features of Value

Soil disturbance associated with hand pulling would have a localized temporary short term minor 

effect on scenic value.

The presence of tarps and, if required, temporary signs and rope would have a major, localized effect 

on scenic value for the duration of time the installations are in place. Effects would be localized to the 

treatment site and would not measurably impact the scenic value across any one wilderness as a 

whole.

The presence of large numbers of dead plants following broadcast spraying would have a major effect 

on the scenic value for a short term until the area recovered and revegetated. Effects would be 

localized to the treatment site and would not measurably impact the scenic value across any one 

wilderness as a whole.

The presence of dead plants following spot spraying and hand/selective treatments would have a 

localized negligible short term effect on the scenic value compared to some of the other treatment 

methods as the plants would be interspersed with living vegetation and would not be expansive.

Effects on Non-Use Wilderness Values

Some people may be aware that the untrammeled quality of wilderness character would be degraded 

and the natural quality would be degraded in the short-term but may improve. This realization could 

have indirect adverse impacts to certain non-use values. Both adverse and beneficial effects on nonuse values would be negligible and localized to the affected individuals.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Activities Adjacent to Wilderness

Marine Access Facilities (MAF)

MAFs are proposed adjacent to or in proximity to the Maurelle Islands Wilderness. As these facilities 

would not be located within designated wilderness, an MRA is not necessary, or required. However, 

activities associated with these facilities and the facilities themselves would likely degrade the 

undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character.

Indirect effects include those that are initiated by, and may be unintended consequences of, the 

activity. The installation of new public facilities and/or access into the Forest may increase or alter 

visitor use of wilderness areas resulting in further degradation of the undeveloped and opportunities 

for solitude qualities within the vicinity of the facility.

Winter Sport Access Area

There is a winter sport access area proposed adjacent to the northwest boundary of the Karta River 

Wilderness. The increased noise associated with snowmobile or over snow vehicle use will likely 

degrade the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness character.
3 – Environment and Effects

284 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Indirect effects include those that are initiated by, and may be unintended consequences of, the 

activity. New public access into the Forest may increase or alter visitor use of wilderness areas and 

snowmobile use within the wilderness will likely increase resulting in degradation of the undeveloped 

and opportunities for solitude qualities.

Vegetation Management

Various vegetation management projects are proposed either adjacent to or in proximity to the Karta 

River and South Prince of Wales Wilderness Areas. As these activities would not occur within 

designated wilderness, an MRA is not necessary, or required. However, activities associated with 

these projects would likely degrade the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of 

wilderness character during implementation. Options to minimize these effects, such as timing 

restrictions, would be considered during project development.

Indirect effects include those that are initiated by, and may be unintended consequences of, the 

activity. Examples include: trees along the margins of timber harvest units are more likely to blow 

down in windstorms. Wind throw along or within the wilderness boundary would adversely affect 

untrammeled and natural qualities of wilderness character. Vegetation management adjacent to 

wilderness may also affect animal distribution and patterns of use within wilderness, which would 

adversely affect the untrammeled quality.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects analyses examine the impacts to wilderness character from the projects proposed 

within and adjacent to wilderness in conjunction with reasonably foreseeable future activities on both 

National Forest System (NFS) and non-NFS lands, at the landscape level, over the 15-year proposed 

span of this project. The Catalog of Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities table 

(Appendix C) was reviewed for activities that could impact the wilderness resource.

Present and reasonably foreseeable future vegetation management projects including Timber Harvest 

– Tongass National Forest, Precommercial Thinning: Timber, Wildlife and Riparian Emphasis, 

Timber Harvest – State Lands (non-NFS), Big Thorne Project EIS, Small Timber Sales (five-year 

schedule), Microsales, State of Alaska Division of Forestry Projected Future Harvest, Alaska Mental 

Health Trust Projected Future Harvest, University of Alaska Trust Projected Future Harvest, Sealaska 

Corporation Projected Future Harvest, Free-use Timber harvest on NFS land, Personal Use Firewood 

and Commercial Firewood Permits that occur adjacent to or within sight and sound of a wilderness

area will continue to effect the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of wilderness 

character. The sounds of harvest activities would occur only during implementation while the visual 

impacts of harvest adjacent to the wilderness would be longer term. Neither, at this point in time, 

would significantly impact any one wilderness area as a whole.

Present and reasonably foreseeable future road construction projects including Road Construction for 

Timber Harvest and Road Maintenance that occur adjacent to or within sight and sound of a 

wilderness area would continue to effect the undeveloped and opportunities for solitude qualities of 

wilderness character. These effects may be long term if the roads are left open to public travel, 

increasing the frequency that someone would hear vehicles but would not at this point in time 

significantly impact any one wilderness area as a whole. Indirectly, roads left open to public travel 

may create new access points into wilderness and affect the current distribution of wilderness uses 

which could affect opportunities for solitude.

Outfitter and Guide activities, dispersed recreation, and subsistence gathering would continue as 

currently allowed and in conjunction with the proposed projects would not significantly impact any 

one wilderness area as a whole. Indirectly, these activities may create new access points into
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 285

wilderness and affect the current distribution of wilderness uses which could affect opportunities for 

solitude.

The Alaska Mental Health Trust Act of 2017 and the State National Forest Management Act of 2017

could disrupt access to wilderness areas, and may lead to greater concentrations of use within 

wilderness which would have various impacts to the qualities of wilderness character.
3 – Environment and Effects

286 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Scenery

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects are the National Forest System (NFS) lands in the 

project area.

The temporal boundaries are the timeline of the project implementation.

Methodology

Methodology used to evaluate scenery impacts for this project is the Scenery Management System 

(SMS) and is described in Landscape Aesthetics (USDA Forest Service, 1995).

Under the Forest Plan, all NFS land has a land use designation (LUD), which guides the types and 

intensity of development actions. The management prescriptions for each LUD define the Scenic 

Integrity Objectives (SIO) for each area. SIOs define the degree to which the natural landscape can be 

visibly altered, and provide guidelines for timber harvest, road building, and other activities, to ensure 

they are conducted in a way that allows the scenic objectives to be maintained. A LUD may have 

different SIOs within it, depending on the distance zone (foreground, middleground, background) in 

which the development activity is to take place. SIOs are classified using terms for scenic integrity: 

High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low. For a description of the levels of scenic integrity used for both 

Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) and SIO, see the Forest Plan Scenery Forest-wide Standard and 

Guidelines p. 4-54, and the 2016 Forest Plan FEIS, p. 3-388.

Table 65. Scenic Integrity Objectives for all NFS land within the analysis area

Scenic Integrity Objective Percentage of Project Area

High 42%

Moderate 19%

Low 11%

Very Low 28%

Assumptions made for this analysis:

• Proposed activities in this project would be designed to be consistent with the Forest Plan

Scenery direction.

• Proposed activities other than timber harvest would result in small, localized effects.

• The most visible impacts would be from timber harvest and its corresponding road construction.

• Even-aged management timber harvest would have more visible impacts than partial harvest.

• Acres of timber harvest are used to represent the scale of the visible impacts of each alternative.

Affected Environment

The present condition for scenery is described using Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI).

Existing Scenic Integrity

The scenic resources of the Tongass encompass everything from vast tracts unmodified by human 

activity to extensive areas of heavily modified landscapes. The Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 287

inventory is used by the Forest Service to represent the degree of intactness of the landscape 

character. This inventory is used to categorize the degree of alteration visible in the landscape on a 

continuum from a natural setting to a heavily altered landscape. Visible alterations can be a result 

from any human activity, including but not limited to timber harvest, road construction, recreation and 

special use developments, building construction and power infrastructure. ESI applies to the broad 

landscape affected, not just the acres altered. ESI also changes over time because some alterations 

may revegetate and begin to blend in with the surrounding landscape, or new projects may impact 

scenic integrity. ESI ranges over six levels of integrity, from Very High to Unacceptably Low. This 

inventory was last completed on a large scale before 2005, and would be reevaluated on a sitespecific scale for each activity.

Table 66. Existing Scenic Integrity by percent of project area

Existing Scenic Integrity Percentage of Project Area

Very High 67%

High 1%

Moderate 4%

Low 15%

Very Low 14%

Unacceptably Low <1%

Environmental Effects

With the activities proposed in this project not being specific with regards to location or appearance, 

the scenic analysis is focused on determining if there is capacity within the analysis area and the 

logging systems and transportation analysis (LSTA) to support the alternatives. For this analysis, 

capacity is defined as the ability to reduce the scenic integrity of an area while still meeting the SIOs 

and applicable Forest Plan direction. The existing condition (ESI) is compared to the desired 

condition (SIO) for the analysis area, to determine how much of the analysis area has an existing 

condition that has room to support activities that cause visual impact. In other words, if the ESI is 

higher than the SIO (e.g., Moderate ESI compared to Very Low SIO), there is capacity to proceed 

with projects that lower the scenic integrity of an area. If the ESI is currently the same as the SIO for 

an area, it does not mean that activities cannot take place, but that there is limited capacity, and care 

would be need to be taken when designing a project to minimize visible impacts to continue to meet 

the SIO and remain consistent with Forest Plan Scenery direction. Where the ESI is lower than the 

SIO, a generalized assumption would be that activities may be able to occur but would need to have 

no visible impact.

There are several LUDs that allow exceptions to the SIO for various developments. It is assumed that 

any activity developed from this project will be designed to meet the SIO of the area it is located in, 

and any related exceptions to SIO would be considered and used as needed and applicable (Refer to 

Implementation Plan, Activity Cards, and Forest Plan for more details).

Table 67. Comparison of ESI and SIO by percent of analysis area

ESI/SIO Comparison Percentage of Analysis Area

ESI is greater than SIO 75%

ESI is the same as SIO 11%

ESI is lower than SIO 14%
3 – Environment and Effects

288 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

A similar analysis was conducted for the LSTA, looking at young growth and old growth separately.

For all young-growth harvest, the SIO is Very Low (Forest Plan, p. 5-7). 63 percent of the LSTA 

young growth has an ESI greater than its SIO. For old-growth harvest in the LSTA, 37 percent is in 

areas where the ESI is greater than the SIO.

Table 68. Comparison of ESI and SIO by percent of young growth and old growth in LSTA

ESI/SIO Comparison % of LSTA % of Young Growth in LSTA

(SIO = V. Low) % of Old Growth in LSTA

ESI is greater than SIO 53% 63% 48,966 acres 37% 17,605 acres

ESI is the same as SIO 39% 37% 28,284 acres 44% 21,079 acres

ESI is lower than SIO 8% <1% 139 acres 20% 9,457 acres

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

For Alternative 1, current management of the project area would continue as before. Any ongoing 

activities that occur would have scenic analysis on a project by project basis. If no activities occur 

that impact the scenic integrity, then there would be no direct effects. There would be a continued 

increase of the Existing Scenic Integrity (ESI) (e.g., from Low to Moderate) because regrowth in 

previously harvested or disturbed areas would lessen the visual impact of older cuts and they would 

slowly become less noticeable.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 is consistent with the Forest Plan Scenery direction. There is capacity for the project 

area to absorb the scenic impacts from the proposed activities. Most activities outside of timber 

harvest will have negligible large-scale impacts to the scenic integrity. Young-growth harvest of 

19,366 acres can occur in the 99.8 percent (77,250 acres) of the LSTA area that has an ESI greater

than or equal to Very Low.

Old-growth timber harvest is estimated at 9,972 acres of even-aged management, and 13,297 acres of 

partial harvest, for a total estimated acreage of 23,269. The total potential old-growth harvest of 

23,269 acres is 60 percent of the 38,683 acres of old growth within the LSTA that have an ESI greater 

than or equal to its SIO. Even-aged management is planned for 25,128 acres in both old-growth and 

young-growth areas. This is 38 percent of the areas within the LSTA that have an ESI greater than its 

SIO.

The existing condition of the project area can absorb visible effects of the proposed old-growth and 

young-growth timber harvest activities. With 25,128 acres of even-aged management in both young 

growth and old growth, Alternative 2 ranks highest among the action alternatives in terms of having 

the most impacts to the scenery resource.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 is consistent with the Forest Plan Scenery direction. There is capacity for the project 

area to absorb the scenic impacts from the proposed activities. Most activities outside of timber 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 289

harvest will have negligible large-scale impacts to the scenic integrity. Young-growth harvest of 

36,669 acres can occur in the 99.8 percent (77,250 acres) of the LSTA area that has an ESI greater 

than or equal to Very Low. Old-growth timber harvest is estimated at 2,688 acres of even-aged

management, and 8,063 acres of partial harvest, for a total estimated acreage of 10,750. The total 

potential old-growth harvest of 10,750 acres is 28 percent of the 38,683 acres of old growth within the 

LSTA that have an ESI greater than or equal to its SIO. Even-aged management is planned for 18,317 

acres in both old-growth and young-growth areas. This is 28 percent of the areas within the LSTA that 

have an ESI greater than its SIO.

The existing condition of the project area can absorb visible effects of the proposed old-growth and 

young-growth timber harvest activities of this alternative. Alternative 3 ranks lowest among the action 

alternatives in terms of having the most impacts to the scenery resource, with 18,317 acres of evenaged management in both young growth and old growth.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 5 is consistent with the Forest Plan Scenery direction. There is capacity for the project 

area to absorb the scenic impacts from the proposed activities. Most activities outside of timber 

harvest will have negligible large-scale impacts to the scenic integrity. Young-growth harvest of 

36,669 acres can occur in the 99.8 percent (77,250 acres) of the LSTA area that has an ESI greater or 

equal to Very Low.

Old-growth timber harvest is estimated at 4,244 acres of even-aged management, and 2,122 acres of 

partial harvest, for a total estimated acreage of 6,365. The total potential old-growth harvest of 6,365 

acres is 16 percent of the 38,683 acres of old growth within the LSTA that have an ESI greater than or 

equal to its SIO. Even-aged management is planned for 19,873 acres in both old-growth and younggrowth areas. This is 30 percent of the areas within the LSTA that have an ESI greater than its SIO.

The existing condition of the project area can absorb visible effects of the proposed old-growth and 

young-growth timber harvest activities. Alternative 5 ranks second highest among the action 

alternatives in terms of having the most impacts to the scenery resource, with 19,873 acres of evenaged management in both young growth and old growth.

Cumulative Effects Common to All Alternatives

Past activities outside of this project that have created scenic impacts are considered and accounted 

for in the Affected Environment section.

It is not possible at this time to predict the impacts to scenic integrity of many of the reasonably 

foreseeable future projects. Activities planned for National Forest System (NFS) lands will be taken 

into consideration during the implementation phase of this project. Activities on non-NFS lands, 

including those due to land conveyances, may have impacts to the scenic integrity if located in areas 

where both non-NFS and NFS lands are visible simultaneously.

Overall, the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on scenery

are not expected to be substantially different than the effects addressed under direct and indirect 

effects.
3 – Environment and Effects

290 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Socioeconomics

Socioeconomic analysis explores how project activities may affect community social and economic 

well-being including employment, quality of life, environmental justice, and economic efficiency. 

Socioeconomic analysis focuses on Prince of Wales Island communities including Coffman Cove, 

Craig, Edna Bay, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, Naukati Bay, Point Baker, Port Protection, 

Thorne Bay, and Whale Pass. Socioeconomic effects are discussed across four alternatives including 

one no-action and three action alternatives.

The purpose of the POW LLA Project is to implement Forest Plan direction and work toward 

achieving its goals and objectives, including providing a diversity of opportunities for resource uses 

that contribute to the local and regional economies and supporting a wide range of natural resource 

employment (USDA Forest Service 2016a, p. 2-3). At this time, a need exists to contribute to the 

economic viability of Prince of Wales area communities, in part by providing a sustainable level of 

forest products to help maintain the expertise and infrastructure of the timber industry. This section 

assesses social and economic conditions and trends in Prince of Wales communities and provides a 

foundation for considering how proposed project activities may affect community social and 

economic well-being.

Methodology

Ecosystem Services

National forests provide a suite of goods and services important to public and community needs, 

livelihoods, and preferences. Many of these goods and services are traditionally viewed as free 

benefits to society – “public goods” – including wildlife habitat and diversity, watershed services, 

carbon storage, and scenic landscapes, for example. These natural assets are known as ecosystem 

services. The concept of ecosystem services has emerged as a way of framing and describing the 

comprehensive set of benefits people receive from nature – and, more specifically, from public lands.

Lacking a formal economic market, these natural benefits are often absent from traditional market 

“balance sheets” and their contributions are frequently overlooked in public, corporate, and individual 

decision-making. Although the full suite of natural benefits associated with the Tongass National 

Forest are undoubtedly considerable, they are extremely difficult to quantify and accurately measure. 

The 2016 Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) does not assign a 

summative monetary value to all ecosystem services, but recognizes their importance to local 

communities, economies, and residents (USDA Forest Service 2016c).

Ecosystem services have been described using a variety of typologies and definitions. The 2005 

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment presents a popular typology including four ecosystem service 

categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting. Provisioning services include the 

products or commodities obtained from forest ecosystems including clean air, fresh water, fiber, 

forage, fuel, minerals, and food. Regulating services are obtained from natural processes including air 

quality, climate stabilization, water quality, and erosion. Cultural services are nonmaterial benefits, 

including educational, aesthetic, spiritual, cultural heritage, and recreational experiences. Supporting 

services are best described as intermediate services that contribute to the production of other 

ecosystem services, such as pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, nutrient cycling, biodiversity, 

and resilience.

The effects of the action alternatives on these services and benefits are assessed in resource sections 

related to watersheds, fisheries, soils, wildlife and subsistence use, heritage resources, timber, and 

vegetation. Although monetary values are sometimes not assigned to these services, this does not 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 291

diminish their importance to decision-making. The Forest Service considers both quantifiable 

economic benefits of action alternatives as well as qualitative discussion regarding less tangible 

benefits in environmental decision making (Table 69).

Table 69. Methodology Overview: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure

Used to Address:

Purpose and Need or 

Key Issue?

Economic Benefit 1

Employment Economic Efficiency

Total Timber 

Industry Jobs

Supported

Purpose and Need

Key Issue 3, Timber 

Economics

Economic Benefit 2

Direct Income Economic Efficiency Total Direct 

Income

Purpose and Need

Key Issue 3, Timber 

Economics

Ecosystem Service 1

Fish Habitat

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Fisheries Resource Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Purpose and Need

Ecosystem Service 2

Recreation

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Recreation Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Purpose and Need

Ecosystem Service 3

Non-Timber Forest 

Products

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Multiple Resource Sections

Qualitative 

Evaluation Purpose and Need

Ecosystem Service 4

Subsistence Resource 

Access

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Wildlife and Subsistence 

Resource Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation

Purpose and Need

Key Issue 2, Subsistence

Environmental Justice

Disproportionate and adverse 

effects to low-income and/or 

minority populations.

Qualitative 

Evaluation Executive Order 12898

Assumptions

Economic analysis assumes full implementation of the alternatives. If market demand does not exist 

to utilize all available products and opportunities, economic impacts will likely be smaller than 

initially anticipated. Economic analysis also assumes a static economy with the project area economy 

remaining unchanged over the project period.

Units of Measure

Economic impacts, including employment and labor income, associated with project activities are 

estimated based on best available information. Employment and income for some types of jobs have 

been estimated using the Forest Service’s Financial Analysis Spreadsheet Tool – Residual Value 

(FASTR). This spreadsheet uses cost collection information obtained from the timber industry and 

other sources for related jobs. Information from other resource related employment such as 

commercial fishing and tourism cannot be estimated since this information is not collected at the 

project area scale. Information is analyzed related to a variety of ecosystem services indicators and 

environmental justice characteristics. Units of measure used to compare alternatives include:

• economic impact (i.e., employment and income),

• ecosystem services (i.e., fish habitat, recreation opportunities, non-timber forest products, 

subsistence resource access), and

• environmental justice – the potential for project activities to disproportionately impact lowincome and minority populations.
3 – Environment and Effects

292 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The project area is within the Prince of Wales – Hyder Census Area which encompasses Prince of 

Wales Island and adjacent outlying islands. Where possible, community-level data are presented. 

Prince of Wales communities include: Coffman Cove, Craig, Edna Bay, Hollis, Hydaburg, Kasaan, 

Klawock, Naukati Bay, Point Baker, Port Protection, Thorne Bay, and Whale Pass. Direct, indirect, 

and cumulative socioeconomic effects of proposed project activities are expected to occur in these 

communities.

Proposed project activities are expected to occur over 15 years, from 2019 to 2034. The temporal 

scale for socioeconomic effects analysis is through 2039, to capture both project implementation and 

residual effects to local economic activity and quality of life.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

Socioeconomic data at the state and regional level are fairly abundant. However, in some cases, 

demographic and economic data at the community-level are unavailable or suppressed due to privacy 

concerns. In the affected environment section, this is particularly the case for economic data in the 

smallest communities in the project area.

Generally, economic analyses include indicators that can be quantitatively measured and evaluated –

primarily goods and services traded in markets. Social assessments include non-market values, such 

as social well-being indicators, that lack quantitative values and are therefore evaluated using

qualitative methods.

Affected Environment

Prince of Wales Overview

Prince of Wales Island, the United States’ fourth largest island, is one of the major islands in 

Southeast Alaska’s Alexander Archipelago. Natural resource extraction and development, National 

Forest System lands, and indigenous culture are integral pieces of the island’s history. The timber 

industry became a mainstay of Prince of Wales’ economy with the opening of two large pulp mills in 

Ketchikan (1954) and Sitka (1956). Each had a Forest Service contract to provide 50 years of Tongass 

National Forest timber. The primary sale area for the Ketchikan Contract included large portions of 

the POW LLA Project area on Prince of Wales Island. The opening of pulp mills and implementation 

of long-term timber contracts fueled the settlement of Prince of Wales Island with new residents and 

communities, road and utility infrastructure, and interweaving of indigenous and Western cultures.

Industrial scale logging occurred on Prince of Wales Island from the mid-1950s until the pulp mills 

closed during the late-1990s. Since that time, the timber industry has declined and many timberdependent Prince of Wales communities have struggled to maintain population and diversify their 

economies. Tourism, including whale and other wildlife viewing and sport fishing, has become an 

important component of Prince of Wales’ economy. Commercial fishing (salmon, halibut, and black 

cod), mariculture (geoducks, sea cucumbers, and sea urchins) and mining activities have helped 

create and diversify job opportunities for Prince of Wales residents. Developing transportation 

infrastructure, including improving Forest Service logging roads, transferring some roads to the State 

of Alaska for reconstruction to paved two-lane state highways, establishing daily ferry service 

between Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island via the Inter-Island Ferry Authority in 2002, and 

adding regularly scheduled flights, has greatly improved island access for both local residents and a 

growing visitor industry.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 293

Demographic and Economic Summary

Table 70, Table 71, and Table 72 provide an overview of demographic and economic data for 

communities in the POW LLA project area. The project area is considered rural and encompasses 

nine incorporated and three unincorporated communities. Table 70 displays community-level 

population data for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2015. Data for 2015 show that overall, population ranged 

from 25 to 1,180 residents, with nearly three-quarters (70 percent) living in Craig (33 percent), 

Klawock (23 percent), or Thorne Bay (14 percent). The remaining 30 percent of residents are 

distributed across nine small and largely remote communities. The total population in project area 

communities declined by 52 people between 1990 and 2015, from 3,641 to 3,589 residents (-1 

percent). Overall, island population has remained relatively stable, but individual communities vary 

significantly. The majority of communities sustained population losses for two consecutive decades 

(1990 – 2010), followed by a period of stabilization followed by growth from 2010 to 2015.

Table 70. Community Population Change, 1990 – 2015

Community 1990 

Population

2000 

Population

2010 

Population

2015 

Population

1990-2010 

Percent 

Change

(Long 

Term)

2000-2010 

Percent 

Change

(Mid 

Term)

2010-2015 

Percent 

Change

(Short 

Term)

Coffman 

Cove 186 199 176 199 -5% -12% 13%

Craig 1,260 1,397 1,201 1,180 -5% -14% -2%

Edna Bay 86 49 42 47 -51% -14% 12%

Hollis 111 139 112 113 1% -19% 1%

Hydaburg 384 382 376 402 -2% -2% 7%

Kasaan 54 39 49 86 -9% 26% 76%

Klawock 722 854 755 820 5% -12% 9%

Naukati Bay 93 135 113 107 22% -16% -5%

Point Baker 39 35 15 25 -62% -57% 67%

Port 

Protection 62 63 48 54 -23% -24% 13%

Thorne Bay 569 557 471 510 -17% -15% 8%

Whale Pass 75 58 31 46 -59% -47% 48%

Project 

Area Total1 3,641 3,907 3,389 3,589 -7% -13% 6%

Source: Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 2016 1Excludes approximately 700 people who live outside of designated places in the Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area.

Table 71 displays changes in school enrollment (kindergarten through grade 12) in project area 

communities. Comparisons between community population changes (Table 70) and changes in school 

enrollments reveal demographic variation across Prince of Wales. For example, between 1990 and 

2015, Coffman Cove’s population grew slightly, yet school enrollments declined by more than 70 

percent. In contrast, school enrollments between 1990 and 2015 increased by approximately 70 

percent in Craig, even though population declined slightly. These data reveal movement of families 

with school-aged children as well as school consolidation trends on the island. In 2015, a number of 

communities in the project area were near the minimum number of students (10) required to maintain 

state government funding for schools. These include Coffman Cove, Kasaan, Port Protection, and 

Whale Pass. These rural schools are at high-risk of closing, which could create significant local 
3 – Environment and Effects

294 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

instability in rural and remote areas, as schools are also local employers, community gathering places, 

and part of social identity. Notably, schools in Edna Bay and Whale Pass have closed and re-opened

multiple times during the past 25 years, a reflection of population instability.

Table 71. Community School Enrollments, K – 12

Community 1990 

Enrollment

2000 

Enrollment

2010 

Enrollment

2015 

Enrollment

1990-2010 

Percent 

Change

(Long 

Term)

2000-2010 

Percent 

Change

(Mid Term)

2010-2015 

Percent 

Change

(Short 

Term)

Coffman 

Cove 47 31 11 14 -77% -65% 27%

Craig 308 551 630 525 105% 14% -17%

Edna Bay 15 Closed 9 Closed -40% - -

Hollis 16 14 10 22 -38% -29% 120%

Hydaburg 109 91 61 81 -44% -33% 33%

Kasaan 10 11 14 11 40% 27% -21%

Klawock 203 190 136 114 -33% -28% -16%

Naukati Bay 25 36 19 19 -24% -47% 0%

Point Baker1 - - - - - - -

Port 

Protection 9 27 10 13 11% -63% 30%

Thorne Bay 168 136 73 77 -57% -46% 5%

Whale Pass 11 Closed Closed 10 - - -

Project 

Area 921 1,087 973 886 6% -10% -9%

Source: Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 2016 (October 1, 2015 School Enrollments) 1Children attend school in nearby Port Protection.

Table 72 displays a number of standard economic indicators for Prince of Wales communities, again 

demonstrating the variation among them. The largest community, Craig, also has the highest median 

household income. More populous areas typically provide a broader range of employment opportunities. 

Craig also has the largest number of current business licenses, though Coffman Cove has the most

business licenses per capita at approximately one for every four residents. Due to confidentiality issues in 

very small communities, some data is suppressed for Edna Bay and Point Baker.

Table 72. Community Economic Characteristics, 2016

Community Residents 

Employed

Private 

Sector 

Employment

Public 

Sector 

Employment

Per Capita 

Income

Median 

Household 

Income

Current

Business 

Licenses

Coffman Cove 57% 54% 46% $27,764 $41,250 55

Craig 65% 74% 26% $28,038 $61,607 273

Edna Bay 43% 93% 7% Not Available Not Available 14

Hollis 59% 59% 41% $19,986 $34,028 28

Hydaburg 55% 47% 53% $17,834 $36,042 16

Kasaan 73% 21% 79% $21,393 $48,438 9

Klawock 60% 72% 28% $21,693 $38,958 121
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 295

Community Residents 

Employed

Private 

Sector 

Employment

Public 

Sector 

Employment

Per Capita 

Income

Median 

Household 

Income

Current

Business 

Licenses

Naukati Bay 45% 75% 25% $25,226 $23,229 8

Point Baker Not Available Not Available Not Available $14,140 $18,482 7

Port Protection 43% 73% 27% $28,221 $41,341 2

Thorne Bay 50% 61% 39% $31,953 $52,500 90

Whale Pass 46% 75% 25% $20,262 Not Available 24

Project Area1 58% 66% 34% $24,929 $46,616 647

Source: US Census Bureau 2016, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 2016, and

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2016a 1Project area row displays population-weighted average results except for current business licenses, which is a sum.

Prince of Wales Area Communities

Prince of Wales Island, including adjacent outer islands, is comprised of 12 independent communities 

and approximately 4,300 residents. There is significant variation in community history, culture, and 

socioeconomics across the island. Some communities have indigenous origins that pre-date written 

history, while others were established in the late 1950s as company-owned logging camps. Today, 

several unincorporated settlements exist as “lifestyle” communities where local residents have chosen 

a subsistence lifestyle in a remote location, with a limited economy, no organized government, few

public services, and strong reliance on locally-harvested wild foods.

Two-thirds of communities are incorporated as city governments; one-third remain unincorporated 

settlements with limited public services. The majority of communities endured two consecutive 

decades of significant population decline following the closure of pulp mills and subsequent decline 

of the timber industry (1990 – 2010). Populations have remained relatively stable since then (2010 –

2015). One-quarter of the communities are considered indigenous, including two Haida communities 

(i.e., Kasaan, Hydaburg) and one Tlingit community (i.e., Klawock). One-third of all communities 

have a federally-recognized tribe, five where the Alaska Native population exceeds the statewide 

proportion for Alaska Natives (15 percent). Alaska Native corporations, both regional and village, 

have been active in the Southeast timber industry – likely also easing the integration of indigenous 

and Western cultures. Half of all Prince of Wales communities began as company-owned logging 

camps that transitioned to year-round communities, facilitated by state government land disposals.

Coffman Cove

Coffman Cove is located on the northeast coast of Prince of Wales Island. It was first settled as a 

logging camp during the 1950s and incorporated as a city government in 1989. Nearby state 

government land disposal sales facilitated this transition. Residents that remained after closure of the 

pulp mills have largely transitioned to livelihoods such as value-added niche forest products, tourism, 

and seafood products. Coffman Cove is accessible by floatplane, boat, and paved road from Hollis, 

where the ferry terminal is located. Nearby recreational opportunities including camping, hiking, 

biking, kayaking, and wildlife viewing attract visitors to the community. Coffman Cove has relatively 

high per capita income and low rates of poverty compared to other Prince of Wales communities.

Population has fluctuated over the past two decades, but generally remains around 200 residents. 

School enrollments have declined by 70 percent over this period, suggesting the population is aging 

or younger families are leaving Coffman Cove. The median age in the community is 50 years and

Coffman Cove has more residents aged 60 or older than 19 or younger (ADLWD 2016a).
3 – Environment and Effects

296 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Craig

Craig is located on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island. Tlingit and Haida tribes historically 

utilized the area around Craig for its rich natural resources. With local Haida knowledge, a fish saltery 

was established on nearby Fish Egg Island during the early 1900s (ADCCED 2017). Cold storage, 

fish processing, and canneries have remained mainstays of Craig’s local economy and identity ever 

since. A nearby sawmill, Viking Lumber LLC, provides year-round jobs that have helped stabilize 

Craig’s economy during times of low fish prices and stocks. Today, Craig includes a city government, 

federally-recognized tribe (Craig Tribal Association), and a village corporation established via the 

1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Shaan-Seet Incorporated).

Craig is the largest community in the project area, with approximately 1,200 residents, and serves as 

the island’s regional hub for medical services, retail goods and services, arts and entertainment, 

educational opportunities, and gatherings for island residents. Regular off-island transportation links 

are located in neighboring communities including a paved airport in Klawock and ferry terminal in 

Hollis. With the decline of the timber industry, Craig has worked to diversify its economy including 

adding marine infrastructure, encouraging independent tourism, and improving an industrial park.

Craig’s population has declined from a peak of nearly 1,400 in 2000 to approximately 1,200 in 2015 

(-14 percent). Despite this decline, school enrollments in Craig have remained stable between 2000 

and 2015, following a sharp increase between 1990 and 2000 likely from migration of families from 

smaller island communities. School enrollment suggests Craig remains an attractive place for families 

with children. Craig also provides a greater variety of employment opportunities, and has one of the 

highest shares of employed residents (65 percent) and the highest median household income

($61,607) in the project area. About a quarter (22 percent) of Craig residents work in the three sectors 

closest tied to Tongass National Forest management.

Edna Bay

Edna Bay is a small, remote community on Kosciusko Island, located off Prince of Wales Island’s 

northwest coast. It is one of Alaska’s newest city governments, incorporating in 2014. Edna Bay was 

originally established as a company logging camp for assembling ocean-going log rafts (Edna Bay 

2017). The disposal of nearby state government lands facilitated its settlement as a year-round 

community. Today, Edna Bay is largely a community of commercial fishing families and includes

both seasonal and year-round residents. Year-round residents are largely either retired or work in 

commercial fishing or forest products. Only 43 percent of residents are employed, the majority (57 

percent) work in the natural resources and mining or manufacturing sectors. Because of Edna Bay’s 

remote location, household livelihoods are supplemented with subsistence hunting, fishing, and 

gathering. Edna Bay’s population has declined by about half since 1990, from 86 to 47 residents. As 

of the writing of this document, the Edna Bay School – the only school on Kosciusko Island – is 

closed from not meeting minimum student enrollment to qualify for state government school funding.

Hollis

Hollis is situated on the east side of Prince of Wales Island on Twelvemile Arm. Hollis was originally 

a mining town in the early 1900s with nearby gold and silver deposits. During the 1950s, Hollis

transitioned to a company logging camp and timber operations base for Ketchikan’s pulp mill. State 

government land disposals paved the way Hollis to transition from logging camp to community. 

Today, Hollis is considered a community that provides timber industry support services, serves as the 

island’s transportation gateway, and contains a growing number of seasonal residences. Hollis serves 

as a major transportation hub; the year-round, daily ferry service between Ketchikan and Hollis is a

key mode of access to Prince of Wales Island. Hollis has the second-highest share of employment in 

leisure and hospitality (12 percent) among the project area communities, with services for recreational 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 297

visitors including car rental, lodging, and developed recreation sites. A small community of 113 

residents, Hollis’ population has experienced volatility during the past twenty years, ranging from 111 

to 139 residents. School enrollment has also varied over time, ranging from 10 to 22 students.

Hydaburg

Hydaburg is located on the southwest coast of Prince of Wales Island. The majority (77 percent) of 

Hydaburg residents are Alaska Native and the community is Alaska’s largest Haida village. Hydaburg

was originally populated by Haidas that migrated from Canada during the early 1700s. Current-day 

Hydaburg was established in the early 1900s by the consolidation of three Haida villages in Cordova 

Bay – Howkan, Sukkwan, and Klinkwan. Hydaburg was eventually incorporated as a city 

government during the 1960s. Today, Hydaburg includes a city government, federally-recognized 

tribe (Hydaburg Cooperative Association), and a village corporation established via the 1971 Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act (Haida Corporation).

Hydaburg is one of the larger communities in the project area with approximately 400 residents. It is 

one of the few communities to maintain a stable population over the past two decades, growing from 

384 to 402 people between 1990 and 2015. Fisheries are important to the community, both for 

subsistence and employment opportunities. Fishers and related fishing workers is the second most 

common occupation in Hydaburg (ADLWD 2016a). Hydaburg is home to world-renowned totem 

carvers, culture bearers, and other artisans practicing Haida art, culture, and tradition. The famed 

Hydaburg Totem Park, established during the 1930s and later restored, is a well-known collaborative 

effort between the Forest Service, Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), local leaders, and Alaska 

Natives to recognize Haida culture, traditions, and document oral histories (NPS 2017).

Kasaan

Kasaan is located on eastern Prince of Wales Island in Kasaan Bay. Like Hydaburg, Kasaan was

populated by Haidas that migrated from Canada during the early 1700s. Kasaan was originally 

located on Skowl Arm (i.e., “Old Kasaan”), but later relocated to the current village site on Kasaan

Bay to be near an operating mine, sawmill, and later a cannery (Organized Village of Kasaan 2017).

Kasaan was eventually incorporated as a city government during the 1970s. Today, it includes a city 

government, federally-recognized tribe (Organized Village of Kasaan), and a village corporation 

established via the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Kavilco Incorporated).

Approximately one-third of Kasaan’s population is Alaska Native. While Kasaan is commonlyconsidered a traditional Haida village, today’s local population includes Haidas, Tlingits, and nonNatives (ADCCED 2017). Kasaan has the highest labor force participation rate (73 percent) and the 

greatest share of employment in the public sector (79 percent) among the project area communities. 

As a result, median household income is relatively high ($48,432) and the poverty rate is low (3 

percent). Kasaan’s population grew considerably between 1990 and 2015, from 54 to 86, yet school 

enrollments remained flat over this period, which reflects an aging population.

Similar to Hydaburg, Kasaan maintains a strong Haida cultural tradition with language and culture 

camps, cultural learning center, recently restored Chief Son-i-Hat Whale House (clan house), and the 

Kasaan Totem Park (Organized Village of Kasaan 2017). In recent years, Kasaan has been 

encouraging tourism by marketing its Totems Historic District, newly-built Discovery Cabins, and 

reopening the Totem Trail Café. Notably, both the Whale House and Totems Historic District were 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places during 2002 (Organized Village of Kasaan 2017).

Klawock

Klawock is on the west coast of Prince of Wales Island, 7 miles by paved road from Craig. Together, 

Klawock and Craig form the major population center of Prince of Wales Island. Current-day Klawock
3 – Environment and Effects

298 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

was originally used by the Tlingits as a summer fishing camp, later becoming a permanent village site 

(Klawock Cooperative Association 2017). Similar to Craig, Klawock’s history is closely tied to 

commercial fishing. A stwoalmon saltery and Alaska’s first cannery were established during the midand late 1800s, respectively, with additional canneries and a fish hatchery built over time. During the 

1970s, a sawmill and additional timber-related facilities were built, including a log sort yard and 

deep-water dock for transporting timber.

Klawock eventually incorporated as a city government, and today is the second largest community in 

the project area, with more than 800 residents. In addition to the city government, Klawock also 

includes a federally-recognized tribe (Klawock Cooperative Association), and Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (1971) village corporation (Klawock Heenya Corporation). Today, Klawock is a mix 

of Tlingit and non-Native residents and the population has grown by approximately 15 percent since 

1990. School enrollment has declined by approximately 45 percent, indicating that growth has not 

increased the number of households with school-aged children.

Klawock has a relatively diverse economy, with retail and other service professionals as well as

Viking Lumber LLC and logging firms in the community (ADLWD 2016a). Klawock airport has the

only runway that can accommodate wheeled-aircraft on Prince of Wales Island. The community has 

been greatly influenced by commercial fishing and timber industries, but most residents continue to 

pursue a subsistence lifestyle. The community maintains a strong Tlingit cultural tradition with the 

Klawock Totem Park, which includes 21 restored totem poles, heritage center, and a traditional long 

house (City of Klawock 2017). Notably, the Alaska Native Brotherhood and Alaska Native 

Sisterhood, historic nonprofit organizations working for civil rights for Alaska Natives, were founded 

by Klawock residents during the early 1900s (Klawock Cooperative Association 2017)

Naukati Bay

Naukati Bay, commonly referred to as “Naukati”, is located on the northwest coast of Prince of Wales 

Island. Naukati was originally established as a logging camp to support Ketchikan’s pulp mill. The 

community remained after the pulp mill closed and grew with state government land disposals. 

Residents are primarily logging, small sawmill, and homesteading families, with growth in emerging 

tourism enterprises during the past decade. The community remains unincorporated, but residents are 

represented by two non-profit associations (i.e., Naukati West and Naukati East) organized for 

planning, addressing local issues, and improving local infrastructure.

Naukati’s population grew from 93 to 107 people between 1990 and 2015. Like several other Prince 

of Wales communities, school enrollment has fallen despite overall population growth. Naukati has 

one of the lowest labor force participation rates (45 percent) in the project area. Many residents rely 

on subsistence activities to maintain cultural ties and support economic well-being (Naukati West, 

Inc. 1998). Naukati is home to Shikat Bay Farm, an oyster nursery that raises oyster spat (seed) for 

oyster farmers across coastal Alaska. Naukati is also home to well-known community celebrations 

including the Skunk Cabbage Festival and off-road mud bog races (Naukati Bay 2017).

Point Baker

Point Baker is on the northern tip of Prince of Wales Island and is only accessible via seaplane or 

boat. It was established in the early 1900s as a fish buying and packing station. The settlement

transitioned into a community when the Forest Service opened the area for homesite development 

(ADCCED 2017). Current-day Point Baker is considered a small fishing community, but neighboring 

lodges have been established providing sportfishing, wildlife viewing, and other outdoor experiences.

Visitors are drawn to Point Baker for its hunting and fishing opportunities. The community’s 

proximity to Sumner Strait, an exceptional fishing site for all five species of Pacific salmon and 

halibut, makes Point Baker a particularly appealing fishing destination. Point Baker remains an 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 299

unincorporated community where residents practice a subsistence and homestead lifestyle without 

city government.

By standard economic measures, Point Baker is the most impoverished community in the project 

area. According to federal measures, a large majority of residents (81 percent) live in poverty, but 

local residents have chosen to live remotely and practice a homestead lifestyle instead of pursuing

steady income. Furthermore, federal poverty or household income measures for very small 

communities are often skewed by one or two outliers reporting either very high or low income.

Differentiating between actual poverty, lifestyle choice, or skewed federal data is an exercise in 

professional judgement for many small Southeast Alaska communities, including Point Baker.

Port Protection

Port Protection is on the northern tip of Prince of Wales Island, near Point Baker, and is only 

accessible via seaplane or boat. Similar to Point Baker, Port Protection was established as a fish 

buying center that provided safe harbor, fuel, and supplies for commercial fishing vessels. State 

government land disposal sales enabled the permanent settlement of a year-round community 

(ADCCED 2017). Port Protection has remained a small fishing community with no roads. All homes 

and other buildings are located along docks or upland boardwalks.

Port Protection has relatively low median household income and high rates of poverty. It has the 

lowest labor force participation rate (43 percent) of any community in the project area. Like Point 

Baker, Port Protection is more akin to a homesteading community where residents practice a rural and 

subsistence lifestyle. Furthermore, federal poverty or household income measures for very small 

communities are easily skewed by one or two household outliers reporting either high or low income.

The distinction between actual poverty, lifestyle choice, or skewed federal data is an exercise in 

professional judgement.

Thorne Bay

Thorne Bay is situated on the east coast of Prince of Wales Island. Originally established as a floating 

logging camp for the Ketchikan pulp mill in 1960, it grew substantially in 1962 when the Hollis

logging camp was relocated there. A shop, log sort yard, and camp were built and soon thereafter, 

roads were constructed connecting Thorne Bay to Hollis, Craig, and Klawock. During the peak of 

island timber activities, Thorne Bay was considered the largest logging camp in North America,

hosting over 1,500 residents (ADCCED 2017). Today, Thorne Bay contains one of the log transfer 

sites on the Island.

State government land disposal sales encouraged permanent settlement and eventual incorporation as 

a city government. Thorne Bay evolved into one of the larger communities on Prince of Wales Island, 

with approximately 500 residents. Employment is primarily in barge and freight services, small 

sawmills, government, commercial fishing, and tourism as guided sport fishing charter opportunities 

increasingly attract visitors. To supplement incomes, residents engage in subsistence activities, fish 

and trap. The population declined by 10 percent between 1990 and 2015, but school enrollment fell 

by more than 50 percent, mirroring the trend in other communities with aging populations. The 

median age in Thorne Bay is 45 years (ADLWD 2016a).

Whale Pass

Whale Pass is a small community located on northern Prince of Wales Island. It was originally 

established as a logging camp during the early 1960s and the camps remained through the early 1980s 

(ADCCED 2017). Whale Pass is situated at a remote area of the island, but is connected to other 

island communities via a gravel road. State government land disposal sales facilitated the transition 

from company-owned logging camp to a year-round community that incorporated in 2016. Population 
3 – Environment and Effects

300 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

declined considerably between 1990 and 2015, from 75 to 46 residents (-39 percent). Today, residents 

of Whale Pass consider themselves homesteaders and value a subsistence lifestyle. Commercial 

fishing, recreational tourism, and subsistence activities are important to residents (Whale Pass

Community Action Team 1997). The economy is dependent on natural resources and tourism, with 

high levels of employment in both the natural resources and mining and leisure and hospitality 

sectors. However, fewer than 50 percent of residents are employed and nearly two-thirds (62 percent) 

of residents live in poverty according to standard federal economic measures. Whale Pass had enough 

students in 2015 to keep the school open, but the school was closed in both 2000 and 2010.

Economic and Infrastructure Trends

Prince of Wales has undergone significant change during the past two decades including timber 

industry decline, community population volatility, significant transportation improvements, local 

government incorporations, minerals exploration and early mine development activities, and growth 

in both tourism and mariculture industries. While economists and planners have varied opinions 

regarding Prince of Wales’ long-term future, there is general consensus regarding past activities and 

events that have significantly affected the island’s present condition.

Prince of Wales has undergone significant change during the past two decades including timber 

industry decline, community population volatility, significant transportation improvements, local 

government incorporations, minerals exploration, mine development activities, and growth in both 

tourism and mariculture industries. While economists and planners have varied opinions regarding 

Prince of Wales’ long-term future, there is general consensus regarding past activities and events that 

significantly affected the island’s present condition.

Economic Transitions

Half of Prince of Wales communities started as company-owned logging camps to harvest and 

transport Tongass National Forest timber during the pulp-mill and industrial logging era, spanning 

nearly fifty years from the mid-1950s to late-1990s. Prince of Wales Island, and its communities, 

were heavily-impacted by the closure of the Ketchikan Pulp Company in 1997. The majority of 

industrial timber harvest jobs were lost, but Viking Lumber, LLC has survived and additional cottage 

forest product businesses have been established, notably in the Goose Creek Industrial Subdivision 

outside of Thorne Bay. The decline and deindustrialization of the timber industry forced the island to 

diversify its economy, which increasingly relies upon value-added forest products, tourism, seafood, 

mining, and government jobs.

Prince of Wales’ legacy of mineral extraction seen a resurgence in recent years with mine exploration 

and early development activities at both Bokan Mountain and Niblack mineral projects. Ucore Rare 

Metals continues exploratory work at Bokan Mountain, which has been described as the “Silicon 

Valley of Rare Earth Elements” (ADLWD 2012). Heatherdale Resources is similarly exploring 

Niblack’s copper, gold, zinc, and silver deposits, which could potentially rival Juneau’s Greens Creek 

Mine in project scope. These projects have generated employment opportunities, however, it is their 

long-term potential to fill the employment void left after the pulp-mill era that garners the attention of 

Prince of Wales local officials, tribes, and residents.

Transportation Improvements

The diversification of Prince of Wales’ economy away from timber dependence has been facilitated 

by improvements to both on- and off-island transportation systems. There are approximately 2,000 

miles of Forest Service road that connect the majority of communities – only Edna Bay, Point Baker, 

and Port Protection are without road access. Modernization of the island road system has transformed 

some former logging roads to state scenic byways, supporting economic opportunity by facilitating
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 301

the movement of goods, services, and visitors. For example, upgrading the Coffman Cove Road 

connecting the City of Coffman Cove to the Thorne Bay cutoff on the Klawock to Thorne Bay Road 

transformed a remote gravel road to paved highway which improved the economic vitality of 

Coffman Cove (City of Coffman Cove 2017).

Dependable transportation to and from the island was a long-time challenge for residents and 

businesses because of sporadic service provided by the Alaska Marine Highway System. The InterIsland Ferry Authority was created in 1997 to develop a reliable ferry shuttle system to the island. By

2002, the first vessel, the M/V Prince of Wales, began year-round daily service between Hollis and 

Ketchikan. The introduction of convenient and reliable ferry service supported growth in tourism, 

including fishing lodges, outfitter/guide services, and a variety of accommodations and hospitality 

services. An additional ferry from Coffman Cove to the communities of Wrangell and Petersburg

began operating in 2006 but was discontinued in 2008 from a lack of consistent ridership.

Industry Sector Highlights

Table 73 displays employment share by industry sector in project area communities. Almost half of 

all jobs in the project area are in government (34 percent) or trade, transportation and utilities (21 

percent). Forest Service management actions contribute to employment in a variety of sectors. Timber 

harvesting supports employment in the natural resources and mining sector, water and overland 

transportation, road construction, and manufacturing. Ecosystem restoration activities contribute to 

employment in the natural resources and mining sector. Ecosystem services from the forest also 

contribute to natural resources and mining sector employment through the provision of healthy 

watersheds and fisheries. For example, the commercial fishing and seafood processing have remained 

foundational components of the local economy, while a growing mariculture industry, including sea 

cucumbers, sea urchin, geoduck, and oyster farms, has expanded the seafood product portfolio for 

Table 73. Selected Industry Employment, 2016

Community

Natural 

Resources 

and Mining

Manufacturing Leisure and 

Hospitality

Trade, 

Transportation, 

and Utilities

Construction Government All Other

Coffman 

Cove 10% <1% <1% 19% 17% 46% 8%

Craig 8% 7% 7% 27% 7% 26% 18%

Edna Bay 36% 21% <1% <1% 14% 7% 22%

Hollis 7% 4% 12% 20% 6% 41% 10%

Hydaburg 1% 1% 2% 9% 10% 53% 24%

Kasaan 3% <1% 3% 7% 3% 79% 5%

Klawock 8% 6% 6% 27% 7% 28% 18%

Naukati Bay 10% <1% 5% 5% 25% 25% 30%

Point Baker <1% 17% <1% 67% <1% <1% 16%

Port 

Protection 5% <1% 5% 14% <1% 27% 49%

Thorne Bay 7% 4% 10% 20% 9% 39% 11%

Whale Pass 21% <1% 13% 4% 13% 25% 24%

Project 

Area1 8% 5% 6% 21% 9% 34% 17%

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development 2016a 1Project area displays population-weighted average.
3 – Environment and Effects

302 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Prince of Wales Island. Recreational opportunities arising from robust and sustainable fish stocks 

have fueled jobs in leisure and hospitality through the development of sport fish lodges, outfitter and 

guide services, accommodations, and related tourism services. Government employment, with wellpaying full-time jobs, has likely buoyed communities during tumultuous economic times.

Seafood Industry

Commercial, subsistence, and recreational fishing activities are common across Prince of Wales 

Island. This section addresses commercial and subsistence fishing. Recreational fishing is described 

in the next section on tourism. Active fisheries in the project area include all five species of Pacific 

salmon, halibut, lingcod, herring, sablefish, cutthroat trout, rockfish, Dungeness crab, shrimp, clams, 

sea cucumber, and sea urchin among others (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). The importance of 

commercial fishing grew in many project area communities following the decline of the timber 

industry. Many residents hold commercial fishing permits. For example, about one-third of Edna Bay 

residents held a commercial fishing permit in 2010 (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013). This exceeds the 

share of residents reported as employed in the natural resources sector, as shown above in Table 73. 

Due to the seasonal nature of fisheries, many residents participate in commercial fishing operations 

while also having a non-fisheries job. The primary occupation of these residents may be in another 

sector, which reflects a limitation of industry employment data in small communities. Additionally, 

project area communities are eligible to participate in the Community Quota Entity (CQE) program, 

which enables them to form non-profit organizations to purchase and manage individual fishing 

quotas for halibut and sablefish (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

Canneries and other land-based seafood processing facilities in the project area are located in 

Coffman Cove, Craig, Klawock, and Naukati Bay (ADEC 2012). Fish processing employment spikes 

during the summer months, with approximately 5,000 people employed in fish harvesting in July and 

August throughout Southeast Alaska. It is estimated only 10 percent of seafood processing jobs in 

Southeast Alaska are in the Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area (ADLWD 2016b). The majority of 

jobs are related to salmon (ADLWD 2016b). Many of these jobs are filled by people who reside 

outside the area – only about 30 percent of the seafood processing workforce is local (ADLWD 

2016b). In 2015, wages per worker in seafood processing in Southeast Alaska were approximately 

$13,000 (ADLWD 2016b). Most jobs in this sector are seasonal and average wages do not reflect 

year-round earnings. In some communities, fisheries-related revenue (e.g., harbor usage fees) is an 

important source of municipal funding. For example, in both Thorne Bay and Craig, approximately 

10 percent of total municipal revenue is attributable to fisheries (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013).

Subsistence fishing activities are not captured in the industry data, but certainly contribute to social 

and economic well-being on the island. Smaller communities, and those with a higher proportion 

of Alaska Native residents, tend to rely more heavily on subsistence resources. In particular, 

Hydaburg is known to rely on subsistence activities. A survey of Alaska communities found that 

Hydaburg residents consumed an estimated 336 pounds of subsistence wild food per capita between 

1982 and 1999 (Himes-Cornell et al. 2013), but household subsistence data have not been available 

since. Some subsistence activities occur across all communities in the project area to both supplement 

income and preserve cultural heritage. In many communities, reported subsistence harvests of fish 

declined between 2000 and 2010, but community level subsistence data after 2010 are lacking.

Tourism Industry

Alaska is well-known for its natural amenities and draws tourists from around the world. According 

to the most recent McDowell Group’s Alaska Visitor Statistics Program report, in 2016, Southeast 

Alaska received 67 percent of the total visitors to Alaska, and nearly all (95 percent) were traveling 

for vacation or pleasure, with a large majority of cruise visitors. Most of these cruise ship visitors 

arrive via the ports of Ketchikan and Juneau and a lesser extent, Sitka. Prince of Wales Island visitor 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 303

volume increased from 15,000 to 16,000 people between 2011 and 2016 (McDowell Group 2017). 

Visitors to Prince of Wales Island are interested in sport fishing, hunting, camping, boating, wildlife 

viewing, and historical and cultural resources. World-class sport saltwater fishing opportunities, in 

particular, draw visitors to the island. According to the 2010 Prince of Wales Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game (ADF&G) Harvest Survey, non-residents in Alaska accounted for approximately 75 

percent of saltwater angler days fished and 70 percent of freshwater angler days fished (HimesCornell et al. 2013). Many of the communities have active sport fish guide businesses (Himes-Cornell 

et al. 2013). Sport fishing, therefore, is critical to the tourism industry on the island. Visitors to Prince 

of Wales Island for its recreational opportunities spend money in area communities on outfitters, 

guides, lodging, food, and other goods and services. Tourism-related services provide employment

opportunities in many communities on the island. Craig is the largest community and has a number of 

tourist amenities, however, other communities in the project area also earn income supplying goods 

and services to tourists.

Timber Industry

Southeast Alaska timber is primarily purchased and harvested from lands managed by the US 

Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), and to a lesser extent from the State of Alaska (Division 

of Forestry, Alaska Mental Health Land Trust Authority, and University of Alaska), and Alaska Native 

Village and Regional corporations. Southeast Alaska timber purchasers are challenged with limited 

domestic marketing opportunities. Operating costs are higher compared to Lower 48 states, and 

transportation is particularly costly due to haul and tow distances to available markets. The timber 

industry supports project area communities that are traditionally dependent on the Tongass National 

Forest to provide natural resources employment and revenue. Viking Lumber Company, LLC, located 

in Klawock, and Icy Straits Lumber Company, located in Hoonah, are medium-sized timber sawmills 

currently operating in Southeast Alaska. Additional sawmills exist, but are substantially smaller as 

measured by annual volume processed, employment, and industrial capacity.

Table 74. Timber Industry Employment in Southeast Alaska, 2002 – 2014

Year1 Tongass 

Logging2

Tongass 

Sawmill2

TongassRelated 

Employment

Other 

Logging

Other 

Sawmill

Total Other 

Employment

Total 

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 24 142 265

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

Source: Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS 2016, p. 3-485 1 Reported in calendar years. 2 Tongass employment estimates based on the ratio of Tongass timber harvest to total timber harvest in Southeast Alaska.
3 – Environment and Effects

304 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Many challenges have confronted the Southeast Alaska forest products industry during the past two 

decades. Southeast Alaska’s two pulp mills and numerous sawmill facilities have closed. Remaining 

active sawmills operate at about 15 percent of their estimated production capacity, on average. During 

2013, the Tongass National Forest supplied approximately three-quarters of logs for local sawmills 

followed by one-quarter from state land; less than one percent is from private lands. In recent years, 

the domestic market has been increasingly attractive with rising housing starts and forest product 

prices (USDA Forest Service, 2016d, Appendix G, p. G-8). The destination for material sawn in 

Southeast Alaska is now primarily other US states (Kilborn et al. 2004; Brackley et al. 2006; 

Brackley and Crone 2009; Alexander and Parrent 2010, 2012). Yet, demand for Southeast Alaska 

sawnwood products in export markets continues to be relatively low, while exports of softwood logs 

have remained strong. Table 74 shows timber industry employment in Southeast Alaska. Between 

2002 and 2014 harvest activities on the Tongass National Forest have generated about 40 percent of 

all timber industry jobs in the region, on average.

Environmental Justice

In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898, which directs federal agencies to 

identify impacts from federal activities that disproportionately affect the human health or 

environment of minority and low-income populations and identify alternatives that will avoid or 

mitigate those impacts (Office of the President 1994). Environmental justice is the fair treatment and 

meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, and incomes, with respect to the 

development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The 

emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy environment. 

According to USDA DR5600-002 (USDA 1997), environmental justice, minority, minority 

population, and low-income population are defined as follows:

Environmental Justice: to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are 

provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered, allowed to share in the benefits 

of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by, 

government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment.

Minority: a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska 

Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

Minority Population: any readily-identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic 

proximity to and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically 

dispersed/transient persons, who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities.

Low-Income Population: any readily-identifiable group of low-income persons living in geographic 

proximity to and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically 

dispersed/transient persons, who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities.

Human health and/or environmental effects as used in this departmental regulation include 

interrelated social and economic effects. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has 

interpreted health effects with a broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, 

human health, economic or social impacts on minority communities, low-income communities or 

Indian Tribes ...when those impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical 

environment” (CEQ 1997).

To assess if the project area contains environmental justice populations, project area communities are 

compared to a reference area, in this case the state. Forest Service environmental justice guidance 

recommends using a 5 percentage point threshold relative to the reference area to classify 

environmental justice communities (Grinspoon et al. 2014). Characterizing Prince of Wales 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 305

communities utilizing traditional socioeconomic indicators is challenging owing to small population 

sizes, alternative lifestyle choices and values, and the mixing of cash and subsistence economies. 

What may be perceived as a low-income community by traditional economic metrics may be more 

akin to a community where residents practice a subsistence lifestyle, value a homestead culture, and 

earn seasonal or project-based income.

Statewide, Alaska Natives account for 15 percent the population and 10 percent of Alaskans live 

below the federal poverty line. Table 75 displays the proportion of Alaska Natives in each project area 

community and residents living below the federal poverty line. Five communities have a higher 

proportion of Alaska Natives compared to the state – Craig, Hydaburg, Kasaan, Klawock, and Port 

Protection. Almost all communities on Prince of Wales have a higher percentage of people living in 

poverty than the statewide average (10 percent), most exceeding the 5 percent threshold. Only 

Coffman Cove, Edna Bay, and Kasaan have proportionally fewer residents living below the federal 

poverty line than the statewide average. Because nearly half of all communities exceed the statewide 

proportion of American Indian or Alaska Native residents and three-quarters of all communities far 

below the statewide poverty line, the project area satisfies criteria for designation as an environmental 

justice population. Environmental effects analysis addresses the potential for Forest Service 

management actions in the project area to disproportionately and adversely affect these populations.

Table 75. Environmental Justice Indicators

Community American Indian or Alaska Native Below Federal Poverty Line1

Coffman Cove 4% 6%

Craig 20% 15%

Edna Bay 0% 0%

Hollis 5% 18%

Hydaburg 77% 11%

Kasaan 35% 3%

Klawock 48% 20%

Naukati Bay 6% 14%

Point Baker 0% 81%

Port Protection 19% 36%

Thorne Bay 2% 18%

Whale Pass 0% 62%

Alaska 15% 10%

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section 2016a 1The US Census Bureau annually determines the federal poverty threshold, which varies based on family size.

Environmental Effects

Effects Summary

The three action alternatives contain a range of options to fully implement the purpose and need of 

the POW LLA Project: improve forest ecosystem health; support community resiliency; and provide 

long-term economic development opportunity. Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, does not 

respond to the purpose and need. Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 provide a range of opportunities in

different project activity emphasis areas including timber harvest, invasive plant management, 

recreational amenities, habitat improvements, and stream restoration. Table 76 provides a summary of 

socioeconomic effects by management alternative based on a qualitative evaluation. Each alternative
3 – Environment and Effects

306 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

was compared against the others with respect to the impact of proposed activities by resource area.

For instance, the alternative with maximum investment in tourism and recreation infrastructure was 

assigned a rating of “major”. This qualitative assessment is based on potential outcomes of project 

activities. The more numerous or larger scope of activities, the greater likelihood of positive outcomes 

for social or economic opportunity. Number of jobs supported and direct income were calculated by 

combining the old- and young-growth estimates from Table 19 and Table 20.

Table 76. Environmental Effects Overview, Socioeconomic Comparison by Alternative

Resource Element Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Economic Benefit 1

Timber Industry Jobs

Supported

2,657 2,524 2,344

Economic Benefit 2

Direct Income $146,620,933 $144,242,238 $135,364,521

Ecosystem Service 1

Fish Habitat Major Improvements Limited Improvements Moderate Improvements

Ecosystem Service 2

Recreation Major Improvements Moderate Improvements Major Improvements

Ecosystem Service 3

Non-Timber Forest 

Products

Moderate Improvements Moderate Improvements Moderate Improvements

Ecosystem Service 4

Subsistence Resource 

Access

Major Improvements Major Improvements Major Improvements

Environmental Justice No Disproportionate/

Adverse Impacts

No Disproportionate/

Adverse Impacts

No Disproportionate/

Adverse Impacts

Alternative 2 provides the greatest support for the timber industry through increased timber harvest, 

more old-growth timber harvest, new log transfer facilities, and new road construction, resulting in 

more jobs and labor income. Alternative 2 also provides the greatest support for tourism by proposing 

new campgrounds, cabins, shelters, trails, and other facilities. Alternative 2 also recommends wildlife 

habitat improvements, invasive weed management, and stream restoration activities. In short, 

Alternative 2 is the most aggressive of the three action alternatives by proposing the most activity 

across multiple resource areas including timber, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. It is likely to 

yield the greatest economic opportunity for island residents, thereby supporting the purpose and need

for community resiliency.

Alternative 3 provides the greatest emphasis on habitat improvements and addresses public concern 

regarding past Tongass National Forest management activities and related effects to wildlife habitat. 

Alternative 3 proposes slightly less overall timber harvest than Alternative 2, but significantly less 

old-growth timber harvest. This results in fewer jobs, less income, and limited old-growth “bridge 

timber” as the industry transitions from old- to young-growth timber harvest. Alternative 3 proposes 

habitat improvements for wildlife and includes watershed improvements. Fewer recreation-related 

project activities are proposed compared to Alternative 2 and resources largely target recreation 

facility improvements as justified by overall use or prioritized by the Forest Service. While 

Alternative 3 yields habitat improvements, which will likely improve subsistence resources, reduction 

in overall timber harvest will yield fewer jobs and less income. Furthermore, old-growth timber 

harvest limitations and rapid reduction over time may not provide enough old-growth to allow the 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 307

industry to transition to predominantly young-growth timber harvest. Moderate investments in 

recreational amenities will improve overall quality of life, but may not meet the needs of a growing 

tourism industry.

Alternative 5 was developed to address public comment submitted in response to published Draft 

Issues and Alternatives (December 2017) – after the public had the time to reflect on written issue 

statements and draft alternatives. Alternative 5 is largely a combination of Alternative 2 and 

Alternative 3 with reduction in overall timber harvest and a significant reduction in old-growth timber 

harvest. Alternative 5, in particular, limits old-growth timber harvest to an average of 5 MMBF per 

year throughout the project lifetime. This would result in fewer jobs, less income, and limited oldgrowth timber. Limiting the timber industry to only 5 MMBF of old growth per year will not 

accommodate industry need for old-growth “bridge timber” as it transitions to predominantly younggrowth timber harvest. Alternative 5 fully implements broad protections for both wolves and deer

habitat thereby improving subsistence resources and also proposes recreation amenity investments, 

fully supporting tourism industry growth.

Environmental Justice

None of the alternatives are expected to disproportionately impact low-income or minority 

populations. POW LLA Project proposed actions, particularly timber harvest and road construction, 

combined with past and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest may affect subsistence resources 

and lifestyle. Subsistence hunting, fishing, trapping, and gathering activities are a major focus of life 

for many Prince of Wales Island residents, especially Alaska Native communities practicing a 

subsistence or traditional lifestyle. Frequently cited reasons for participating in subsistence activities 

include the ability to provide food or supplemental income, the perpetuation of cultural customs and 

traditions, and the importance of values associated with self-reliance (USDA Forest Service 2008b). 

POW LLA Project public comments highlighted concerns about timber harvest and road construction

impacts to the harvest of fish, deer, berries, mushrooms, and firewood.

Subsistence-related analysis in response to significant issue 2 indicate all action alternatives propose 

timber harvest prescriptions that improve wildlife habitat, with Alternatives 3 and 5 placing the 

greatest emphasis on habitat improvements. Alternative 2, in contrast, proposes timber harvest

prescriptions that improve or maintain wildlife habitat, but only within a 5 mile radius of 

communities.

Timber Industry

Effects to the timber industry are assessed in terms of employment and income at the regional scale –

Southeast Alaska. Effects to commercial fishing, recreation, tourism, wildlife and subsistence

resources, and other resources are not analyzed owing to the difficulty of obtaining data specific to 

the project area. Ecosystem services are assessed by resource area and throughout the environmental 

impact statement with analysis areas, measurement units, and methodologies also discussed in those 

respective resource sections.

Alternative 1 – No-Action

The No-Action Alternative, required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), represents 

the existing condition in the project area and provides a baseline to measure and compare impacts of 

the various action alternatives against. Under Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, none of the 

specific management activities proposed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) would 

be implemented to accomplish project goals and objectives. Natural disturbances, current 

management, ongoing activities, and other routine forest management activities would continue at 

current levels and as authorized by prior decisions. Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, does not 
3 – Environment and Effects

308 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

meet the project’s purpose and need to improve forest ecosystem health, support community 

resiliency, and support economic development opportunities through multiple resource management.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The total cost of project planning and environmental analysis does not differ by alternative. 

Alternative 1 would not generate revenue. Therefore, the net present value of Alternative 1 is 

equivalent to the total cost of project planning and environmental analysis. The No-Action Alternative 

would not affect current quality of life, economic opportunity, or environmental justice because no 

activities would be implemented across the project area.

Cumulative Effects

The only social and economic consequence of Alternative 1 is the cost of project planning and 

environmental analysis. No past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future activities affect this cost. 

Therefore, there are no cumulative effects to social and economic conditions under Alternative 1.

Conclusion

Alternative 1, the No-Action Alternative, does not incorporate any specific management activities 

across the project area. Therefore, the only social and economic effects of the alternative are the 

expenses associated with project planning and environmental analysis. Of noteworthy importance, the 

absence of Tongass National Forest timber sales – as represented by Alternative 1 – could threaten the 

viability of existing sawmill operators due to limited, inconsistent, or non-existent national forest 

timber supply. Without ongoing timber sales, additional sawmills would likely close, resulting in lost 

employment and income for Prince of Wales communities.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Alternative 2, the proposed action, was developed in response to the project’s purpose and need to 

improve forest ecosystem health, support community resiliency, and support economic development 

opportunity. This alternative was also heavily-influenced by the Prince of Wales Landscape Analysis 

Team (POW LAT) – an independently-formed collaborative that provided comment, input, and 

recommendations through a variety of public participation opportunities. Alternative 2 incorporates 

the majority of POW LAT recommendations. The underlying intent of this alternative is to 

incorporate a variety of management activities that will support stable and long-term economic 

development opportunities for local communities while also maintaining important fish and wildlife 

habitat. Of noteworthy importance, Alternative 2 seeks to provide sufficient old-growth and younggrowth commercial timber harvest to support local sawmills to shift to predominantly young-growth 

timber harvest – as guided by the 2016 amendment of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 2016a).

Alternative 2 includes a variety of additional actions spanning vegetation management, watershed 

improvement and restoration treatments, sustainable recreation management, and associated actions.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Economic Benefits

Based largely on POW LAT recommendations targeting long-term economic opportunity, Alternative 

2 proposes to harvest 656 MMBF of timber over the POW LLA Project lifetime. This includes 

approximately two-thirds young-growth (64 percent) and one-third old-growth (36 percent) harvest. 

Total timber harvest volume, including both young- and old-growth over the 15-year project 

timeframe, is expected to generate 2,657 jobs and $145,620,933 in income (Table 77).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 309

Estimated jobs and direct income are based on the current Alaska Region limited export policy

(USDA Forest Service 2016e, Volume II, Appendix H). Current policy allows old-growth western 

hemlock and Sitka spruce export equal to 50 percent of total sale net saw log volume plus 100 percent 

of Alaska yellow-cedar. An estimated 208 additional jobs would be generated with 100 percent 

domestic processing of old-growth Sitka spruce and western hemlock.

Additional Ecosystem Service Benefits

Effects to additional ecosystem services including fisheries, recreation, and non-timber forest 

products are assessed in their respective resource sections located throughout Chapter 3 –

Environment and Effects.

Environmental Justice

Alternative 2 proposed activities are not expected to disproportionately or adversely affect lowincome and minority populations.

Table 77. Alternative 2, Proposed Action: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Outcome

Economic Benefit 1: 

Jobs Supported Economic Efficiency Total Timber JobsSupported 2,657

Economic Benefit 2: 

Direct Income Economic Efficiency Total Direct 

Income $146,620,933

Ecosystem Service 1: 

Fish habitat

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Fisheries Resource 

Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Major Improvements

Ecosystem Service 2: 

Recreation

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Recreation Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Major Improvements

Ecosystem Service 3: 

Non-Timber Forest 

Products

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Multiple Resource 

Sections

Qualitative 

Evaluation Moderate Improvements

Ecosystem Service 4: 

Subsistence Resource 

Access

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Wildlife and Subsistence 

Resource Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Major Improvements

Environmental Justice

Disproportionate and 

adverse effects to lowincome and/or minority 

populations.

Qualitative 

Evaluation

No Disproportionate/Adverse 

Impacts

Conclusion

Alternative 2, incorporates a variety of activities to support long-term economic opportunity across 

Prince of Wales Island. Specific activities include young- and old-growth timber harvest – with a 

larger proportion of old-growth timber harvest compared to other action alternatives resulting in 

improved support for the timber industry to shift to predominantly young-growth timber harvest. Also 

of benefit to the timber industry, the development of two new log transfer facilities would be 

considered and 13 log transfer facilities would remain in use. Alternative 2 also proposes 35 miles of 

new National Forest System roads and 129 miles of temporary roads. Ongoing old-growth harvest, 

new National Forest System roads, and new log transfer facilities are critical considerations for the 

overall transition of the timber industry to predominantly young-growth timber harvest.
3 – Environment and Effects

310 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Alternative 2 incorporates invasive plant management across 2,300 acres using only manual and 

mechanical means and proposes to restore up to 200 miles of stream across NFS and non-NFS lands. 

The full spectrum of fish habitat improvements are considered in fresh water streams with known 

reductions in fish populations. Additional wildlife habitat improvements aim to treat young-growth 

timber stands prior to stem exclusion. These management activities will support subsistence resources 

across the landscape thereby supporting Alaska Native and rural community lifestyles.

Alternative 2 proposes a number of recreation-related improvements to improve local quality of life 

and support a growing tourism industry. New recreation infrastructure would be built, existing 

infrastructure would be maintained, and some infrastructure may be decommissioned. Interpretative 

and informational signage would be incorporated where appropriate. Ongoing trail maintenance 

would continue and new trails and roads-to-trails would be considered. Alternative 2 proposes the 

development of new facilities including outhouses at some facilities, three campgrounds, three cabins, 

and twelve shelters. The consideration of new recreational amenities, in particular, creates long-term 

opportunity for a growing recreation and tourism industry.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 addresses public concerns regarding past management activities, specifically timber 

harvest, and its effects to wildlife habitat, watershed function, subsistence opportunities, and the 

spread of invasive plants. Alternative 3 incorporates mitigation measures beyond Forest Plan

requirements, minimizes old-growth timber harvest, emphasizes measures to limit timber harvest

effects, and emphasizes habitat improvements on NFS and adjacent non-NFS lands. Alternative 3 

emphasizes multiple habitat improvements by implementing partial harvest in Wildlife Analysis Areas

(WAA), avoiding increased peak flow rates in all watersheds, incorporating multiple young-growth 

harvest recommendations from the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program, and 

incorporating an integrated weed management approach using manual, mechanical, and herbicide 

treatments. This alternative also emphasizes improving wildlife habitat by implementing uneven-aged

management prescriptions and creating or maintaining wildlife corridors in areas that have been 

previously harvested or may be subject to future harvest.

Alternative 3 was primarily developed in response to public concerns regarding increasing stream 

restoration projects or ongoing public interest in developing more recreational sites. Although 

significantly reduced, sufficient volumes of old-growth timber would be harvested to support small 

sawmills and provide a limited amount of time for larger sawmills to increase their utilization of 

young-growth timber or identify a non-federal source of old-growth timber. In short, Alternative 3 

minimizes old-growth timber harvest while increasing habitat improvement activities and 

incorporating limited recreational amenity improvements. Alternative 3 addresses all project issues, to 

varying degrees, in its design and recommended activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Economic Benefits

Alternative 3 proposes to harvest 644 MMBF of timber over the lifetime of the POW LLA Project. 

This includes 82 percent young-growth and 18 percent old-growth harvest. Total timber harvest

volume, including both old- and young-growth over the 15-year project timeframe, is expected to 

generate 2,005 jobs and $144,242,238 in direct income (Table 78).

Estimated jobs and direct income are based on the current Alaska Region limited export policy

(USDA Forest Service 2016e, Volume II, Appendix H). Current policy allows old-growth western 

hemlock and Sitka spruce export equal to 50 percent of total sale net saw log volume plus 100 percent 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 311

of Alaska yellow-cedar. An estimated 102 additional jobs would be generated with 100 percent 

domestic processing of old-growth Sitka spruce and western hemlock.

Additional Ecosystem Service Benefits

Effects to additional ecosystem services – including fisheries, recreation, and non-timber forest 

products – are assessed in their respective resource sections located throughout Chapter 3 –

Environment and Effects.

Environmental Justice

Alternative 3 proposed project activities are not expected to disproportionately or adversely affect 

low-income and minority populations.

Table 78. Alternative 3, Habitat Focused: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Outcome

Economic Benefit 1

Jobs Supported Economic Efficiency

Total Timber 

Jobs 

Supported

2,524

Economic Benefit 2

Direct Income Economic Efficiency Total Direct 

Income $144,242,238

Ecosystem Service 1

Fish habitat

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Fisheries Resource 

Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Limited Improvements

Ecosystem Service 2

Recreation

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Recreation Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Moderate Improvements

Ecosystem Service 3

Non-Timber Forest 

Products

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Multiple Resource 

Sections

Qualitative 

Evaluation Moderate Improvements

Ecosystem Service 4

Subsistence Resource 

Access

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Wildlife and 

Subsistence Resource 

Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Major Improvements

Environmental Justice

Disproportionate and 

adverse effects to lowincome and/or minority 

populations.

Qualitative 

Evaluation

No 

Disproportionate/Adverse 

Impacts

Conclusion

Alternative 3, proposes a variety of activities to improve the habitat while supporting economic 

opportunity across the project area. Specific activities include harvest of majority young-growth 

timber (82 percent) and a limited and decreasing amount of old-growth timber (e.g., 10 MMBF 

decreasing to 5 MMBF annually). Similar to Alternative 2, two new log transfer facilities would be 

considered and 13 existing log transfer facilities would remain in use. Approximately 48 miles of 

National Forest System roads and 175 miles of temporary roads would be constructed – with more 

roads associated with young-growth timber harvest. Alternative 3 proposes an integrated weed 

management strategy including mechanical, manual, and herbicide treatments across 2,300 acres. 

Stream restoration is similar to Alternative 2 except it will occur on only 80 miles of stream as 

previously prioritized or based on public need. Deer habitat improvements include treatments to 

young-growth timber stands (precommercial and commercial) and protection of wolf dens.
3 – Environment and Effects

312 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Recreation-related project activities are generally limited to improving, maintaining, or developing 

infrastructure that is justified by overall public use, public interest, or other documented support. 

Some lesser-used recreation sites, where use does not justify maintenance expense, would likely be 

decommissioned. Development of new and currently-accessible sites may occur, but would not 

exceed current inventory. No new trails would be developed, only regularly-used trails would be 

maintained, and road-to-trail conversions would be minimal and limited to routes with public support. 

Additional outhouse development would be limited to road-accessible locations. Up to 12 semideveloped campsites may be developed, but there would likely be no additional campgrounds, cabins, 

or shelters. Cabins with limited use would likely be decommissioned. Although this approach to 

improving recreation infrastructure focuses support on high-use or high-public interest recreational 

sites, it may not accommodate tourism industry needs or support long-term economic opportunity.

In conclusion, the combination of timber harvest, habitat improvements, and consideration of limited 

recreational amenity improvements will provide young-growth timber for the timber industry and 

improve local quality of life – but perhaps not meet the needs of a growing tourism industry. 

Furthermore, while Alternative 3 is likely to support 2,524 jobs and $144 million in related income

over the lifetime of the project. It expedites the shift to young-growth timber harvest but reduces 

flexibility to the timber industry by proposing a very limited and decreasing amount of old-growth 

timber harvest. Project activities, considered as a whole, are not expected to disproportionately or 

adversely impact low-income or minority populations.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 was developed in response to the December 2017 public comment period collecting 

feedback targeting Draft Issues and Alternatives. Particularly Alternative 5 components include 

limiting old-growth timber harvest to an average of 5 MMBF per year for the life of the project and 

without any harvest “North of 20 Road” – at the north end of Prince of Wales Island between Port 

Protection and Calder Bay. While annual old-growth harvest would be limited to 5 MMBF for the life 

of the project, additional young-growth would be offered to encourage local sawmills to shift to 

predominantly young-growth harvest. Additional components include no fish egg incubation boxes in 

fish habitat improvement projects and full implementation of the recommendations from the 

Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program, which includes broader protections for both wolves 

and deer habitat. This alternative gives greatest priority to subsistence, watershed, and wildlife issues

by incorporating no increases in peak flow rates, stream restoration, and maintaining and improving 

wildlife habitat across the landscape. It also proposes manual and mechanical treatments to eradicate, 

control, or contain invasive plants.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Economic Benefits

Alternative 5 proposes to harvest 604 MMBF over the lifetime of the POW LLA Project. This 

includes 88 percent young-growth and 12 percent old-growth harvest. Total timber harvest volume, 

including old- and young-growth harvest over the 15-year project timeframe, is estimated to generate 

2,344 jobs and $135,364,521 in direct income (Table 79).

Estimated jobs and direct income are based on the current Alaska Region limited export policy

(USDA Forest Service 2016e, Volume II, Appendix H). Current policy allows old-growth western 

hemlock and Sitka spruce export equal to 50 percent of total sale net saw log volume plus 100 percent 

of Alaska yellow-cedar. An estimated 66 additional jobs would be generated with 100 percent 

domestic processing of old-growth Sitka spruce and western hemlock.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 313

Additional Ecosystem Service Benefits

Effects to additional ecosystem services – including fisheries, recreation, and non-timber forest 

products – are assessed in their respective resource sections located throughout Chapter 3 –

Environment and Effects.

Environmental Justice

Alternative 5 proposed project activities are not expected to disproportionately or adversely affect 

low-income and minority populations.

Table 79. Alternative 5, Comment Response: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects

Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Outcome

Economic Benefit 1

Jobs Supported Economic Efficiency

Total Timber 

Jobs 

Supported

2,344

Economic Benefit 2

Direct Income Economic Efficiency Total Direct 

Income $135,364,521

Ecosystem Service 1

Fish habitat

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Fisheries Resource 

Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Moderate Improvement

Ecosystem Service 2

Recreation

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Recreation Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Moderate Improvement

Ecosystem Service 3

Non-Timber Forest 

Products

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Multiple Resource 

Sections

Qualitative 

Evaluation Moderate Improvement

Ecosystem Service 4

Subsistence Resource 

Access

See FEIS Chapter 3,

Wildlife and Subsistence 

Resource Section

Qualitative 

Evaluation Major Improvement

Environmental Justice

Disproportionate and 

adverse effects to lowincome and/or minority 

populations.

Qualitative 

Evaluation

No Disproportionate/Adverse 

Impacts

Conclusion

Alternative 5 responds directly to the comments submitted by the public to Draft Issues and 

Alternatives. Alternative 5 project activities are largely a combination of Alternative 2 and 3 with 

reductions in timber harvest, very limited old-growth harvest, and full implementation of wildlife 

habitat improvements. Alternative 5 timber harvest is reduced compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 with 

the large majority as young-growth harvest (88 percent); old-growth timber harvest is limited to 5 

MMBF per year. Similar to Alternative 2, two new log transfer facilities would be considered and 13

existing log transfer facilities would remain in use. Similar to Alternative 3, approximately 49 total 

miles of National Forest System roads and 180 miles of temporary roads would be constructed – with 

more roads associated with young-growth timber harvest.

Invasive plant management mirrors Alternative 2 with only manual and mechanical treatments across 

2,300 acres. Stream restoration will occur on up to 200 stream miles, similar to Alternative 2. Fish 

habitat improvements including lake fertilization and barrier modifications would be focused on areas 

with known decreased fish populations. Wildlife habitat improvements would be fully implemented 

per the Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program.
3 – Environment and Effects

314 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Recreation maintenance, development, and decommissioning project activities are equivalent to 

Alternative 2 – and represent maximum support for maintaining current infrastructure and 

considering additional facilities. Trail maintenance is also maximized with ongoing maintenance, 

improvements, and consideration of new trails, similar to Alternative 2. Additional recreation-related 

facilities receive maximum consideration including winter sport access, outhouse development, 

campgrounds, campsites, cabins, and shelters.

To sum up, the combination of timber harvest, habitat improvements, and recreational amenity 

improvements will improve local quality of life and fully-support a growing tourism industry. 

Alternative 5 is estimated to yield 2,344 timber jobs and $135 million in direct income over the 

project lifetime. However, limiting the timber harvest to only 5 MMBF old-growth timber per year 

may limit flexibility for the timber industry to transition in a manner that is appropriate to current 

business practices, business models, and forest product markets. In contrast, proposed recreationrelated project activities provide significant foundation for future tourism economic opportunity while 

also contributing to local quality of life. Project activities, considered as a whole, are not expected to 

disproportionately or adversely impact low-income or minority populations.

Cumulative Effects of Action Alternatives

Appendix C includes the present and reasonably foreseeable future actions to be considered in 

cumulative effects analysis. The cumulative effects area for socioeconomics is the project area. 

Cumulative effects examine the impacts from reasonably foreseeable activities on NFS lands and 

non-NFS lands on timber industry and jobs, non-timber industries and jobs, and community wellbeing over the 15 years proposed for the POW LLA Project. Cumulative effects related to other 

resource areas are discussed in their relevant resource specialist sections.

Present timber management projects on NFS lands within the project area include about 121 MMBF 

of both old and young-growth volume under contract on the Big Thorne and Kosciusko projects as 

well as small and microsales, . Present timber harvest activities on non-FS lands include an estimated 

10.8 MMBF of old-growth under contract through various timber sales. Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Activities could affect timber markets and employment. In total, the estimated foreseeable 

future NFS timber harvest in the project area is 34 MMBF over the next 5 years and future non-NFS 

timber harvest in the project area is 519.6 MMBF over the next 15 years. Other young growth harvest 

is planned on 38,920 acres over 15 years, which would be primarily destined for export.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 are expected to generate 656 MMBF, 644 MMBF, and 604 MMBF of NFS 

timber over the next 15 years, respectively. Combined with reasonably foreseeable future timber 

harvest on non-NFS lands, the regional timber supply will more than double. Processing capacity in 

Southeast sawmills has been significantly underutilized for years, averaging just over 12 percent from 

2013 to 2017 (Parrent 2017). Excess capacity in these mills suggests they could respond fairly 

quickly to changes in timber supply in the region and absorb the increase in available volume without 

having to purchase additional equipment in the near term. Ongoing young- and old-growth timber 

harvest provide near-term stability for the timber industry, which promotes investment in mill 

infrastructure necessary to transition to a young growth industry. Timber industry employment rises 

and falls with trends in timber supply and markets. A predictable supply of timber influences hiring 

decisions and thus availability of jobs in logging, sawmills, log exports, and supporting industries 

such as trucking. Increased competition for workers could trigger higher wages and in-migration of 

new residents to Southeast communities. Growth and stability in project area communities could 

positively impact school enrollment and the overall well-being of Prince of Wales residents.

Present activities for transportation infrastructure development include 29 miles of roads on NFS and 

7 miles on non-FS (state) lands. Reasonably foreseeable future activities include 566 miles of road 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 315

construction on non-NFS lands on the project area over the next 20 years and new log transfer 

facilities. Alternative 2 proposes 35 miles of new NFS roads and 129 miles of temporary roads. 

Alternative 3 and Alternative 5 both propose construction of about 48 miles of NFS roads and 175 

miles of temporary roads in the project area. Combined with reasonably foreseeable future 

transportation improvements on non-NFS lands in the project area, road development proposed in all 

three alternatives supports expansion of tourism and other recreation industries, generating income

and employment opportunities for island residents. Transportation infrastructure improvements 

support the timber industry. Improved access could make more timber economic to harvest by 

lowering hauling costs, influencing appraisal values, prices, and revenues that could facilitate the shift 

to young-growth harvest. In addition, improved access for residents could facilitate subsistence

activities, leading to greater well-being in project area communities.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in land transfers could impact timber supply in the region. The 

Alaska Mental Health Trust land exchange will result in 12,350 federal acres in the project area being 

transferred and managed primarily for timber production. Non-NFS harvest and roads acreage 

includes a potential 14,000 acre land transfer to Sealaska under S1484 and potential road construction

and harvest on those lands. Timber volume to become available as a result of land transfers is 

unknown, precluding evaluation of the social and economic effects of the action alternatives.

Actions that expand recreation opportunities could benefit both local residents in the project area and 

island visitors. Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions related to recreation resources 

include site development and closure, dispersed recreation and subsistence gathering, recreation site 

development and closure, cruise ship tourism. Consideration of new recreational amenities, in 

particular, creates long-term opportunity for a growing recreation and tourism industry while also 

contributing to local quality of life. All action alternatives contain improvements to recreation 

resources, at varying levels. Alternatives 2 and 5 represent maximum support for maintaining current 

infrastructure and considering additional facilities. Alternative 3 is generally limited to improving, 

maintaining, or developing infrastructure, focusing support on high-use or high-public interest sites 

that may not fully accommodate tourism industry needs or support long-term economic opportunity.

Reasonably foreseeable future activities with respect to fish and wildlife habitat the POW LLA 

Project area could impact social and economic well-being. Management actions on NFS and non-NFS 

lands that improve fish and wildlife habitat also improve hunting, trapping, fishing, and shellfish 

resources and create employment, subsistence, and tourism opportunities. All action alternatives 

propose timber harvest prescriptions that improve wildlife habitat, with Alternatives 3 and 5 placing 

the greatest emphasis on habitat improvements. Management activities support employment growth 

in the seafood and fishing industries, as well as outfitters and guides and subsistence resources that 

support Alaska Native and rural community lifestyles.

Effects from burgeoning interest in expanding mineral extraction (hard rock and rare earth) could 

impact social and economic conditions in the project area. New and existing stone, crushed rock, 

gravel, and other materials may be used or sold, generating materials and income to facilitate 

transportation improvements. With respect to rare earth mining, unknown timeframes are associated 

activities at Niblack and Bokan Doton-Ridge mines and neither project has submitted an operations 

plan. The economic benefits realized from the development of the Niblack projects would include 

roughly 150 high-paying mining jobs at the Prince of Wales mine and another 80 jobs at a Gravina 

Island processing facility. Bokan Doton-Ridge is expected to provide an additional 200 full-time jobs. 

Representatives from both mines testified to their commitment to employing local residents of 

Ketchikan and Prince of Wales Island, and using Southeast Alaska vendors and merchants. The 

positive effects on social and economic well-being from mineral development in the project area are 

potentially substantial, including the creation of 430 new jobs with emphasis on hiring a local 

workforce. These effects are the same for all Action Alternatives.
3 – Environment and Effects

316 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Soils

Soil productivity is the inherent capacity of a soil to support the growth of specified plants, plant 

communities, or a sequence of plant communities. Soil productivity may be expressed in terms of 

volume or weight per unit area per year, percent plant cover, or other measures of biomass 

accumulation. Maintaining soil productivity and minimizing soil erosion are primary concerns when 

managing soil resources on National Forest System lands.

Soil Quality Standards established definitions and some minimum size requirements for detrimental 

soil conditions. The standards state that 85 percent of an activity area should be maintained in a 

condition of acceptable productivity potential for trees and other managed vegetation. Activity areas 

are individual proposed young-growth stands, old-growth stands, and timber stands for restoration 

projects. The threshold value of 15 percent is established for assessing detrimental soil conditions at 

the stand or harvest unit scale. If detrimental soil conditions approach or exceed 15 percent of an 

activity area, soil restoration practices should be considered.

Methodology

Soil quality monitoring data collected over the last 25 years will be used to estimate effects to soils. 

For purposes of this analysis, we rely on the existing available soil quality monitoring data 

summarized in Landwehr (2018a). Landwehr (2018a) supplies the best available data for estimating 

detrimental soil impacts from the various activities.

Forest facilities including National Forest System roads, trails, recreation sites, hydropower facilities, 

powerline corridors, and mines under an approved plan of operation are considered part of the 

Forest’s infrastructure, and are not subject to soil quality standards. Activities within the productive 

land base are subject to soil quality standards and include timber harvest, stream or vegetation 

restoration, temporary roads, landings, rock quarries, and wildlife enhancement projects.

The best available landslide frequency analysis will be used to estimate the effects of the alternatives 

on landslide production over a 20-year time period. Slope data will be overlaid with the unit pool to 

estimate the amount of potential old-growth and young-growth harvest on slopes over 72 percent 

gradient and miles of road on slopes over 67 percent gradient.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

Detrimental soil conditions including soil displacements, landslides, temporary roads and other 

conditions will be estimated by harvest unit or stand to ensure all activities will meet soil quality 

standards thresholds. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soils occur at the stand or harvest unit 

scale. The analysis of cumulative effects will also summarize detrimental soil conditions and 

landslides at the project area scale.

The temporal bounds for the soil analysis dates to the time the initial management activity was 

accomplished. The temporal bounds for the landslide frequency analysis is within a 20-year period to 

coincide with available landslide frequency studies. The time frame for the effects analysis depends 

on the rate soils recover from a disturbance. Small soil disturbances typically do not have negative 

effects on soil productivity at the site, stand, or harvest unit scale. Larger, severe soil disturbances 

(where the topsoil is effectively displaced) can negatively affect soil productivity for decades or 

longer. Soil quality monitoring data is beginning to identify the recovery rates for soils from some 

levels of disturbance. Recovery rates have not been identified for all soils or groups of soils from all 

types of disturbances.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 317

Units of Measure

To compare the effects to soils between the alternatives, the following measures will be used:

• estimated acres of detrimental soil conditions,

• estimated acres of management-related landslides over a 20 year time period,

• estimated acres of proposed old-growth and young-growth harvest on slopes over 72 percent 

gradient, and

• estimated miles of road construction proposed on slopes over 67 percent gradient.

These measures align with the Region 10 Soil Quality Standards and the Forest Plan.

Data Limitations

The lack of a landslide frequency analysis since the 1997 Forest Plan is a data limitation. The existing 

landslide frequency analyses summarized in Landwehr (2018b) predate the 1997 Forest Plan. The 

1997 Forest Plan included direction to avoid timber harvest on slopes over 72 percent and road 

construction on slopes over 67 percent gradient. The 1997 Forest Plan direction effectively limited 

timber harvest on steep slopes, yet the landslide frequency analyses summarized in Landwehr (2018a) 

were all conducted prior to the 1997 Forest Plan. The analysis uses the best available information and 

should be considered conservative because the 1997 Forest Plan limited timber harvest on slopes over 

72 percent gradient, and as a result landslide frequencies for harvested lands should have decreased

since the 1997 Forest Plan.

There is an extensive body of soil disturbance monitoring data and soil quality monitoring data 

available on the Forest (Landwehr 2018a). However, the lack of exact soil and vegetation response to 

soil disturbances is a data limitation. In the absence of precise response information, the analysis 

takes a conservative approach using the best available data summarized in Landwehr (2018a).

Affected Environment

Soils on the project area range from very shallow to very deep, and very poorly drained to well 

drained. Mineral soils are primarily formed from glacial till deposits, with minor areas of post-glacial 

volcanic deposits, glacial outwash deposits, and uplifted beach deposits. Soils are typically less than a 

meter thick over bedrock on ridgetops and on upper mountain slopes due to localized glacial ice 

scouring. Valley bottoms and concave areas contain deeper soils often underlain by dense glacial till 

deposits.

Poorly and very poorly drained deep organic deposits (greater than 1 meter thick) commonly form 

over bedrock or dense till and support a variety of forested and non-forested wetlands. Poorly drained 

organic soils less than a meter thick over bedrock, are often found on broad ridgetops and glacially 

scoured benches or rock knobs.

The cool maritime climate causes slow organic matter decomposition and organic duff layers 5 to 20 

centimeters or more thick cover most mineral soils. Displacement of the duff layer would lead to soil 

erosion in most circumstances.

Most soils are coarse textured and not easily compacted. Rooting depth is usually less than a meter 

and often less than 50 centimeters but can vary by soil drainage class. A few well-drained soils 

display deeper rooting depth.

Landslides are a natural erosion process and are a common form of erosion on steep slopes within the 

project area. Landslide research within the project area explored the relationship between landslides
3 – Environment and Effects

318 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

and timber harvest. The most common landslides are debris avalanches and debris torrents. Debris 

avalanches and torrents are shallow, rapid failures driven by rainfall and saturated soil conditions. 

There are approximately 11,357 acres of landslides mapped on the project area.

Karst topography has developed in many areas underlain by limestone. Soils over limestone are often 

well drained (due to internal bedrock drainage) and are often more productive than similar soils over 

non-carbonate rocks.

Well-drained organic soils can be subject to soil displacement from management activities or 

windthrow. Well-drained organic soils commonly occur on broken convex rocky terrain and are often 

less than 50 centimeters thick over bedrock. Areas of these soils are often small and occur in complex 

with mineral soils.

Past Activities and Soil Conditions

Soil productivity has been affected by timber harvest yarding activities, temporary road construction, 

borrow pits, rock quarry development, landings, OHV use, past mining developments, and root-wad 

harvest for stream restoration. To a lesser degree, invasive weed treatments and stream restoration 

practices have also impacted soil productivity. These activities have affected soil productivity through 

soil displacements or soil erosion, and rarely through other detrimental soil conditions. In most areas 

within young-growth stands, soils are productive and growing the desired vegetation at the desired 

rate. In some areas, detrimental soil displacements and detrimental soil erosion are affecting soil 

productivity.

As mentioned above, specified roads, recreation facilities, hydropower developments, and other 

planned infrastructure are not subject to soil quality standards. By regulation, OHV use is confined to 

designated trails and play areas and those areas are not subject to soil quality standards.

Landwehr (2018a) summarized soil quality monitoring information available for activities proposed 

on large landscape assessment areas. Landwehr (2018a) developed recommendations for estimating 

effects to soil productivity from proposed activities. Landwehr (2018b) also reviewed the pertinent 

literature and provided recommendations for estimating the effects of activities on landslide

frequency on large landscape assessment areas.

Soil monitoring data indicates that soil compaction on skid and access trails is limited and overall the 

trails are not detrimentally compacted. Soil bulk density data collected to date has led soil scientists to 

believe that detrimental soil compaction is not a concern under normal, modern forestry practices 

(USDA Forest Service, 2016c).

Based on soil quality monitoring data summarized in the 2016 Forest Plan FEIS (USDA Forest 

Service, 2016c) and summarized in Landwehr (2018a), and based on reconnaissance of older younggrowth stands in support of this and other projects (such as the Big Thorne Project EIS), soil scientists 

estimate less than 1 percent of the stands harvested prior to 1979 may not meet soil quality standards. 

These would be tractor-logged stands with high densities of primary skid trails or stands containing a 

high amount of temporary road, spar tree corridors, rock quarries, and/or post-harvest landslides. The 

monitoring data indicates stands harvested since 1979 would meet soil quality standards.

Abandoned and active mines occupy about 218 acres of the project area. Mines currently being 

operated under an approved plan of operations are not subject to soil quality standards. Abandoned 

mines in areas where other ground-disturbing activities are proposed will be included in detrimental 

soil calculations.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 319

Root-wad removals for watershed restoration projects have resulted in approximately 5 percent of the 

stand in a detrimental soil condition, and only about 20 acres of root-wad harvest has occurred over 

the past 10 years. Soil quality monitoring at root-wad harvest sites is on-going.

With the exception of a very few young-growth stands harvested prior to 1979, existing soil 

conditions in the POW LLA project area are within the Region 10 Soil Quality Standards.

Past Activities and Soil Erosion and Landslides

Past activities including mining, timber harvest, road construction, and pit development have caused 

soil erosion and landslides. The rate of erosion depends on the amount and intensity of rainfall, 

vegetative ground cover, erodibility of the soil, slope length, and steepness of slope.

Based on monitoring data, a minor amount of soil erosion is occurring along decommissioned 

temporary roads and along spar tree corridors in previously harvested areas.

Landslides (mass wasting) are the dominant erosion process on steep forested terrain with high soil 

water levels in Southeast Alaska (Swanston 1969). Topographic, geologic, and soil conditions in 

combination with high rainfall and soil saturation are the major factors that contribute to landslide

events in Southeast Alaska.

According to the current landslide inventory, there are 11,357 acres of landslides in the project area. 

Approximately 1,762 acres of landslides are associated with past timber harvest and road 

construction. All management associated landslides are considered detrimental soil conditions, even if 

associated with National Forest System roads or other infrastructure developments. The landslide rate 

in young-growth areas is typically higher than in adjacent old-growth areas. As vegetation grows in 

previously harvested areas, the landslide rate declines.

Landwehr (2018b) summarized available landslide frequency studies and developed 

recommendations for landslide frequency analyses on large landscape assessment projects. All of the 

landslide studies cited in Landwehr (2018b) occurred in, or partially in, the POW LLA Project area.

The application of BMPs since the Clean Water Act (1972) and results from subsequent monitoring of 

BMPs on the Forest since 1990 have shown that soil erosion (including landslides) associated with 

management activities since 1990 is minimized.

Climate change is expected to result in a wetter, warmer overall annual climate than currently exists. 

The projected change may cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms and may result 

in an increase in landslide occurrence and soil erosion (EcoAdapt 2014).

Harvest on Slopes Greater than 72 Percent

The 2016 Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2016a) states that slopes over 72 percent gradient are not 

considered suitable for timber harvest. These areas may be approved for timber harvest based on an 

on-site analysis of slope stability and a consideration of downslope resources at risk. Past harvest has 

included about 11,903 acres of slopes over 72 percent gradient (includes harvest on non-NFS lands). 

Proposed harvest on slopes over 72 percent will be used as one indicator to compare potential slope 

instability between alternatives.

Roads on Slopes Greater than 67 Percent

The Forest Plan requires avoidance of road locations on slopes over 67 percent gradient where 

practicable. A geotechnical analysis is also required for proposed road construction on slopes over 67 

percent gradient. The digital elevation model for the project area, when overlain with the roads layer, 
3 – Environment and Effects

320 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

identifies approximately 37 miles of existing roads on slopes greater than 67 percent gradient (28 

miles on non-NFS lands, 9 miles on NFS lands). Proposed roads on slopes over 67 percent gradient 

will be used as an indicator to compare slope stability between alternatives.

Environmental Effects

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All action alternatives propose similar activities but the amount of each activity varies between 

alternatives as described in Chapter 2.

Soil conservation practices and BMPs are designed to minimize effects to the soil resource given 

overall project objectives. Monitoring data collected since 1990 indicates that soil conservation 

practices and BMPs have been effective at minimizing detrimental soil conditions. While effects have 

been minimized, they have not been eliminated.

Landwehr (2018a) provides estimates of detrimental soil conditions associated with each activity 

proposed within the productive land base (excluding facilities as described above) based on available 

soil monitoring information. All estimates provided in Table 80 assumes modern or contemporary 

forest practices are used and all Forest Plan direction is followed.

Table 80. Estimates of detrimental soil conditions for proposed activities that must meet soil quality 

standards (based on Landwehr 2018a).

Activity Estimate of detrimental soil 

conditions (percent of stand) Notes

Timber harvest in 

unharvested areas (oldgrowth harvest)

-Shovel on slopes less than 35%

and partial suspension, use 3%

-Full Suspension) <2%

-Shovel on slopes over 35% 

gradient, use 9%

Sites and conditions are highly variable 

but we have quite a bit of data to account 

for the variability. Assumes no 

paludification or detrimentally altered 

wetness.

Timber harvest in younggrowth standsSame as timber harvest in 

unharvested areas

Thinning with log removal 

for wildlife habitat in 

young-growth

3 percent up to 10 percent Depends on the proposed treatment and 

unit layout. If corduroy shovel trails are left 

in place and not fluffed due to wildlife 

movement concerns, consider them 

detrimental and use up to 10 percent. 

Otherwise use 3%, like young-growth 

timber harvest.

Gap creation with ground 

based equipment in 

young-growth

1% to 9% of the gap acres (For 

the whole stand use 1%).

Gap acres only, not the whole stand. 

Monitoring was for all soil disturbance not 

just detrimental conditions.

Slash piling for deer

movement in younggrowth

<1% If slash piling with heavy equipment is 

proposed, monitor the results. Excavator 

equipped with grapple will have different 

effects than a bulldozer.

Burning in clearcuts and 

young stands for wildlife 

forage.

Slash pile burning.

0%

Area of slash piles burned

As long as recommendations for 

ecological site and burn severity are 

followed. Consider slash piles detrimental 

soil conditions, burned or unburned.

Precommercial thinning of 

young-growth with 

equipment.

2% or less
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 321

Activity Estimate of detrimental soil 

conditions (percent of stand) Notes

Root-wad harvest for 

stream restoration

5% in large openings or use the 

percentage of the stand impacted 

by the activity

With small discontinuous extractions the 

estimate would depend on the amount of 

root-wad trees extracted. Typically less 

than 1 percent of a stand.

Access trails for stream 

restoration

0% If puncheon is used and fluffed after the 

activity. 

Temporary roads Use a 40-foot disturbed corridor 

width or 4.8 acres per mile 

Assuming BMPs are followed and natural

soil drainage is not impeded.

Landings (shot rock)

Wood waste at landings

Rock pits

0.25 acres per mile of road

0.42 acres per mile of road

0.45 acres per mile of road

Add 1.12 acres per mile of road (all roads) 

for landings, rock pits, and wood waste.

Based on the data presented in Table 80, all of the activities, when considered alone, result in less 

than 15 percent detrimental soil conditions. When two or more ground-disturbing activities occur in 

the same activity area (stand or harvest unit), there is potential to exceed the 15 percent detrimental 

soil condition threshold set in the Region 10 Soil Quality Standards.

The analysis and Implementation Plan considers activity areas where more than one grounddisturbing activity may occur, and requires an assessment of existing detrimental soil conditions in 

young-growth stands. The Forest Plan provides guidelines and management approaches for assessing 

existing detrimental soil conditions in young-growth stands prior to proposing more grounddisturbing activities in those stands. The soil restoration activity may be used if detrimental soil 

conditions approach or exceed 15 percent of an activity area.

As mentioned in the Past Activities and Soil Condition section, up to 1 percent of stands harvested 

prior to 1979 may not meet Region 10 Soil Quality Standards in their current condition. In these 

stands, either no new activity would be allowed or the new activity would be accomplished in 

conjunction with the soil restoration activity.

Landwehr (2018b) reviewed existing landslide frequency analyses on the forest and recommends 

using existing landslide frequency data for estimating the frequency of naturally occurring landslides

and the effects of the POW LLA Project activities on landslide occurrence (Table 81). Activities that 

historically have contributed to landslides are road construction, rock pit development, and timber 

harvest. In other areas of Southeast Alaska, foot trails have contributed to slope instability and 

landslides, but no landslides are associated with foot trails on the project area. Roads associated with 

mine operations have contributed to landslides on the project area. Mining operations on steep slopes 

may contribute to landslide occurrence, but to date have not contributed to landslides on the project 

area, likely due to the gentler slopes where most existing mines are located.

Table 81 provides the recommended landslide frequency rates for timber harvest, roads and rock pits, 

naturally forested areas, and naturally non-forested areas. Landwehr (2018b) also provided the data 

limitations for the landslide frequency analysis.
3 – Environment and Effects

322 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 81. Suggested landslide frequency rates for harvested lands, unharvested lands, non-forested and 

low productivity areas, and roads and rock pits on the large landscape assessment areas.

Vegetation class Landslide rate Average 

landslide size Notes

Non-forest or low 

productivity forested 

lands

1 slide per 19,720 acres per 

20 years

1.5 acres From fresh analysis of 

Landwehr (1998) data. 20-year 

time period. One slide was a 

rock fall and not included here.

Unharvested 

commercial forest lands

1 slide per 11,720 acres per 

20 years

3.1 acres From the 1985 to 1991 time 

period in Landwehr (1998).

Harvested lands 1 slide per 2,849 acres per 

20 years

0.5 acre From the 1985 to 1991 time 

period in Landwehr (1998).

Roads and Rock Pits 1 slide per 19.3 miles of new 

road construction. 

0.5 acre From the 20-year time period in 

Landwehr (1998).

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, no new timber harvest, road building, wildlife treatments, or watershed 

restoration activities would take place, and no soil disturbances would be caused by new management 

activities associated with the POW LLA Project. No rehabilitation efforts involving road construction, 

storage, and decommissioning would be completed on existing roads under this project. Roads in the 

project area will continue to receive routine maintenance and incidental use from hunters and other 

visitors.

Landslides would continue to occur in unharvested areas and existing harvested areas.

Vegetation in harvested areas would continue to grow and add stability to soils on those sites. 

Detrimental soil conditions would not change as a result of POW LLA Project implementation.

At the project area scale, timber harvest activities and road construction would continue on nonNational Forest System lands. Timber volume currently under contract would be harvested on 

National Forest System lands.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to soils occurs at the stand or harvest unit scale. Since no areas are proposed for 

harvest and no new roads will be constructed, no cumulative effects will occur in those stands or 

areas.

At the project area scale, volume under contract on the Big Thorne and Kosciusko projects will result 

in about 6,154 acres of timber harvest and 29 miles of road construction. Reasonably foreseeable 

future actions include an estimated potential 101,273 acres of timber harvest on non-NFS lands and 

up to 566 miles of road construction on non-NFS lands on the project area over the next 20 years. The 

non-NFS harvest and roads acreage includes a potential 14,000 acre land transfer to Sealaska under 

S1484 and potential road construction and harvest on those lands.

Soils detrimentally impacted by past actions (about 17,521 acres) will continue to slowly recover over 

decades and centuries. Volume under contract and potential future timber harvests on non-NFS lands 

could result in and estimated 6,718 acres of detrimental soil conditions on the project area. Landslides 

associated with past and reasonably foreseeable future management activities will total about 1,863 

acres by the end of the next 20 years. Total detrimental soil conditions at the end of 20 years are 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 323

estimated at 26,102 acres including landslides, temporary roads, landings, rock pits, and soil 

conditions in harvest units.

Landslides will continue to occur in previously managed stands and unharvested areas and will be 

driven by storm events and soil saturation. Vegetation in previously harvested stands will continue to 

grow and add stability to the soils in those areas. Based on the recommended frequency analysis 

provided by Landwehr (2018b), all landslides, including natural and management related slides (past, 

present and foreseeable future actions) will occupy an estimated 11,836 acres after 20 years. The 

estimate is dependent on climatic events being similar to previous 20 year time periods. Climate 

change may increase landslide frequency as described above.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Detrimental soil conditions would increase by an estimated 1,549 acres across the project area. 

Detrimental soil conditions include yarding disturbance within harvest units, temporary roads, rock 

pits, landings, root-wad harvest, and landslides (over the next 20 years). The detrimental soil 

conditions would result from the activities identified in Table 80.

The Implementation Plan requires an assessment of detrimental soil conditions in young-growth 

stands before an activity is implemented. To date, detrimental soil conditions have been assessed on 

about 1,112 acres of young growth proposed for treatment in this project. If an activity will cause 

detrimental soil conditions to approach or exceed the 15 percent threshold, soil restoration activities 

should be considered. Application of the Forest Plan and Implementation Plan direction will ensure 

detrimental soil conditions remain within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards in all stands where 

project activities are proposed. No individual stand or harvest unit is expected to exceed Region 10 

Soil Quality Standards for areal extent of detrimental soil conditions.

Activities proposed under Alternative 2 may cause an estimated 11 acres of landslides over the next 

20 year time period based on existing landslide frequency analyses.

An estimated 501 acres of old-growth on slopes over 72 percent gradient would be considered for 

timber harvest. An estimated 382 acres of young growth on slopes over 72 percent gradient would be 

considered for timber harvest. Slope stability investigations have been completed on approximately 

4,162 acres of old growth and as a result of those investigations about 948 acres of steep slopes are no 

longer considered for harvest in this project. Remaining steep slope areas will receive slope stability 

investigations following Forest Plan and Implementation Plan direction.

Based on available information, about 1.1 miles of road will be proposed for construction on slopes 

over 67 percent gradient. The overlay of roads and slopes in GIS indicates that the 1.1 miles occurs 

on approximately 33 segments, indicating an average segment length of 176 feet proposed on slopes 

over 67 percent gradient. The data indicates that no long, continuous road segments are planned on 

slopes over 67 percent gradient, and road locations on steep slopes are avoided to the extent 

practicable.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to soils occurs at the stand or harvest unit scale. Based on the existing monitoring 

data, no old-growth harvest stands are expected to exceed the 15 percent threshold for detrimental soil 

conditions. In young-growth stands detrimental soil conditions may exist from past harvest activities, 

and a small percentage of those stands may exceed the 15 percent threshold for detrimental soil 
3 – Environment and Effects

324 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

conditions. If activities are proposed in these stands, soil restoration would be prescribed (if 

practicable) to return the detrimental soil conditions to below the 15 percent threshold.

The Forest Plan and Project Implementation Plan requires an assessment of detrimental soil 

conditions before activities are proposed. Application of the Forest Plan and Implementation Plan 

direction will ensure detrimental soil conditions remain within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards in 

all stands where project activities are proposed.

At the project area scale, volume under contract on the Big Thorne and Kosciusko projects will result 

in about 6,154 acres of timber harvest and 29 miles of road construction. Reasonably foreseeable 

future actions include an estimated potential 101,273 acres of timber harvest on non-NFS lands and 

up to 566 miles of road construction on non-NFS lands on the project area over the next 20 years. The 

non-NFS harvest and roads acreage includes a potential 14,000-acre land transfer to Sealaska under 

S1484 and potential road construction and harvest on those lands.

Soils detrimentally impacted by past actions (about 17,521 acres) will continue to slowly recover over 

decades and centuries. Volume under contract and potential future timber harvests on non-NFS lands 

could result in and estimated 6,718 acres of detrimental soil conditions on the project area. Landslides 

associated with past and foreseeable future management activities will total about 1,869 acres by the 

end of the next 20 years. Total detrimental soil conditions at the end of 20 years are estimated at 

27,657 acres including landslides, temporary roads, landings, rock pits, and soil conditions in harvest 

units.

Landslides will continue to occur in previously managed stands and unharvested areas and will be 

driven by storm events and soil saturation. Vegetation in previously harvested stands will continue to 

grow and add stability to the soils in those areas.

Based on the recommended frequency analysis provided by Landwehr (2018b), all landslides, 

including natural and management related slides (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions) will occupy an estimated 11,836 acres after 20 years. The estimate is dependent on climatic 

events being similar to previous 20-year time periods. Climate change may increase landslide

frequency as described above.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Detrimental soil conditions will increase by an estimated 1,782 acres across the project area. 

Detrimental soil conditions include detrimental soil conditions from yarding within harvest units, 

temporary roads, rock pits, landings, root-wad harvest areas, and landslides (over the next 20 years). 

The detrimental soil conditions would result from the activities identified in Table 80. No individual 

stand or harvest unit is expected to exceed Region 10 Soil Quality Standards for areal extent of 

detrimental soil conditions.

The Implementation Plan requires an assessment of detrimental soil conditions (in young-growth 

stands) before an activity is implemented. To date, about 1,112 acres of young growth have been 

assessed for detrimental soil conditions. If an activity would cause detrimental soil conditions to 

approach or exceed the 15 percent threshold, soil restoration activities should be considered. 

Application of the Forest Plan and Implementation Plan direction would ensure detrimental soil 

conditions remain within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards in all stands where project activities are 

proposed.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 325

Activities proposed under Alternative 3 may cause an estimated 13 acres of landslides over the next 

20 year time period.

An estimated 280 acres of old growth on slopes over 72 percent gradient would be considered for 

timber harvest. An estimated 724 acres of young growth on slopes over 72 percent gradient would be 

considered for timber harvest. Slope stability investigations have been completed on approximately 

4,162 acres of old growth. The investigations identified about 948 acres as not suitable for timber 

harvest and those areas will not be considered for harvest at this time. Remaining steep slope areas 

will receive slope stability investigations following Forest Plan and Implementation Plan direction.

Based on available information about 0.6 miles of road are proposed for construction on slopes over 

67 percent gradient. The overlay of roads and slopes in GIS indicates that the 0.6 miles occurs on 

approximately 22 segments, indicating an average segment length of 144 feet proposed on slopes over 

67 percent gradient. The data indicates no long contiguous road segments are proposed on slopes over 

67 percent gradient.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to soils occurs at the stand or harvest unit scale. Based on the existing monitoring 

data, no old-growth harvest stands are expected to exceed the 15 threshold for detrimental soil 

conditions. In young-growth stands detrimental soil conditions may exist from past harvest activities, 

and a small percentage of those stands may exceed the 15 percent threshold for detrimental soil 

conditions. If activities are proposed in these stands, soil restoration would be prescribed to return the 

detrimental soil conditions to below the 15 percent threshold.

The Forest Plan and Project Implementation Plan requires an assessment of detrimental soil 

conditions before activities are proposed. Application of the Forest Plan and Implementation Plan 

direction would ensure detrimental soil conditions remain within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards in 

all stands where project activities are proposed.

At the project area scale, volume under contract on the Big Thorne and Kosciusko projects will result 

in about 6,154 acres of timber harvest and 29 miles of road construction. Reasonably foreseeable 

future actions include an estimated potential 101,273 acres of timber harvest on non-NFS lands and 

up to 566 miles of road construction on non-NFS lands in the project area over the next 20 years. The 

non-NFS harvest and roads acreage includes a potential 14,000-acre land transfer to Sealaska under 

S1484 and potential road construction and harvest on those lands.

Soils detrimentally impacted by past actions (about 17,521 acres) will continue to slowly recover over 

decades and centuries. Volume under contract and potential future timber harvests on non-NFS lands 

could result in and estimated 8,374 acres of detrimental soil conditions on the project area. Potential 

future timber harvests on non-NFS lands could result in an estimated 6,407 acres of detrimental soil 

conditions on the project area. Landslides associated with past and reasonably foreseeable future

management activities will total about 1,869 acres by the end of the next 20 years. Total detrimental 

soil conditions at the end of 20 years are estimated at 27,889 acres including landslides, temporary 

roads, landings, rock pits, and soil conditions in harvest units.

Landslides will continue to occur in previously managed stands and unharvested areas and will be 

driven by storm events and soil saturation. Vegetation in previously harvested stands will continue to 

grow and add stability to the soils in those areas.

Based on the recommended frequency analysis provided by Landwehr (2018b), all landslides, 

including natural and management related slides (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

actions) will occupy an estimated 11,837 acres after 20 years. The estimate is dependent on climatic 
3 – Environment and Effects

326 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

events being similar to previous 20-year time periods. Climate change may increase landslide

frequency as described above.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

Detrimental soil conditions would increase by an estimated 1,700 acres across the project area. 

Detrimental soil conditions include detrimental soil conditions within harvest units and temporary 

roads, rock pits, landings, and landslides (over the next 20 years). The detrimental soil conditions will 

result from the activities identified in Table 80. No individual stand or harvest unit is expected to 

exceed Region 10 Soil Quality Standards for areal extent of detrimental soil conditions.

The Implementation Plan requires an assessment of detrimental soil conditions before an activity is 

implemented. To date, about 1,112 acres of young growth have been assessed for detrimental soil 

conditions. If an activity would cause detrimental soil conditions to approach or exceed the 15 percent 

threshold, soil restoration activities should be considered. Application of the Forest Plan and 

Implementation Plan direction would ensure detrimental soil conditions remain within Region 10 Soil 

Quality Standards in all stands where project activities are proposed.

Activities proposed under Alternative 5 would cause an estimated 14 acres of landslides over the next 

20-year time period.

An estimated 137 acres of old growth on slopes over 72 percent gradient would be considered for 

timber harvest. An estimated 724 acres of young growth on slopes over 72 percent gradient would be 

considered for timber harvest. Slope stability investigations have been completed on approximately 

4,162 acres of old growth. The investigations identified approximately 948 acres of soils as not 

suitable for timber harvest, and those areas would not be considered for harvest. Remaining steep 

slope areas will be investigated during project implementation following Forest Plan and 

Implementation Plan direction.

Based on available information, about 0.7 miles of road will be proposed for construction on slopes 

over 67 percent gradient. The overlay of roads and slopes in GIS indicates that the 0.7 miles occurs 

on approximately 27 segments, indicating an average segment length of 137 feet on slopes over 67 

percent gradient.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to soils occurs at the stand or harvest unit scale. Based on the existing monitoring 

data, no old-growth harvest stands would be expected to exceed the 15 threshold for detrimental soil 

conditions. In young-growth stands, detrimental soil conditions may exist from past harvest activities, 

and a small percentage of those stands may exceed the 15 percent threshold for detrimental soil 

conditions. If activities are proposed in these stands, soil restoration would be prescribed to return the 

detrimental soil conditions to below the 15 percent threshold.

The Forest Plan and Project Implementation Plan requires an assessment of detrimental soil 

conditions before activities are proposed. Application of the Forest Plan and Implementation Plan 

direction would ensure detrimental soil conditions remain within Region 10 Soil Quality Standards in 

all stands where project activities are proposed.

At the project area scale, volume under contract on the Big Thorne and Kosciusko projects would 

result in about 6,154 acres of timber harvest and 29 miles of road construction. Reasonably 

foreseeable future actions include an estimated potential 101,273 acres of timber harvest on non-NFS
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 327

lands and up to 566 miles of road construction on non-NFS lands on the project area over the next 20 

years. The non-NFS harvest and roads acreage includes a potential 14,000 acre land transfer to 

Sealaska under S1484 and potential road construction and harvest on those lands.

Soils detrimentally impacted by past actions (about 17,251 acres) will continue to slowly recover over 

decades and centuries. Volume under contract and potential future timber harvests on non-NFS lands 

could result in and estimated 8,522 acres of detrimental soil conditions on the project area. Landslides 

associated with past and reasonably foreseeable future management activities would total about 1,866 

acres by the end of the next 20 years. Total detrimental soil conditions at the end of 20 years are 

estimated at 27,805 acres including landslides, temporary roads, landings, rock pits, and soil 

conditions in harvest units.

Landslides will continue to occur in previously managed stands and unharvested areas and will be 

driven by storm events and soil saturation. Vegetation in previously harvested stands will continue to 

grow and add stability to the soils in those areas.

Based on the recommended frequency analysis provided by Landwehr (2018b), all landslides, 

including natural and management related slides (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions) will occupy an estimated 11,837 acres after 20 years. The estimate is dependent on climatic 

events being similar to previous 20-year time periods. Climate change may increase landslide

frequency as described above.

Conclusions

The soils analysis shows similar effects to soils between Alternatives 2, 3, and 5. The most new road 

construction (not over decommissioned subgrades) occurs in Alternative 2. Alternative 2 also 

proposes the most old-growth timber harvest on slopes over 72 percent gradient and the most new 

road construction on slopes over 67 percent gradient. Cumulative acres of detrimental soil conditions 

are very similar between the action alternatives.

In young-growth stands where effects to soils may exist from past harvest activities, it is essential that 

soil conditions be assessed prior to new activities taking place. Application of the Forest Plan and 

Implementation Plan direction would ensure detrimental soil conditions remain within Region 10 Soil 

Quality Standards in all stands where project activities are proposed.

The acres of landslides across the project area do not differ appreciably between the alternatives. This 

is due to larger landslides but few numbers in old-growth stands, and more landslides but smaller 

average size in harvested areas.
3 – Environment and Effects

328 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Transportation

National Forest System (NFS) roads are constructed to provide access to National Forest System 

lands and are included in the Forest Development Transportation Plan (see Transportation Standards 

and Guidelines in Chapter 4 of the Forest Plan). They are part of the National Forest Transportation 

System, as are other roads that are wholly or partially on NFS lands and are maintained for the long 

term. With the exception of a few administrative sites and campgrounds, most forest roads are single 

lane, constructed with blasted quarry rock, and designed for off-highway loads.

Within the project area, the demand for roads has primarily been a function of the demand for access

to timber resources. Maintenance and reconstruction requirements of the existing system depend 

mainly on the volume of timber hauled and, to a lesser extent, on recreational use. Future construction 

would be largely determined by the need to access timber resources.

Maintenance and reconditioning of existing NFS roads is an ongoing process that occurs on a periodic 

basis. Normally this type of work is determined to fit the category of routine repair and maintenance 

of roads that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the quality of the human 

environment and may be categorically excluded (FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30). Maintenance and 

reconditioning of NFS roads happen routinely, are currently authorized, and will continue to occur in 

the project area. This work is done through separate service contracts to reduce the backlog of 

deferred maintenance, comply with BMPs, and maintain the existing infrastructure. The timing of this 

work may coincide with the implementation of project activities, but is not part of this analysis unless 

the road is also planned to be used for proposed project activities. Any effects from ongoing road 

maintenance and reconditioning work are included in the cumulative effects analysis.

Units of Measure

The following units of measure are used to discuss the effects of the alternatives on transportation.

• Miles of NFS road constructed

• Miles of temporary road construction

• Miles of road maintenance

• Locations and required work for log transfer facilities

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The spatial boundaries for the transportation system analysis includes all roaded areas and potential 

roaded areas of the POW LLA Project. The temporal boundaries are now to the expected 

implementation of this project, about 15 years.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

Physical conditions of transportation resources are subject to change through natural occurrences and 

normal use. While inventory and condition surveys record current conditions, changes may occur at 

any time. Traffic counts are not routinely collected on NFS roads, though the roads are managed and 

designed as low volume roads.

Affected Environment

The NFS roads in the area were originally built for logging and the associated administration, though 

substantial recreational and subsistence use occurs on them. Road construction in support of logging 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 329

activities began in the 1950s and ‘60s. About 1,600 miles of NFS roads and 550 miles of temporary 

roads were built to support timber harvest.

Road Maintenance Levels

Maintenance Level defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific 

road, consistent with road management objectives and maintenance criteria. Maintenance Level 1

roads are considered closed to vehicle traffic. Maintenance Levels 2 through 5 are considered open 

and drivable. Decommissioning a road involves restoring roads to a more natural state. Convert 

means to designate a road to another use such as a hiking trail.

• Maintenance Level 1: Assigned to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to 

vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is 

performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road 

to facilitate future management activities.

• Maintenance Level 2: Assigned to roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Passenger car 

traffic is not a consideration.

• Maintenance Level 3: Assigned to roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a

standard passenger car.

• Maintenance Level 4: Assigned to roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most roads are double lane and aggregate surfaced.

• Maintenance Level 5: Assigned to roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. Normally, roads are double-lane, paved facilities.

The Operational Maintenance Level (OPML) is the Maintenance Level currently assigned to a road 

considering today’s needs, road condition, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. It defines 

the level to which the road is currently being maintained. It reflects the current condition and the 

ability to drive on the road.

The Objective Maintenance Level (OBML) is the Maintenance Level to be assigned at a future date 

considering road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental 

concerns. The OBML may be the same as, or higher or lower than, the OPML.

Table 82. Road Miles by Operational Maintenance Level

Operational Maintenance Level (INFRA database)

OPML 1 2 3 4 5 Total miles

Miles 595 798 193 0 0.02 1586

Table 83. Road Miles by Objective Maintenance Level

Objective Maintenance Level (INFRA database)

OBML 1 2 3 4 5 Decom. Convert Total 

Miles 848 520 177 11 0.02 28 2 1586

Access and Travel Management (ATM)

In 2001, the Forest Service adopted a road management policy that requires the agency to maintain a 

safe, environmentally sound road network that is responsive to public needs and affordable to 

manage. The policy includes a science-based roads analysis process designed to help managers make 
3 – Environment and Effects

330 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

better decisions on roads. The Forest completed a Forest-wide roads analysis for maintenance level 3, 

4, and 5 roads in 2003. A roads analysis for the remaining NFS roads within the project area was 

completed in 2005. The Decision Notice for the Access and Travel Management Plan Environmental 

Assessment for Prince of Wales and Surrounding Islands, Tongass National Forest was signed on 

September 3, 2009.

Annually, each Ranger District prepares an updated Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The MVUM 

displays NFS routes (roads and trails) or areas designated as open to motorized travel. The MVUM 

also displays allowed uses by vehicle class (e.g., highway-legal vehicles, vehicles less than 50 inches 

wide, and motorcycles), seasonal allowances, and distance allowances, and provides information on 

other travel rules and regulations. Routes not shown on the MVUM are not open to public motor 

vehicle travel.

Descriptions of Travel Management Designations:

• Highway Vehicle only – These roads are open only to motor vehicles licensed under state law for 

general operation on all public roads within the state.

• Open to All Vehicles – These roads are open to all motor vehicles, including smaller off-highway 

vehicles that may not be licensed for highway use, but not vehicles that are oversized or 

overweight under state traffic law.

• Seasonal Designation – These roads are open only during certain portions of the year.

• Motorized Trail – These trails are open only to motor vehicles less than 50 inches in width at the 

widest point on the vehicle.

Table 84. Road miles by OBML and ATM designation

Objective Maintenance Level Travel Management Miles

1 – Basic Custodial Care Motorized Trails 262

Total 262

2 – High Clearance Vehicles Open to all Vehicles 448

Seasonal Designation 10

Highway Vehicles Only 51

Total 509

3 – Suitable for Passenger Cars Open to all Vehicles 115

Highway Vehicles Only 62

Total 177

4 – Moderate Degree of User 

Comfort

Highway Vehicles Only 11

Total 11

Total Road Miles 959

Marine Access Facility

A Marine Access Facility (MAF) is an area used by humans to transfer items from land to saltwater or 

vice versa, that contains a structure such as a mooring buoy, dock, Log Transfer Facility (LTF), boat 

ramp, or a combination of these. These facilities are often used for the movement of equipment 

needed for logging and road building. The transport of harvested timber from isolated islands in 

Southeast Alaska requires both land and water routes to reach processing facilities. Log transfer 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 331

facilities are used to transfer logs to barges or rafts for towing. At least 33 LTFs have been constructed 

within the project area.

Boat launch ramps provide opportunities to access marine waters and lakes with trailered boats. There 

are presently seven launches in the project area. Launches are commonly associated with LTFs and 

barge ramp facilities. These launches are not maintained; at times, they may not provide suitable 

access due to tides, debris or other conditions. Boat launches exist at Luck Lake, Neck Lake, Polk 

Inlet, Winter Harbor, El Capitan, Labouchere Bay, and Ratz Harbor.

Float docks provide access and loading points for boats and floatplanes. The Forest Service maintains 

four docks in the project area; El Capitan, Camp Island, and Polk Inlet have marine docks designed 

for floatplane access. Control Lake has a dock for a boat used to access a recreation cabin.

Fish Passage at Road Crossings

Providing for fish passage at stream and road intersections is an important consideration when 

constructing or reconstructing forest roads. Improperly located, installed, or maintained stream 

crossing structures can restrict these migrations, thereby adversely affecting fish populations. These 

structures can present a variety of potential obstacles to fish migration. The most common obstacles 

are excessive vertical barriers, debris blockages, and extreme water velocities that can inhibit fish 

passage, especially smaller or juvenile fish.

Most Class I and Class II fish stream crossings for NFS roads in the project area have been surveyed 

and categorized for their fish passage status. Issue 4 – Watershed Function has additional information.

Between 1998 and 2017, the Tongass has re-installed, retrofitted, or removed approximately 605 

crossings that were not previously meeting passage standards in fish streams and potentially impeding 

fish passage. Of those, 247 were remediated by being removed and 358 of them were reinstallations. 

The estimated cost of this remediation is 18.4 million dollars, indexed to 2018 dollars. Approximately 

80 percent of the reinstallations were replaced with culverts, 18 percent were replaced with bridges, 

and 2 percent were retrofits or maintenance occurred. Within the project area between 1998 and 2017, 

213 sites have been replaced or removed. Of the 213 sites, 128 crossings have been removed, 28 

replaced with bridges, and 55 replaced with culverts, all to provide passage.

Environmental Effects

The effects of roads on resources are discussed in their respective resource sections. The following 

paragraphs discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives on transportation 

using the units of measure identified at the beginning of this section, with differences between the 

alternatives detailed in the tables.

New Road Construction

See NFS Road Construction and Temporary Road Construction Activity Cards (Appendix A). The 

need for road construction is largely determined by the need to access timber units. The design 

criteria for each alternative sets the amount of timber to be offered. The total road miles needed will 

be determined by the specific harvest units offered and the needed transportation network. This 

process is detailed in the Implementation Plan (Appendix B).

The Logging System Transportation Analysis (LSTA) identifies potential stands for timber harvest

and the needed transportation network. The LSTA would be refined following direction in the 

Implementation Plan, Appendix B, to identify those stands and roads most likely to offer 

economically positive opportunities for harvest during the POW LLA Project. No alternative would 
3 – Environment and Effects

332 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

harvest all potential stands identified within the LSTA, only the acreage needed to meet the volume in 

the Record of Decision would be harvested. Not all roads in the LSTA would be constructed, only 

those needed to harvest the selected stands. See Issue 3 – Timber Supply and Timber Sale Economic 

section for further information on LSTA development.

The LSTA estimates each mile of road would access about 179 acres of harvestable lands. Based on 

this estimate, the miles of road needed to meet the alternative design are shown below. For example, 

Alternative 2 shows 138 miles of new NFS roads (Table 85) but to meet the harvest volume 35 miles 

are expected to be built (Table 86). NFS roads will be constructed to OPML 2 standard. All temporary 

roads constructed would be decommissioned after their use period is over.

Table 85. Miles of new road construction to access all potential LSTA acres

All LSTA Roads – New Construction to Access all Potential LSTA Harvest Stands (Miles)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

NFS Roads 0 138 138 138

Temporary Roads 0 505 505 505

Table 86. Miles of estimated new construction to meet alternative design volume

Estimated New Construction to Meet Alternative Design Volume (Miles)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

NFS Roads 0 35 48 49

Temporary Roads 0 129 175 180

Road Maintenance

See the Road Maintenance Activity Card. Road maintenance includes the repair or upkeep of a road 

necessary to perpetuate the road and provide for its safe use. Work items may include surface rock 

replacement, culvert repair and replacement, bridge replacement, slide removal, reconditioning 

ditches, shoulders, roadbeds, brushing, and other items that contribute to the preservation of the 

existing road. Reconditioning restores a road to a useable level, work items can include culvert 

installation, bridge installation, ditch cleaning, shoulder clearing, roadbed clearing and shaping.

Opening a stored road is normally considered maintenance. The road miles shown in the road 

maintenance table are for improving Maintenance Level 1 roads to Maintenance Level 2 standards. 

Currently open roads used for timber haul would be maintained by the timber purchaser 

commensurate with their use.

Table 87. Road maintenance (ML-1 roads)

Road Maintenance (ML-1 roads)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

Miles 0 90 120 125

Rock Quarries

See the Quarry Development Activity Card. Rock sources would be needed for the construction,

reconstruction, and maintenance of roads in this project. There are numerous rock quarries throughout 

the project area and usually there is one within a few miles of work sites. To the extent feasible,

existing quarries would be used rather than developing new ones. In some cases, new rock quarries

may be needed. Each mile of road requires about 0.45 acres with an average size of 1.5 acres. The 

number of quarries needed to meet alternative design volumes are shown below. Quarry sites would 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 333

be developed within 500 feet of a road and avoid Class I and Class II stream buffers, old-growth 

habitat reserves, and eagle and goshawk nest tree buffers. With either the expansion of an existing 

quarry or the development of a new site, the area footprint would generally not exceed 3 acres. 

Development of rock quarries are an irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. The 

extraction of shot rock or gravel would be apparent and would alter the landscape, even with 

screening.

Table 88. Number of potential Quarry Development Sites

Quarry Development Sites

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

0 49 67 69

Log Transfer Facilities

See the Log Transfer Facilities Activity Card. Log transfer facilities (LTF) are used to transfer logs 

and timber products from land-based transportation forms to water-based transportation forms (or 

vice-versa). These facilities are often used for the movement of equipment needed for logging and 

road building. Remote road systems with no connection to the Prince of Wales road system require 

the use of an LTF. In addition, it can be cost effective to utilize an LTF rather than truck logs when 

long haul distances are required.

An area for upland operations adjacent to the LTF is required. The space needed for upland operations 

adjacent to the LTF is directly related to the type of facility, volume of timber that may be handled 

annually, and the life of the operation. It is expected that LTFs used in this project would require 

about 5 acres of uplands.

Table 89. Project area log transfer facilities: status and required work

Log Transfer Facilities with Expected Use

Location Status Required Work

Suemez Existing Maintenance

Lancaster Existing Maintenance

Heceta Existing Maintenance

Calder Existing Maintenance

Tuxekan Existing Maintenance

Thorne Bay Existing Maintenance

Polk Existing Maintenance

Coffman Existing Maintenance

Marble Existing Reconstruction

El Capitan Passage Existing Reconstruction

Orr Island Planned New construction

Browns Bay Planned New construction

N. Red Bay Disposed Reconstruction

Orr Island west Disposed Reconstruction

Orr Island east Disposed Reconstruction

Thirteen existing LTFs are proposed for use and two new sites are proposed for all alternatives. Five 

of the existing sites would require reconstruction to meet current use standards. The estimated current 
3 – Environment and Effects

334 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

cost for the required work for all LTFs is $3,830,000. Typically, LTFs are reconstructed to facilitate 

both log transfer to barges and direct to water. Other existing LTFs, including those on non-NFS 

lands, may be used if needed; a complete list of LTFs is in the project record. The Forest Plan, 

Appendix G – Log Transfer Facility Guidelines provides detailed information for LTF siting and 

development.

Travel Analysis Process

The desired condition for the Forest transportation system is guided in part by 36 CFR 212.5 – Road 

System Management.

The Travel Analysis Process is a three level, science-based system of analysis. The first level is the 

Forest-wide Roads Analysis, which is an analysis for the entire Tongass National Forest (Tongass 

National Forest – Forest-Level Roads Analysis 2003). The Forest-wide Roads Analysis provided 

management recommendations for maintenance level (ML) 3, 4, and 5 roads.

The second level is the Prince of Wales Roads Analysis, (Roads Analysis Objective Maintenance 

Level 1 and 2 Roads, Tongass National Forest Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts 2005). This 

report details the analysis methods and recommendations for travel management for ML 1 and 2 

roads on the Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts. Copies of these analyses are located in the 

project record. Combined, these analyses recommend road management objectives for all existing 

NFS roads within the project area.

The third level is a project-level analysis. A travel analysis for this project was conducted in 

accordance with FSH 7709.55 for the proposed NFS roads. The recommended operational and 

objective maintenance levels and a proposed travel management strategy for each road were assigned. 

The project travel analysis is located in the project record.

Costs by Alternative

Road development costs are based upon regional average costs for constructing roads in Southeast 

Alaska. Costs are applied based upon an average cost per mile for different classifications of road 

construction and reconstruction. Estimated costs shown below are for the road miles needed to meet 

the volumes for each alternative. Construction needed for access to a project would be part of the 

contract. Timber harvest contracts would include the costs of road construction. Some years, 

congressionally-appropriated funds are allotted for road projects as part of the budget. These must be 

used for the intended purpose.

Table 90. Estimated road development costs under each alternative

Road Development Costs

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 5

NFS Road Construction1 $0 $7,020,000 $9,550,000 $9,780,000

Temporary Road Construction2 $0 $19,320,000 $26,290,000 $29,940,000

Road Maintenance3 $0 $3,140,000 $4,270,000 $4,370,000

Totals $0 $29,480,000 $40,110,000 $41,090,000

1Estimated at $200,000 per mile. 2Estimated at $150,000 per mile.

3Road maintenance is the estimated cost to improve OPML 1 roads to OPML 2 level suitable for log haul, estimated $35,000 

per mile

Note: Costs are estimated based on road miles, but are not exact values; these values are presented to provide a relative 

comparison between the alternatives. All costs are subject to change.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 335

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for the transportation system is the project area. Cumulative effects 

examines the impacts to transportation infrastructure from reasonably foreseeable future activities on 

NFS lands and non-NFS lands over the 15 years proposed for this project.

Forest Service transportation projects completed will vary from year to year, based on available 

funding and need. These include maintaining or improving existing roads and bridges, placing roads 

in storage, and improving fish passage at road crossings.

Road construction for non-NFS lands primarily includes roads needed for timber harvest. Plans that 

are known for other landowners are shown in the Catalog of Present and Reasonably Foreseeable 

Future Activities table in Appendix C. GIS records indicate 1,661 miles of roads on non-Federal lands 

within the project area.

The State of Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities has completed a 2004 

Southeast Alaska Transportation Plan (SATP). This show a variety of alternatives for State 

transportation networks within the project area. Copies of both plans can be found in the project 

record. Currently paving the road from Neck Lake to Whale Pass is in the design phase of the 2004

SATP; no construction date is set.

S.1484 – ANCSA Admiralty Island Land Exchange Finalization Act of 2017 could remove about 23 

miles of NFS road from federal ownership. Sixteen of the 23 miles are open to all motorized vehicles; 

the remaining 7 miles are closed roads. The LTF located in Lancaster Cove could also be transferred 

from federal ownership.
3 – Environment and Effects

336 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Forest Vegetation

The POW LLA Project proposes old-growth and young-growth timber harvest and intermediate stand 

improvement treatments resulting in changes to forest vegetation in portions of the project area. 

Timber harvest and intermediate stand treatments will cause changes to forest structure, species 

composition, and stand health and stability. Changes in vegetation are determined by a prescribed 

silvicultural system that meets project goals and objectives while adhering to 2016 Forest Plan

direction.

Desired Conditions

The desired condition for stands within the POW LLA project area is determined by Forest Plan

LUDs with desired conditions specific to young-growth management described in Chapter 5 of the 

2016 Forest Plan (pp. 5-2 to 5-8). The goals and objectives of the LUDs in the POW LLA project area 

are presented in Chapter 3 of this document (see Land Use Designations). Also, see Figure 2 in 

Chapter 1.

Methodology

Inventory and Analysis Methods

Initial project area information was obtained from the Tongass National Forest GIS library, aerial 

photos, and the Forest Service Activity Tracking System database (FACTS). In addition, extensive 

young-growth inventory data in stands 40 years in age or older has been collected in the project area 

over the past several years, as well as an inventory of old-growth stands including using walk-through 

assessments to stratify potential harvest stands.

Information on the current condition of old-growth stands has been collected using walk-through 

assessments to stratify potential harvest stands based on the vegetation series (DeMeo et al. 1992) and

a net standing timber volume estimate (Schroeder, 2017a). An intensive plot inventory was then 

conducted on a representative subset of each stratum (Schroeder, 2017b). These data have also been 

entered into an FPS database and extrapolated to non-inventoried stands in the same vegetation series 

and volume stratum.

The information gathered by these inventories is used to describe and diagnose existing stand 

condition, which includes stand characteristics, species composition, stand structure, regeneration, 

windthrow risk, and disease and decay severity. Complete silvicultural prescriptions will be written 

during implementation when timber harvest projects are identified.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The analysis area for direct and indirect effects to forest vegetation is National Forest System lands in 

the POW LLA project area. The cumulative effects analysis area includes all lands within the POW 

LLA project area. The timeframe used to analyze effects is the next 100 years or the projected time 

between defined stages of stand development.

Units of Measure

Measures used to disclose the effects on vegetation from the proposed timber harvest include:

• Forest Structure: changes to stand structure over time

• Forest Health and Productivity: changes in forest health and site productivity
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 337

• Regeneration and Species Composition: changes in regeneration and species composition of each 

individual stand

• Windthrow Risk: effects of wind hazard

Affected Environment

Introduction

The POW LLA project area is a mosaic of coniferous forests in managed and unmanaged conditions,

interspersed with muskeg, scrubland, and alpine plant communities. Forest stands younger than 150 

years old are considered young-growth on the Tongass for timber inventory purposes. Most younggrowth stands in the project area originated primarily from large-scale even-aged clearcut harvest that

began in the mid-1950s. Higher volume stands, primarily consisting of large-diameter spruce and 

hemlock trees, were targeted during these large-scale harvests; as a result the residual old-growth 

stands proposed for harvest tend to be scattered among even-aged young-growth and contain 

relatively higher percentages of western redcedar and Alaska yellow-cedar than what has been 

historically harvested.

Young-growth is categorized as either commercial or precommercial. Average stem diameter, volume 

per acre, and percent of volume present in trees containing two 32-foot logs all contribute to whether 

an individual young-growth stand is commercially viable. Additionally, the stand’s place in the 

landscape, the current market economics surrounding saw timber, and other external and situational 

forces influence whether a stand may be considered “commercial” at any given time. For the purpose 

of this analysis, commercial young-growth stands are considered to be 55 years or older.

Species Composition

The primary species in the old-growth and mature timber types are western hemlock (Tsuga

heterophylla), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), western 

redcedar (Thuja plicata), and Alaska yellow-cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis). Higher percentages of 

Sitka spruce are found along streams and other well-drained sites. Forested muskegs occur throughout 

the project area and contain a high percentage of Alaska yellow-cedar. Muskeg areas also support 

shore pine (Pinus contorta) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Mountain hemlock is also 

more prevalent at higher elevations. Red alder (Alnus rubra) is found on disturbed sites such as 

roadsides, certain harvested stands, and along stream banks.

Young-growth stands are primarily dominated by western hemlock and Sitka spruce. The older 

young-growth stands being considered for harvest generally contain less cedar as the earlier harvests 

focused on high volume spruce and hemlock stands that grew on the most productive sites and at 

lower elevations. Sitka spruce and western hemlock tend to have a greater competitive advantage on 

the higher site areas while cedars are generally better represented on mid to lower site quality areas. 

Sitka spruce was the favored tree in early precommercial thinning operations and emphasis on 

yellow-cedar as a crop tree developed in the early 1990s. Current precommercial thinning activities 

across Prince of Wales Island favor the retention of yellow-cedar. The understory shrubs are primarily 

blueberry (Vaccinium spp.), huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), and rusty menziesia (Menziesia 

ferruginea). Many other species of vascular plants, lichens, and mosses occur throughout all habitat 

types or plant associations. The amount, distribution and mix of understory plants varies between oldgrowth and young-growth stands and is dependent on many ecological components, including stand 

structure, site quality and the plant association of the stand.
3 – Environment and Effects

338 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 91. Project Area Species Composition on Lands Proposed for Harvest (Percent Trees per Acre)

Old Growth Young Growth

Sitka spruce 7 31

Western hemlock 63 56

Western redcedar 17 7

Alaska yellow-cedar 12 <1

Mountain hemlock <1 <1

Red alder <1 5

Stand Productivity

Productivity of forests is largely defined in terms of site quality, which is usually measured in terms 

of timber volume an acre can produce in a given period of time. Site quality is the sum of many 

environmental factors including soil depth and drainage, aspect, microclimate, etc., and varies both 

within and among individual stands.

Old Growth

Old-growth forest lands are stratified into high, medium, and low volume strata as a proxy for 

estimating site productivity. The acres of existing old-growth forest by volume strata for each Timber 

Analysis Area (see the Timber Supply and Economics section) is shown in Table 92. Table 93 shows 

the old-growth acres identified by the LSTA for the POW LLA Project from which the action 

alternatives will harvest from (see Table 28 for harvest acres by alternative).

• High Volume Strata – Areas within timber inventory volume classes 5, 6, and 7 on non-hydric 

soils, and on hydric soils with slopes greater than 55 percent. These are considered to be highly 

productive acres.

• Medium Volume Strata – Areas within timber inventory volume classes 5, 6, and 7 on hydric 

soils with slopes less than or equal to 55 percent; areas within timber inventory volume class 4 

that are either on non-hydric soils, or are on hydric soils greater than 55 percent. These are 

considered to be medium productivity acres.

• Low Volume Strata – Areas within timber inventory volume class 4 that are on hydric soils with 

slopes less than or equal to 55 percent. These acres are considered to be low productivity acres.

Table 92. All old-growth forest acres across all LUDs by volume strata and Timber Analysis Area on NFS 

lands in the POW LLA Project Area.

Volume Strata 

Timber Analysis Area High Medium Low 

North 20 4,640 839 517

Calder Red Bay 23,589 8,496 3,834

El Cap 7,068 3,590 1,225

Whale Pass 9,034 6,886 6,777

Devilfish Bay 12,900 10,679 7,706

Kosciusko 13,492 3,512 2,427

Orr Marble Island 5,461 3,314 2,146

Coffman Cove 28,115 25,687 26,563

Heceta Island 11,395 4,912 3,348
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 339

Volume Strata 

Timber Analysis Area High Medium Low 

Greater Staney 22,184 14,677 11,529

Thorne Bay 49,339 29,545 17,572

Outer Islands 22,270 28,189 9,552

Harris Twelve Polk 35,037 33,446 12,588

Greater Suemez Island 16,999 15,100 8,103

Sukkwan Island 8,516 10,191 5,967

Kassa Inlet 24,063 15,307 3,844

Cholmondeley Moira 34,836 21,028 14,026

Dall Island South POW 40,742 38,985 13,627

Total Project Area 369,680 274,383 151,351

Table 93. Potential old-growth harvest acres by Timber Analysis Area and volume strata and also as a 

percent of total existing volume strata acres.

Timber Analysis Area

Potential Harvest Acres Percent of Existing (from Table 92)

High Medium Low High Medium Low

North 20 1,241 260 287 26.7 31.0 55.5

Calder Red Bay 4,135 1,632 789 17.5 19.2 20.6

El Cap 671 237 86 9.5 6.6 7.0

Whale Pass 2,493 1,779 1,344 27.6 25.8 19.8

Devilfish Bay 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kosciusko 633 185 163 4.7 5.3 6.7

Orr Marble Island 747 435 303 13.7 13.1 14.1

Coffman Cove 1,033 938 811 3.7 3.7 3.1

Heceta Island 2,382 791 352 20.9 16.1 10.5

Greater Staney 4,095 1,854 879 18.5 12.6 7.6

Thorne Bay 769 755 730 1.6 2.6 4.2

Outer Islands 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harris Twelve Polk 4,230 2,596 625 12.1 7.8 5.0

Greater Suemez Island 350 294 342 2.1 1.9 4.2

Sukkwan Island 11 54 0 0.1 0.5 0.0

Kassa Inlet 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cholmondeley Moira 1,995 627 505 5.7 3.0 3.6

Dall Island South POW 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Project Area 24,785 12,437 7,216 6.7% 4.5% 4.8%

Young Growth

Stand productivity can vary considerably across and within young-growth stands, typically being 

highest in the valley bottom and decreasing with elevation. Site quality plays a significant role in all 

aspects of stand development. Higher site quality generally translates into taller trees and higher 

volume per acre. Higher site quality allows for heavier stocking (more trees per acre) to be carried in 

the stand over time and results in faster changes in tree characteristics and stand structure. Height to 

diameter ratios increase faster on high sites and live crown ratios will tend to decrease faster due to 
3 – Environment and Effects

340 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

the effects of inter-tree competition as a result of this heavier stocking. In general, young-growth 

stands nearing commercial age within the project area are located on high or medium productivity 

sites.

Stand Structure

Forest stand structure is defined as the horizontal and vertical distribution of components including 

the height, diameter, crown layers, and stems of trees, shrubs, herbaceous understory, snags, and 

down woody debris (Helms 1998).

Old-growth structure varies depending on habitat type but generally contains large trees over 150 

years in age, multi-layered canopies, and moderate shrub understory. Structural complexity has 

developed through stem and limb breakage caused by small, intermittent disturbance events and 

insect/disease activity. Coarse, woody debris typically is abundant on the forest floor as large, 

decaying logs. Some whole trees may lay horizontally, uprooted by windthrow.

Young-growth structure varies by habitat type but also varies by age, site quality and whether the 

stand has been precommercially thinned or received other intermediate treatments. Young-growth

stand development typically follows the predicted structural stages of stand initiation, stem exclusion 

and understory reinitiation defined by Oliver and Larson (1996).

• Stand Initiation – A new cohort with up to thousands (per acre) of newly germinated trees 

occupies the site. Residual shrubs and herbaceous plants respond to the increased light for 8 to 10 

years on average, at which time the conifers begin to overtop vegetation. Stand species richness is 

greatest at this stage of development. Other biological attributes during this phase include rapid 

tree growth, high browse production and poor snow intercept. This stand has seedlings and then 

small saplings.

• Stem Exclusion – By approximately age 15 to 25 years, the trees begin competing for light and 

few, if any, new trees are regenerate. Out-competed trees begin to die. During this phase a dense 

canopy cover reduces light reaching the forest floor. Understory plants decline rapidly and can be 

completely eliminated in 35 years unless openings are created in the canopy. When the canopy 

closes, the trees are larger saplings and then pole-sized trees. Later in this stage, there are polesized trees and small sawtimber. Suppressed trees may still be sapling sized.

• Understory Re-initiation – The trees continues to suppress the understory shrubs and herbs for up 

to 100 years with understory plants not re-appearing until age 120 to 150 when overstory trees 

begin to die and allow enough light to reach the canopy floor for understory plants to become 

established again. During this phase understory forage production increases and snow 

interception is effective. These trees are pole-sized and small to mature sawtimber.

• Old Growth – From roughly 150 years on, large trees dominate at a density of about 200 trees per 

acre, snags and woody debris are present and vertical canopy structure has diversified. Tree 

growth eventually becomes static with decay and mortality equaling in-growth. There are

increased understory plants with gap phase disturbance from wind and natural mortality of large 

overstory trees along with increased edge effect. Snow intercept is still occurring and the 

multilayered crown adds to the improved habitat diversity.

Stand age does not directly correlate to a particular stand structure, however there are loosely defined 

age and size ranges that help define the typical young-growth stands in the project area. A variety of 

other stand attributes including tree diameter, trees per acre, basal area, and live crown ratio also 

contribute to a stand’s overall structure but do not, individually, describe it completely (Tongass 

Young Growth Management Strategy, 2014).
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 341

Precommercial Young Growth

Young-growth stands available for intermediate precommercial treatments in the POW LLA project 

area are between the ages of approximately 15 to 30 years of age and rarely to age 40. Stands older 

than 45 are considered nearing commercial size and therefore will often have an intermediate 

treatment delayed until an economical opportunity for treatment arises. Stands currently ready for 

precommercial thinning activities and other intermediate treatments were harvested between the late

1970s up to the early 2000s. The age classes commonly found in precommercial young growth are 

discussed below.

Age Class 0–15 Years (Harvested Between 2003 and 2017)

There are roughly 8,600 acres (5 percent) of young growth within the 0 to 15 year age class. Canopy 

cover in this age class can be open to almost completely closed with tree density ranging from 1,500

to 10,000 TPA and crown ratios at 75 to 100 percent depending on site quality. Understory shrubs and 

herb cover can be dense to sparse depending on the stocking of the site and age.

Trees in this age class are considered seedling or sapling size and are mostly all under 5 inches DBH.

Age Class 15–30 Years (Harvested Between 1988 and 2002)

There are roughly 49,000 acres (26 percent) of young growth within the 16 to 30 year age class. 

Stands within this age class that have yet to be precommercially thinned have begun to enter the stem 

exclusion stage and very little light can penetrate to the forest floor. Stand canopy cover ranges from 

75 percent to 100 percent with crown ratios being fairly small at 25 to 30 percent reflecting the intertree competition. At this stage understory vegetation can be very sparse to absent. Tree densities drop 

to around 3,000 TPA and understory vegetation may be more abundant on medium quality sites as 

they tend to take longer to reach the stem exclusion stage.

This age range is considered the optimal window for precommercial thinning. Most stands that are 

treated are thinned between the ages of 15 and 30 years. Precommercial thinning can interrupt or 

delay stem exclusion and reduces tree stocking from 3,000 trees per acre to approximately 220 – 300 

TPA. Of the 49,305 acres of young growth in this age class, 9,384 (19 percent) have been 

precommercially thinned.

Trees in these stands are considered pole-size and do not usually have any commercial value. Trees 

are generally greater than 5 inches DBH but less than 9 inches DBH with an average Quadratic Mean 

diameter (QMD) of around 4 inches DBH. On poorer sites the average DBH may be considerably 

smaller.

Age Class 31–45 Years (Harvested Between 1973 and 1987)

The 61,812 acres (33 percent) of precommercial young growth that fall within the 31 to 45 year age 

class are generally considered to be outside the PCT “window”. Stands in this age class are largely 

too advanced for precommercial thinning but do not have enough merchantable wood to make 

commercial thinning economically feasible. These stands, if unthinned, are in the stem exclusion 

stage with almost complete canopy cover and very little, if any, understory vegetation. If the trees 

have been thinned, then the densities are much lower, generally averaging 220 to 300 TPA, the 

crowns are larger, diameters are larger and there may be understory vegetation present. 

Approximately 65 percent (40,512 acres) of this age class has received at least one precommercial 

thinning treatment.

Generally the trees in these stands are pole-sized, ranging from 6 inches DBH to 12 inches DBH with 

some larger stems scattered throughout the stand. QMD averages around 7 inches DBH. On higher 
3 – Environment and Effects

342 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

quality sites there may be a commercial component with an average QMD of 10 inches DBH and up 

to 50 trees per acre or more with a 14 inches DBH or larger. On poorer sites the average DBH may be 

closer to 5 inches and areas of sparse vegetation may still be present.

Commercial Young Growth

The commercial viability of young-growth stands depends on several factors; one of the most 

important is site productivity. The oldest young-growth stands on Prince of Wales and the surrounding 

islands occur on low elevation, relatively high productivity sites. Many of these older (greater than 55

years of age) young-growth stands contain acreage that fall within beach corridors, alluvial deposits 

and productive salmon streams where timber harvest is limited by the Forest Plan. Many of these 

stands have never been precommercially thinned and remain in the stem exclusion phase. Some of the 

oldest stands (70+) are beginning to enter the understory re-initiation phase as natural disturbance and 

gap dynamics begin to take effect, particularly along shorelines, riparian edges, and sites with high 

exposure to storm winds.

Age Class 46–55 (Harvested Between 1963 and 1972)

There are 52,090 acres (27 percent) in this age class. Trees in these stands are generally too big to be 

treated precommercially, yet often do not carry enough volume or piece size to provide an economical 

commercial harvest. Trees in this age class are growing very rapidly, often putting on a thousand 

board feet per acre, per year, due to the highly productive sites occupied by many of these stands. 

Commercial opportunities, whether regeneration harvest or commercial thinning, are likely to exist in 

these stands during the 15 year lifetime of this document.

Age Class 55+ (Harvested Before 1963)

Across the POW LLA project area, there are 18,423 acres (10 percent) greater than 55 years of age. 

Depending on assumptions defined for economic harvest (see Timber Economics Section) or other 

resource considerations, the number of acres projected to be commercially viable for the near-term (1

to 15 years) ranges between roughly 1,000 in 2019 to over 35,000 in 2033. The number of acres 

increases annually as additional stands in the 46 to 55 age class “grow into” a merchantable volume 

class.

Forest Health and Natural Disturbance

Hemlock dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium tsugense), decay fungi, Alaska yellow-cedar decline, and 

wind disturbance are the primary concerns related to forest health and natural disturbances in the 

POW LLA project area when analyzing effects from vegetation management. In young-growth forests 

the primary concern is windthrow hazard in residual stands adjacent to even-aged harvest, or in 

variable retention harvest units with high exposure to storm winds.

Dwarf Mistletoe

The occurrence of dwarf mistletoe in late successional western hemlock stands is widespread 

throughout Southeast Alaska, and was recorded in many of the proposed harvest areas in the project 

area at varying infestation levels. Dwarf mistletoe is apparently limited by climate (elevation and 

latitude), becoming uncommon or absent above 500 feet in elevation and 59o N latitude (Haines, AK) 

(USDA Forest Service 2008b). It often produces cankerous swellings at the point of infection of limbs 

or main stems. It reduces the vigor and growth rate of infected trees and reduces the quality of timber. 

Heavily infected western hemlock trees have branch proliferations (called “witches’ brooms”), bole 

deformities, reduced height and radial growth, less desirable wood characteristics, and a greater 

likelihood of heart decay, top kill, and death. These symptoms are all potential problems in stands 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 343

managed for wood production. Growth loss in heavily infested stands can reach 40 percent or more 

(Thomson et al. 2008).

Clearcut harvest is an effective method of controlling hemlock dwarf mistletoe if reduction or 

eradication of the disease is consistent with management objectives (USDA Forest Service 2001). 

Substantial reductions to timber are only associated with high disease levels, however. High levels of 

hemlock dwarf mistletoe will only result in regenerated stands if numerous large, intensely infected 

hemlocks are well distributed after harvest (USDA Forest Service 2007b: p. 44).

Reconnaissance plots completed during 2016 and 2017 across the potential harvest old-growth stands 

showed 68 percent of acres with a low rating, 26 percent rated moderate, and 6 percent rated high. In 

young-growth, preliminary data shows trace amounts of dwarf mistletoe present throughout the 

project area, with higher concentrations existing along boundaries with old-growth stands and in 

stands with infected residual hemlock trees present.

Decay Fungi

Approximately one-third of the old-growth timber board foot volume in Southeast Alaska is 

defective, largely due to decay from heart-rot fungi (USDA Forest Service 2015b). Heart and rootrotting fungi in trees can weaken the support structures, thereby leading to breakage. As the broken 

portion of the tree falls to the forest floor, it may wound adjacent trees and lead to eventual infection 

of the damaged trees. This process decreases the overall health and windfirmness of the trees in the

stand, leading to decreased ability to provide a future timber supply and therefore reducing the stands 

ability to reach its desired condition. This process in old-growth forests also contributes to diversity in 

stand structure through gap dynamics.

Decay-causing fungi are present in all old-growth stands within the project area. Twenty percent of 

the sampled acres rated low for the occurrence of decay fungi (a low rating was given if less than 30 

percent of the trees sampled exhibited stem decay), 59 percent of the sampled acres rated moderate 

(30 to 50 percent of the trees sampled exhibited stem decay), and 21 percent of the sampled acres 

rated high (more than 50 percent of the trees sampled exhibited stem decay). Decay fungi is most 

abundant in late successional western hemlock stands, and volume loss associated with the decay is 

concentrated in hemlock and to a lesser extent spruce. Redcedar and yellow-cedar are considered less 

susceptible to infection by disease and decay fungi.

Preliminary data on commercial-sized young-growth stands within the project area show defect and 

decay levels are extremely low throughout, with isolated incidents of decay and defect generally only 

where residual hemlock remain from the original harvest or in stems that have died due to 

competition from other trees.

Wind Disturbance

The major natural disturbance agent in Southeast Alaska is wind, also referred to as windthrow. Wind 

influences stand structure and development, including beneficial effects, such as exposure of mineral

soil and mixing of soil associated with uprooted trees, which favors the regeneration of Sitka spruce 

and cedar, and the creation of ecologically beneficial large woody material.

Wind disturbance occurs over a continuum dependent on topographic features (Nowacki and Kramer 

1998, pp. 1-8). Old-growth stand structure develops naturally through a process called gap dynamics, 

whereby small openings in the forest canopy, created by trees falling or dying, are colonized by 

shrubs, and eventually conifers. Some gaps are created by wind disturbance, in the form of uprooted 

trees and stem breakage. Over time, a multi-layered stand develops via gap dynamics. In areas where 
3 – Environment and Effects

344 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

wind disturbance promotes gap dynamics, stands may reach a certain degree of stability with respect 

to wind.

The severity and frequency of wind disturbance is determined by many interrelated factors. These 

influencing factors include tree size and vigor, tree height-diameter ratio and crown size, slope, 

aspect, soil characteristics, stand composition, canopy structure and the characteristics of the 

surrounding topography, which may influence wind flow (Harris 1999). Timber harvest also has the 

potential to exacerbate the rate of windthrow in adjacent forest stands.

In the POW LLA project area, risk of high wind disturbance is generally found in areas with 

topographical exposure to prevailing southeast wind direction, or adjacent to newly created openings. 

The amount of existing windthrow in a stand is an important indicator of windthrow hazard. These 

characteristics and the stand’s windthrow history are used to evaluate the windthrow hazard for each 

stand when the silvicultural prescription is developed during implementation (Stathers et al. 1994, pp. 

15 to 17).

Windthrow and Young Growth

In general, the young-growth stands in the POW LLA project area will show little sign of any 

significant wind or weather damage. This is primarily due to their even consistency in age, heights 

and crowns. Rather consistent unbroken canopy is difficult for windthrow to get started in mainly 

because as the trees sway in the wind they dampen one another (Stathers et al. 1994). Being young, 

they most likely have not existed long enough to be exposed to a storm sufficient to overcome this 

dampening effect at any scale.

Once stands are opened up by harvesting, road construction or a large scale wind event the factors 

affecting individual tree stability become more important. Height-to-diameter ratio or the taper of the 

tree bole is a major concern in young growth. Tall thin trees are more likely to succumb to windthrow 

or stem breakage than trees with more robust bole taper. When the ratio of height to diameter is 

greater than about 90 the wind speed required to damage the tree is lower, and more likely to occur 

during any typical storm event (Stathers et al. 1994). Height-to-diameter ratios can be managed using 

appropriately timed stand treatments like precommercial and commercial thinning. Precommercial 

thinning reduces the height to diameter ratio and the susceptibility to wind damage. Thinning will be 

effective so long as the trees have not already obtained too high a ratio at which point the stand may 

be too much at risk to attempt the treatment. Precommercial thinning early in the rotation has proven 

to be an effective, low-risk method to positively influence more wind-resistant stem taper. Table 94

shows young-growth acres with and without PCT.

Table 94. Young-growth acres with or without precommercial thinning (PCT)

Young-growth acres with PCT Young-growth acres without PCT

82,492 107,008

Hemlock is a shade-tolerant species that can survive and continue to add height growth in 

overstocked stand conditions. Dense stands of young-growth hemlock are prone to develop high 

height-to-diameter ratios if they remain unthinned. The greater the spruce component of young stands 

the less pronounced this condition tends to be. As a result, mixed species stands will develop better 

diameter growth and lower height-to-diameter ratios.

Alaska Yellow-cedar Decline

Yellow-cedar decline functions as a classic forest decline and is linked to climate change (Hennon et 

al. 2016). Yellow-cedar trees are killed by freezing injury to fine roots where there is insufficient 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 345

snowpack to insulate them from lethal cold temperatures (less than 23 degrees F). Yellow-cedar is a 

long-lived tree, and many affected yellow-cedar trees established under the colder, more favorable 

climate of the Little Ice Age (1400 to 1850). An increased rate of yellow-cedar mortality began 

around 1900, spiked in the 1970s and 1980s, and continues today. On wet sites, where yellow-cedar 

faces less competition from western hemlock and Sitka spruce and is more abundant, yellow-cedar 

trees with shallow fine roots are particularly vulnerable to freezing injury. Research into root and 

foliar cold tolerance has shown that yellow-cedar roots are more vulnerable to this type of injury than 

associated conifers. Impacted forests tend to have mixtures of old dead, recently dead, dying, and 

living trees, indicating the progressive nature of tree death. From the time crown symptoms appear, it 

often takes 10 to 15 years for trees to die, making it difficult to associate observations from aerial 

surveys to weather events in particular years. Yellow-cedar is extraordinarily decay resistant and trees

often remain standing for 80 to 100 years after death (USDA Forest Service 2016a).

Recent surveys have identified yellow-cedar decline on 110,314 National Forest System acres and 

23,842 state and private acres in the POW LLA project area (USDA Forest Service 2017). The 

Tongass National Forest has partnered with the Alaska Coastal Rainforest Center and the University 

of Alaska Southeast to conduct economic feasibility studies of yellow-cedar salvage. In some settings, 

salvage recovery of yellow-cedar snags may yield valuable wood products and economic, social and 

ecological benefits. During project implementation, potential harvest stands will be assessed for the 

presence of yellow-cedar decline. Stands with yellow-cedar present but without decline may provide 

additional insight into site characteristics that help the species survive, and may serve as potential 

seed sources for nursery stock as well as locations where planting could increase yellow-cedar 

abundance and long-term survival. Silvicultural tools for conserving and expanding yellow-cedar’s 

presence in the project area include uneven-aged management, planting, and precommercial thinning.

While the species has experienced little overall range contraction, local populations are becoming 

smaller and generally confined to favorable sites. Sites formerly occupied by yellow-cedar are 

transitioning towards western hemlock-dominated plant communities, including understory 

vegetation (Oakes et al. 2014, Hennon et al. 2016).

The Forest Service has developed a comprehensive conservation strategy for yellow-cedar in 

Southeast Alaska to account for yellow-cedar decline. This report, A Climate Adaptation Strategy for 

Conservation and Management of Yellow-Cedar in Alaska (Hennon et al. 2016), focuses on what is 

known about yellow-cedar decline and opportunities for the active management of yellow-cedar for

33 management zones in Alaska, four of which are in the POW LLA project area. Recommended 

management for this project includes planting and thinning to favor yellow-cedar particularly on high

elevation and well-drained sites where long-term survival is favorable. The report is available for 

download at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr917.pdf.

Environmental Effects

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for the vegetation resource are estimated using quantifiable 

measures or indicators for actual effects, as appropriate. The level (magnitude and intensity) of effects 

are also assessed in terms of how widespread the effect is likely to be and how long it is likely to last. 

The effects of timber harvest on forest vegetation vary by silvicultural prescription and acres 

harvested. The following discussion of effects relates to the various components of the timber 

resource including stand structure, forest health and productivity, regeneration and species 

composition, and windthrow risk.

All proposed project activities are described in Appendix A and include resource specific direction to 

reduce or minimize effects. The activities not discussed below will have negligible effects to forest 

vegetation.
3 – Environment and Effects

346 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Silvicultural Systems

Silvicultural systems are defined as planned series of treatments for tending, harvesting, and reestablishing a stand of timber (Helms 1998). A silvicultural system will be selected for all proposed 

activities requiring a silvicultural prescription that best achieves overall project objectives as well as 

stand specific objectives and desired conditions defined by the underlying Forest Plan LUD.

Site-specific objectives that influence prescriptions include but are not limited to:

• Retention of old-growth characteristics, or the development of old-growth structural 

characteristics in young-growth.

• Providing for favorable timber sale economics and a sustainable level of forest products through 

time.

• Protection or enhancement of soils, watershed and aquatics, wildlife habitat, and scenery

characteristics.

• Improvement of stand health and productivity.

Activity Cards have been prepared for even-aged, two-aged and uneven-aged silvicultural systems, as 

well as intermediate treatments proposed in this project (Appendix A). Additionally, the 

Implementation Plan in Appendix B includes decision trees for determining how the appropriate 

silvicultural prescription will be selected during implementation.

Even-Aged Management

Even-aged management results in stands with a single age class of trees, and is generally regarded as 

the most effective method of regenerating old-growth stands where growth of existing trees is 

exceeded by decay. In old-growth and young-growth stands it is the most efficient harvest method to 

maximize timber production and achieve economic objectives (see Activity Cards 01 and 13).

Under this system, clearcutting or clearcutting with reserves would be prescribed and all or the 

majority of the merchantable trees would be harvested. Merchantable-size trees could be retained for 

other resource requirements or objectives.

Additional silvicultural treatments may be prescribed post-harvest including tree planting, 

precommercial thinning, and pruning (Activity Cards 11, 05, and 09). These treatments would be 

prescribed to influence species composition, increase individual tree growth, promote wood quality 

and enhance wildlife habitat.

Two-Aged Management

Two-aged management results in stands with two distinct age classes of trees providing for additional 

stand structure over even-aged management (see Activity Card 02).

Two-aged management prescriptions would be used in young-growth stands to maintain stand 

structure and habitat connectivity beneficial for wildlife, but could also be used to help minimize 

increases in watershed peak flow rates and shorten time periods between entries when compared to 

even-aged management. A second entry could occur in about 40 years or at a time when the second 

cohort of trees has been precommercially thinned and the slash from the initial treatment has broken 

down and does not restrict wildlife movement.

Under this system, patch clearcutting or clearcutting with reserves would be prescribed to retain least 

30 percent of the stand in an unharvested condition. A patchwork of openings up to 20 acres in size 

would be dispersed evenly throughout the stand. These areas would progress through structural 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 347

changes similar to even-aged management, including intermediate treatments. Timing of the second 

entries into these stands would be dependent on the individual stand’s site quality, and would be 

assessed as part of the diagnosis and prescription process during implementation.

Uneven-Aged Management

Uneven-aged management results in stands with three or more distinct age classes of trees with a 

range of diameter classes reasonably well distributed across the stand. In old-growth stands it is the 

most effective method for maintaining old-growth structure while removing a percentage of the 

merchantable volume in the stand. In young-growth stands that are currently in an even-aged

condition, this method will create a multi-aged stand structure through a series of periodic entries (see 

Activity Cards 03 and 14).

Under this system, single-tree and/or group selection prescriptions would be used with harvested 

openings generally two acres or less in size. Group selections would harvest no more than 

approximately 33 percent of the stand area during any entry and single tree selections would retain 

least 50 percent of the existing tree basal area during each entry. In young-growth stands, tree 

selection may vary between basal area reduction, diameter-based designation, and removal of trees in 

small groups or in strips. Specifications for cut and leave trees in stands under uneven-aged

management will be established during prescription development at implementation.

Intermediate Treatments

Intermediate treatments occur after stand establishment and prior to regeneration harvest to improve 

species composition, stand structure, growth, quality, and health, as well as wildlife and riparian 

habitat conditions.

For the POW LLA Project, intermediate treatments include precommercial and commercial thinning, 

pruning, girdling, slash treatment and planting (see Activity Cards 04, 05, 06, 07, 08 09, 10, and 11).

Stands considered for commercial thinning are anticipated to be at or near the volume per acre 

necessary for economic viability by the time treatments occur. Commercial thinning will be 

prescribed primarily to enhance wildlife habitat and address scenery, recreation, and hydrologic 

objectives.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Species Composition and Regeneration

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Alternative 1 proposes no new harvest in either old growth or young growth. Trajectories of species 

composition would depend on the current conditions and site quality of the individual stands. 

However, in general, as natural processes create small openings in the forest canopy western hemlock 

would have a competitive advantage of other species. At some point in the future, it is expected that 

some stands would suffer larger-scale disturbance from a severe storm event, leading to regeneration 

of those stands. Regeneration would likely be prolific with species composition similar to the former 

stand. There would be no opportunity to plant yellow-cedar in new, more suitable long-term sites.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Old-Growth Harvest

Even-aged Management and Two-aged Management

Where even-aged and two-aged management are prescribed, the resulting tree regeneration is 

expected to be vigorous and representative of the approximate species mix of the former stand.

Regeneration survey data shows that tree regeneration in previously harvested stands in the project 
3 – Environment and Effects

348 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

area is comprised on average of about twice as much Sitka spruce, about equal or slightly more cedar 

and somewhat less hemlock trees per acre than what is estimated to have occurred prior to harvest.

Regeneration of yellow-cedar has been raised as a concern. Both cedar species and Sitka spruce are 

relatively shade intolerant and therefore larger openings created by even-aged and two-aged 

management provide a favorable site for regeneration. Even-aged and two-aged management creates 

conditions favorable for intermediate treatments, such as tree planting and precommercial thinning

(Activity Card 5). There would be a good opportunity to introduce yellow-cedar on well-drained sites 

favorable for long-term survival of the species, and where it is currently absent, through planting 

(Activity Card 11). Where healthy populations of yellow-cedar exist prior to harvest, precommercial 

thinning to favor cedar regeneration and inter-planting could be utilized to increase yellow-cedar 

abundance in the post-harvest stand.

Uneven-aged Management

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed for old-growth harvest, understory regeneration would

be limited to parts of the stand where harvest occurs. Natural regeneration would occur in the 

unharvested portions of the stand at levels similar to an unharvested stand; however, the limited 

openings and low ground disturbance created during harvest would favor hemlock regeneration and 

may limit the regeneration of spruce and the cedars. To offset this, treatments would prioritize the 

retention of spruce and cedar advanced regeneration, as well as smaller-diameter intermediate spruce 

and cedar trees with good vigor (Deal and Tappeiner 2002). Uneven-aged single tree selection does 

not offer a good opportunity for intermediate treatments to manage species composition (such as 

planting or PCT), but due to the good species mix and the flexibility of single-tree selection and 

group selection prescriptions, it is unlikely that a significant change in species composition would 

occur.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Young-Growth Management

Even-aged Management

Even-aged management in commercial young-growth would produce a flush of understory vegetation 

and extensive tree regeneration. Sitka spruce and western hemlock would naturally occupy the 

openings, being the dominant species in the current stands. Opportunities for planting redcedar and 

yellow-cedar on favorable sites to increase diversity would be plentiful. Side-lighting into the residual 

stand from the openings would enhance understory plant abundance and diversity in those adjacent 

areas.

Two-aged Management

The effects of two-aged management on species composition and regeneration are essentially the 

same as even-aged management. In openings created, vigorous young stands of spruce and hemlock 

would be initiated. When compared with even-aged management, the increased occurrence of edge 

associated with two-aged management would increase the effects of edge and side-lighting on the 

residual stands. Openings created by two-aged management would create opportunities for planting 

redcedar and yellow-cedar on favorable sites through planting.

Uneven-aged Management

Under an uneven-aged prescription, smaller and more linear openings are expected to regenerate 

adequately with both spruce and hemlock. Due to the limited openings, the more shade-tolerant 

western hemlock is expected to have a competitive advantage. Where openings up to the allowable 2 

acres are created, there would be an opportunity to plant less tolerant species that may be under-
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 349

represented in the matrix, such as redcedar and yellow-cedar. The extensive edge created under this 

system would greatly enhance understory plant occurrence and diversity over the existing condition.

Commercial Thinning

Commercial thinning, where implemented to achieve timber production objectives, will likely remove 

more hemlock per acre than spruce. The more economically-desirable spruce and cedars will often be 

targeted for retention to facilitate more economic regeneration harvests in the future. Redcedar and 

yellow-cedar is under-represented in these older stands and could be retained depending on stand 

objectives. Understory vegetation is expected to respond positively to the treatment, as retained tree 

crowns would have to be kept wide enough to allow for harvesting equipment to move through the 

stand.

Where commercial thinning is implemented for habitat restoration objectives, there is potential for the 

creation of small openings similar to uneven-aged management. Understory vegetation would 

respond positively to these activities, particularly along edges or in canopy gaps. Where larger 

openings are created, planting redcedar or yellow-cedar may be considered if necessary.

Precommercial Thinning

Precommercial thinning is a valuable tool for improving species diversity and stand productivity 

during the early phases of stand development. Where implemented, PCT could prioritize the retention 

of cedars. Both species would be thinned to a more narrow spacing than other species, to increase in 

the occurrence of the cedar in young-growth stands long term.

Where cedar species are not present, spruce and hemlock would be retained on a spacing determined 

by stand objectives. Where wider spacing is implemented, there may be regeneration, especially of 

hemlock, but overall, regeneration in PCT stands is not expected.
3 – Environment and Effects

350 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 95. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Species Composition and Regeneration

Activity Silvicultural 

System Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Old-growth 

Harvest

Even-Aged No foreseeable 

change.

Better conditions 

for establishment 

of cedars and 

spruce in 

regenerated 

stands on 9,972 

acres. Increased 

opportunities for 

planting and 

managing 

regenerated 

stands for yellowcedar.

Better conditions 

for establishment 

of cedars and 

spruce in 

regenerated 

stands on 3,253

acres. Increased 

opportunities for 

planting and 

managing 

regenerated 

stands for yellowcedar. 

Better conditions 

for establishment 

of cedars and 

spruce in 

regenerated 

stands on 4,244 

acres. Increased 

opportunities for 

planting and 

managing 

regenerated 

stands for yellowcedar. 

UnevenAged

Likely increase in 

percentage of 

hemlock 

regeneration in 

harvested areas 

on 13,297 acres.

Likely increase in 

percentage of 

hemlock 

regeneration in 

harvested areas 

on 9,760 acres.

Likely increase in 

percentage of 

hemlock 

regeneration in 

harvested areas 

on 2,122 acres.

Young-growth 

Management

Even-Aged No foreseeable 

change in species 

composition. 

Regeneration would 

remain effectively 

non-existent until a

natural disturbance 

event opened 

canopy space.

No foreseeable 

change in 

composition. 

Regeneration 

would be 

maximized on 

15,156 acres. 

Increased 

opportunities for 

managing stands 

for yellow-cedar.

No foreseeable 

change in 

composition. 

Regeneration 

would be

maximized on 

15,630 acres. 

Increased 

opportunities for 

managing stands 

for yellow-cedar.

No foreseeable 

change in 

composition. 

Regeneration 

would be 

maximized on 

15,630 acres. 

Increased 

opportunities for 

managing stands 

for yellow-cedar. 

Two-Aged

UnevenAged

Likely increase in 

percentage of 

hemlock 

regeneration in 

harvested areas 

on 4,210 acres.

Likely increase in 

percentage of 

hemlock 

regeneration in 

harvested areas 

on 21,040 acres.

Likely increase in 

percentage of 

hemlock 

regeneration in 

harvested areas 

on 21,040 acres.

Intermediate 

Treatments

Thinning 

Planting 

Pruning

No foreseeable 

change in species 

composition. 

Regeneration would 

remain effectively 

non-existent until a 

natural disturbance 

event opened 

canopy space.

Activities would 

improve species 

composition and 

facilitate 

management for 

yellow-cedar.

Activities would 

improve species 

composition and 

facilitate 

management for 

yellow-cedar.

Activities would 

improve species 

composition and 

facilitate 

management for 

yellow-cedar.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 351

Direct and Indirect Effects on Stand Productivity and Forest Health

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Old-growth Stands

It is expected that forest growth would continue to be exceeded by decay in old-growth stands. Insect 

and disease processes would persist at approximately current levels but due to the general lack of 

vigor in unmanaged stands, the forest remains at risk and vulnerable to insect and disease attack. 

Hemlock dwarf mistletoe, where present, would remain in the stand and may infect hemlock stems 

that regenerate in gaps adjacent to infected overstory trees. This would reduce the vigor and growth 

rate of hemlock trees, while producing a low quality of timber, and in some cases, killing trees.

Young-growth Stands

In general, commercial size young-growth stands in the project area are typically healthy and growing 

well with no foreseeable insect or disease issues that need immediate attention. Stands that have 

received intermediate treatments will generally be more stable and vigorous. Unthinned stands may 

have stagnant growth and poor vigor that results in the stand having poor stability. Thinned stands 

will be more stable, and also growing more quickly than if left untreated. Stands that are untreated 

under this alternative will be more susceptible to decay and damage as the trees that die off and fall 

will damage standing trees, allowing access for decay agents. Uneven-aged, two-aged and 

commercial thinning treatments open up crowns and reallocate resources.

Without PCT, precommercial size stands would remain predominantly in a stem exclusion stage. The 

tight spacing between trees causes stress that would allow for an increased chance that insects and 

diseases could more easily take hold and spread. The overall productivity of the stand may be 

somewhat less than the full potential due to this overcrowding. Although these stands are relatively 

insect-, disease-, and defect-free, there would be a forfeiture of any opportunity to remove trees that 

are less likely to meet desired conditions and to promote the growth of those that are. Currently there 

are no foreseeable insect or disease issues in these stands; however, in light of a warming climate, 

there is potential for future issues to develop that are not apparent today if these stands are left in an 

overstocked condition. Yellow-cedar on poor sites would be susceptible to cedar decline.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Old-Growth Harvest

Even-aged Management

Under an even-aged prescription, stand productivity for the purpose of volume production would be 

maximized. The risk of insect, disease and decay outbreaks within the newly established growing 

timber crop would be minimized. The newly created stand would be comprised of vigorous, diseasefree trees. The insect and disease processes at work within the stand boundaries prior to harvest would 

be mostly eliminated, with the exception being along the edges where stands abut residual old-growth 

hemlock. Along these edges, young hemlock trees would be potentially at risk of dwarf-mistletoe 

infection depending upon the levels of infection in the surrounding residual trees.

Uneven-aged Management

Productivity and stand health would generally decline where uneven-aged management is prescribed 

in old-growth. Trees retained under uneven-aged management, and any in-growth within newlycreated openings, would be at risk of infection by the disease and decay already present within the 

stand. This risk would generally be proportional to the amount of basal area retained. In stands with a 

high retention prescribed, the potential for damage to retained trees during harvest activities is higher, 

as wounds created provide entry-points for decay organisms. Hemlock dwarf mistletoe would remain 
3 – Environment and Effects

352 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

in the stand and likely infect the hemlock regeneration even with selection criteria favoring the 

removal of infected overstory trees. Larger trees with high defect would likely be retained for 

wildlife, and would continue to occupy growing space while continuing to decline in vigor. These 

trees are not expected to experience an increase in growth rate or health as a response to the increased 

growing space created by harvest.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Young-Growth Management

Even-aged Management

Where even-aged management is prescribed in young-growth, there would be effectively no change 

in either the risk of insect or disease activity or the productivity of the land. Stands would be reset to 

the stand initiation phase of development, and will experience the same risk factors as the trees they 

replace. Reserve trees left within the unit boundaries may be infected with mistletoe or decay that 

could spread to the new cohort initiated from the even-aged harvest. While even-aged management 

using larger openings provides the lowest risk of damage to residual trees during the logging 

operation, a small number of trees are likely to be injured along the margin of openings and adjacent 

to roads and trails.

Two-aged Management

There would be no expected increase or decrease in productivity, and a slight increase in the risk of 

insect or disease activity in stands where two-aged management is implemented. The retained 

portions of the stand are not expected to be at any major risk of declining health within the projected 

rotation time, however, the increased edge resulting from smaller, more frequent openings increases 

the risk of harvest-related bole wounded when compared to even-aged management. Wounds become 

entry points for decay organisms and may attract insects such as bark beetles.

Uneven-aged Management

Uneven-aged management carries the greatest potential for insect and disease activity among 

commercial young-growth treatments for two primary reasons. First, multiple entries occurring in the 

same stand exposes residual trees to harvest-related injury several times over their lifetime. Wounded 

trees are more susceptible to decay organisms and if stressed, may attract insects such as bark beetles. 

Second, uneven-aged management results in older age classes of trees occupying the landscape than 

the other two systems. Growing older stands allows more time for decay and other issues to develop 

as the older trees become less vigorous.

Commercial Thinning

Commercial thinning for timber management objectives would maintain or increase the growth rate 

of dominate and co-dominant trees by removing trees in the lower crown classes and increase timber 

volume over the rotation.

Commercial thinning for other resources objectives can simulate development of more complex 

canopy structures and increase the amount of understory forage for wildlife and maintain or improve 

scenic quality. Average tree health could decline in these stands, if diseased and/or dying trees are 

retained to provide snag habitat and accelerate the late-seral structure desired in these stands. A higher 

proportion of healthy trees with good form and higher value could be targeted for harvest to improve 

project economics than in stands commercially thinned for timber production.

Precommercial Thinning

Precommercial thinning improves forest health and insect and disease resistance long-term by 

removing diseased trees early and opening growing space that reduces competition stress and 
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 353

mortality. Where PCT is used, stress on trees due to overcrowding would be reduced. Trees would be 

better spaced and individual trees that exhibit signs of disease or decay would be a priority for 

removal. During PCT operations, yellow-cedar can be promoted on sites where decline is of less 

concern.

Table 96. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Forest Health and Productivity

Activity Silvicultural 

System Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Old-growth 

Harvest

Even-Aged Decline in

general vigor and 

forest health

outpaces growth

until natural 

disturbance.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would be 

maximized on 

9,972 acres.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would be 

maximized on 

3,253 acres.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would be 

maximized on 

4,244 acres.

Uneven-Aged Forest health and 

productivity 

would generally 

decline or remain 

unchanged on 

13,297 acres.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would generally 

decline or remain 

unchanged on 

9,760 acres.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would generally 

decline or remain 

unchanged on 

2,122 acres.

Younggrowth 

Management

Even-Aged Increased 

susceptibility to 

insect and 

disease due to 

high densities on 

19,366 acres.

Virtually no 

change in forest 

health or 

productivity on 

15,156 acres.

Virtually no 

change in forest 

health or 

productivity on 

15,630 acres.

Virtually no 

change in forest 

health or 

productivity on 

15,630 acres. Two-Aged

Uneven-Aged Slightly higher 

risk of insect and 

disease activity 

over time on 

4,210 acres.

Slightly higher 

risk of insect and 

disease activity 

over time on 

21,040 acres.

Slightly higher 

risk of insect and 

disease activity 

over time on 

21,040 acres.

Intermediate 

Treatments

Thinning 

Planting 

Pruning

Decreased vigor 

and increased 

susceptibility to 

insect and 

disease due to 

overstocking.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would be 

improved on 

4,500 acres per 

year.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would be 

improved on 

4,500 acres per 

year.

Forest health and 

productivity 

would be 

improved on 

4,500 acres per 

year.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Stand Structure

Alternative 1 – No-Action

No additional old-growth or young-growth harvest would occur on NFS lands under Alternative 1. 

Timber harvest would continue to occur on those areas under contract or if already NEPA-cleared. 

Old-growth stands would remain in a predominantly old-growth condition. Disease and decay would 

continue to degrade the structural integrity of mature and overmature trees, causing eventual mortality 

and increasing the stands’ susceptibility to frequent, small-scale wind disturbance events. Understory 

vegetation would occur where these disturbances create canopy gaps. Some stands within the project 

area may eventually experience larger-scale disturbance due to a strong storm event, leading to the 

regeneration of the stands in what would likely be a two-aged or possibly, in extreme cases, an evenaged condition. Young-growth stands would continue to grow, however in the absence of thinning 

experience slower growth rates with trees failing to reach their diameter potential at maturity.

Previous NEPA-cleared young-growth stands of precommercial thinning age (15 to 35) would 

continue to be thinned at an assumed rate of 1,500 to 2,000 acres per year for the next 5 or 6 years. 
3 – Environment and Effects

354 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Stands receiving treatment would experience a longer period of time in the stand initiation stage, with 

higher levels of understory plants. Unthinned stands of lower productivity would advance similarly to 

thinned stands of higher productivity, and unthinned stands of average to high productivity would 

continue into stem exclusion and are expected to stay in that structure for the next 50 to 100 years 

before transitioning to the understory re-initiation stage.

Commercial-aged young-growth stands would continue growing at a steady rate until they reach the 

peak of their annual growth. These stands would take longer to develop old-growth structure and may 

remain in a stem exclusion stage for an extended period of time, limiting the amount of understory 

vegetation beneficial for wildlife. Incremental advancement of disease and decay, coupled with smallscale disturbance events, would prompt gap dynamics toward the end of this timeline and the stands 

would progress through the understory re-initiation phase and eventually to old-growth.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Old-Growth Harvest

The structure of the forest would be changed by harvest under all of the action alternatives. The 

spatial and temporal scope of this change would vary by alternatives (Table 97).

Even-aged Management

Clearcutting or clearcutting with reserves under even-aged management would result in the creation 

of relatively homogenous young-growth stands primarily without any older residual trees present 

within harvest unit boundaries. New stands would develop from seedling establishment, through 

stand initiation and into stem exclusion, where extreme competition for canopy space would shade 

out understory vegetation. Eventually the stand would enter the stage where overstory tree mortality 

opens the canopy and re-initiates understory development. At this stage, the stand would begin to 

develop characteristics representative of old-growth forests. The length of time any young-growth 

stand spends in any of these phases is dependent on site productivity, the susceptibility of the site to 

small or large-scale natural disturbance, and any future treatments that are applied, such as thinning.

Uneven-aged Management

Uneven-aged prescriptions in old growth would result in stands with numerous residual trees 

remaining after harvest, dispersed throughout the stand. Openings up to 2 acres would result in 

increased understory vegetation and new tree regeneration. Stands with a low to moderate windthrow 

risk would be prescribed a retention level no less than 50 percent of the live basal area. Stands with a 

high rating for windthrow risk, as well as stands with wildlife, watershed, or scenery concerns would 

be prescribed a retention level no less than 75 percent of the live basal area. Regular, periodic entries 

in the future are expected to maintain three or more distinct age classes and a range of diameter 

classes in a reasonably well-dispersed manner across the stand, with the intended result being a stand 

of high structural diversity.

In stands prescribed a 50 percent retention, post-harvest stand structure would be expected to 

resemble stands transitioning between understory re-initiation and old-growth. The understory reinitiation is the structural stage just before a naturally developing stand begins to attain true oldgrowth structure (Oliver and Larson 1996, p. 259-275). These stands would have three age classes, 

consisting of residual dominant trees, residual intermediate and suppressed trees, and the understory 

that would be initiated by opening the canopy.

Where 75 percent retention is prescribed, post-harvest structural changes would be minor. The stand 

would retain old-growth structure after harvest and through to the next harvest entry if unaffected by 

a major natural disturbance event.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 355

Due to the relatively intact nature of the post-harvest overstory in the 50 and 75 percent retention 

stands, the stand initiation and stem exclusion phases as seen after even-aged harvesting would not 

occur, barring a large natural disturbance.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Young-Growth Management

The structure of the forest would be changed by harvest under all of the action alternatives. The 

spatial and temporal extent of this change vary by alternatives (see Table 97).

Even-aged Management

In young-growth stands where even-aged management is prescribed, the entire stand would be

harvested and naturally regenerate. These stands would advance through the stand development 

process, entering stem exclusion between 15 and 30 years post-harvest and remaining there until 

either the next harvest entry occurs or the stand transitions naturally into understory re-initiation 

structure through small-scale disturbance. The length of time these structural phases last will depend 

upon whether the stand receives intermediate treatments (such as thinning, etc.) and the productivity 

of the land.

Two-aged Management

In young-growth stands where two-aged management is prescribed, at least 15 percent of the harvest 

area would remain intact, with retained trees either grouped or distributed throughout. Harvest 

openings would progress through structural changes similar to even-aged management, including 

intermediate treatments. Second entry timing into these stands would be dependent on the individual 

stand’s site quality, and would be assessed as part of the diagnosis and prescription process during 

implementation.

Uneven-aged Management

Where uneven-aged management group selection is used, roughly two-thirds of the stand area would 

be retained in the first harvest entry. Where individual tree section is used between 50 and 75 percent 

of the stand basal area would be retained. These areas would continue to advance from late stem 

exclusion to understory re-initiation structure. The harvested areas would regenerate as homogenous 

young growth and move through the same structural stages as the even-aged system already 

discussed. The second entry would be planned to occur in about 30 years. This entry would similarly 

harvest another third of the stand. Following this harvest, there would remain one-third of the stand in 

late understory re-initiation structure that would be trending toward old-growth structure. One-third of 

the stand would be in 30-year-old stem exclusion from the first harvest and follow-up precommercial 

thinning (PCT) if thinned, and one-third would be regenerating new growth. A third entry would then 

occur 60 years in the future harvesting the oldest portion of the stand. Harvest in this manner would 

result in stands of high vertical and horizontal structural diversity due to the variability in age, tree 

size, and individual tree characteristics. Repeated harvest entries in this manner would generally 

mimic a natural regime of frequent but low-intensity disturbances.

Commercial Thinning

Where commercial thinning is used, stand structure would be expected to change from stem exclusion 

to a condition resembling understory re-initiation. The extent to which this change occurs will be 

dependent upon the objectives of the prescription. Where timber production is the primary objective 

for the stand, the post-harvest stand would likely have evenly-distributed residual trees. Trees selected 

for retention would be of high value for future commercial harvest, while defective or excess

codominant and dominant trees would be removed from the stand.
3 – Environment and Effects

356 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Where resources other than timber production are the primary objective of the treatment, the stand 

structure following thinning may more closely resemble a multi-aged stand moving from understory 

re-initiation toward old-growth. Small openings that are created would be occupied by understory 

vegetation, and higher defect trees would be retained following harvest to encourage future structural 

development.

Precommercial Thinning

Stands proposed for PCT generally range from the stand initiation stage to stem exclusion. A PCT 

treatment would delay and/or remove the development of the stem exclusion stage where present and 

promote the development of understory re-initiation stage structure sooner in stands that are already 

in stem exclusion. In non-development areas where the desired condition is ultimately old-growthlike structure, PCT would promote conditions that allow that objective to be achieved sooner than if 

left untreated.

Precommercial thinning in riparian and beach fringe areas would promote the development of 

understory re-initiation and old-growth structure sooner. Within-stand diversity can be increased by 

favoring trees with specific characteristics important for wildlife. Unthinned wildlife corridors would 

be maintained as needed to assure wildlife access after thinning. Leaving these areas unthinned would 

provide additional structural diversity to these stands and, due to the limited area, is not expected to 

affect the development of advanced stand structure.

Stream and floodplain Restoration

Where riparian instream work occurs adjacent to precommercial size young-growth stands, some 

trees would likely need to be cut for access trails between the stream and the existing road system.

The number of trails will be minimized and not expected to effect the stand structure at the stand 

level.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 357

Table 97. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Stand Structure

Activity Silvicultural 

System Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Old-growth 

Harvest

Even-Aged No 

foreseeable 

change.

9,972 acres 

converted from 

old-growth 

structure to 

homogeneous 

young-growth 

stands.

3,253 acres 

converted from oldgrowth structure to 

homogeneous 

young-growth 

stands.

4,244 acres 

converted from oldgrowth structure to 

homogeneous 

young-growth 

stands.

UnevenAged

13,297 acres 

remaining in a 

predominantly oldgrowth structure

post-harvest.

9,760 acres 

remaining in a 

predominantly oldgrowth structure

post-harvest

2,122 acres 

remaining in a 

predominantly oldgrowth structure

post-harvest

Young-growth 

Management

Even-Aged Continued

stand

structural 

development 

15,156 acres 

regenerated from 

current condition 

to early stand 

development.

15,630 acres 

regenerated from 

current condition to 

early stand 

development.

15,630 acres 

regenerated from 

current condition to 

early stand 

development. Two-Aged

UnevenAged

4,210 acres would 

receive treatments 

that create more 

heterogeneous 

forest structure.

21,040 acres would 

receive treatments 

that create more 

heterogeneous 

forest structure.

21,040 acres would 

receive treatments 

that create more 

heterogeneous 

forest structure.

Intermediate 

Treatments

Thinning 

Planting 

Pruning

No 

foreseeable 

change.

Canopy closure 

would be reduced, 

and understory 

vegetation 

increased on up to 

4,500 acres per 

year.

Canopy closure 

would be reduced, 

and understory 

vegetation 

increased on up to 

4,500 acres per 

year.

Canopy closure 

would be reduced, 

and understory 

vegetation 

increased on up to 

4,500 acres per 

year.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Windthrow Risk

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Under Alternative 1, old-growth stands would remain in a predominantly old-growth condition, 

experiencing relatively frequent, small-scale disturbance events until a large-scale event occurs. 

Windthrow risk to old-growth stands in the project area would remain relatively unchanged.

Commercial harvest and thinning of young-growth would not occur. Because of overstocking, trees 

would generally have a high height-to-diameter ratio, which would decrease their long-term 

resistance to windthrow. In the short term, while stands retained the dense structure of stem exclusion, 

risk to windthrow would be decreased.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Old-Growth Harvest

Even-aged Management

Where even-aged management are prescribed, the entire overstory is removed within the bounds of 

the stand. In these stands, windthrow risk would be eliminated. Young-growth stands that replace the 

harvested stand would have a more uniform canopy with vigorously-growing, flexible upper stems, 

and would typically be more windfirm. The lower wind risk of these stands is expected to last through 

the next rotation (approximately 100 years in the future).
3 – Environment and Effects

358 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Exposed stand edges would, however, have increased risk of windthrow in the first few years 

following harvest due to the adjacent opening. Clearcuts can increase windthrow hazard by increasing 

surface wind speed and turbulence. Windthrow damage is usually concentrated within the first 30 to 

60 feet of the boundary. Above 2 or 3 acres, opening size does not appear to play a role in the amount 

of windthrow (Stathers et al. 1994).

Stands where two-aged management is prescribed have both large openings and increased edge and 

may therefore have a slightly higher potential for wind damage. This may be somewhat offset by the 

limited opening sizes, and with strategic placement or shape of the openings during implementation.

Windthrow will be assessed for each individual stand at implementation. In stands rated for high 

windthrow risk, specific measures will be prescribed to reduce or minimize risk to adjacent stand 

edges or along stream buffers that protrude into harvest openings. Additionally, RMAs within harvest 

stands that have stream channel stability concerns and potential for windthrow, will be evaluated for 

RAW (Reasonable Assurance of Windfirmness). Those RMAs determined to be at risk will receive a 

field review, and a specific windfirming prescription would be determined.

Uneven-aged Management

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed, windthrow risk can be mitigated by increasing basal 

area retention requirements. The more intact a canopy remains post-harvest, the more likely that wind 

risk would remain approximately the same as in the stand prior to harvest. Monitoring results from 

the Alternatives to Clearcutting Study reveal approximately a 5 percent loss of basal area with a 75 

percent basal area retention prescription (McClellan 2007).

Under Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, stands with a high windthrow risk would be prescribed no less than 75 

percent retention. A mostly unbroken, continuous canopy would remain after harvest in stands with a 

75 percent retention prescription. This would reduce the risk of windthrow along stand edges and 

adjacent to stream buffers that protrude into the harvest area. In most cases, the uneven-aged

prescription would eliminate the need for additional windfirming treatments in RAW zones.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 5 – Young-Growth Management

Even-aged Management

Where even-aged and two-aged management are prescribed, the entire overstory is removed within 

the bounds of the stand. In these stands, windthrow risk would be eliminated. The future younggrowth stand created would typically be equally windfirm to the stand it replaced. Exposed stand 

edges would, however, have increased risk of windthrow in the first few years following harvest due 

to the adjacent opening. This risk is increased in relation to the difference in age between the newly 

created stand and the adjacent stand. For example, an intact old-growth stand adjacent to a recently 

harvested young-growth stand would have a much higher risk of windthrow than a 20 year old, evenaged young-growth stand. Windthrow risk can be minimized through careful planning of how the 

shape, location, and proximity of one harvested stand relates to another.

Two-aged Management

In two-aged management the potential for wind damage to stand edges might be slightly higher than 

under even-aged management because of the increased edge, however this may be somewhat offset 

by the smaller opening size associated with these prescriptions. Windthrow risk can be minimized 

through careful planning of the size, shape and location of openings.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 359

Uneven-aged Management

Where uneven-aged management is prescribed, opening size would generally be limited to 2 acres or 

less, and all other harvest would occur within the matrix of the stand as single tree selection. In areas 

of high windthrow risk, harvest activities will retain at least 75 percent of the original stand’s basal 

area. This level of canopy retention is considered to be windfirm (Stathers et al. 1994).

Commercial Thinning

Commercially thinned young-growth stands would have an increased risk of windthrow immediately 

after treatment. However, stands with high risk for windthrow would maintain at least 75 percent of 

the pre-treatment basal area. Openings created with prescriptions designed for habitat restoration 

would be designed to minimize windthrow risk.

Precommercial Thinning

Stands receiving precommercial thinning would have an increased risk of windthrow immediate 

following treatment. Residual tree spacing prescribed would mitigate this risk, and over time the 

treated areas would stabilize. Precommercial thinning promotes tree and stand characteristics that 

impart long-term windfirmness.
3 – Environment and Effects

360 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Table 98. Summary of Direct/Indirect Effects on Windthrow Risk

Activity Silvicultural 

System Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 5

Old-growth 

Harvest

Even-Aged No foreseeable 

change.

Windthrow risk 

would be 

eliminated on 

9,972 acres. 

Risk would be 

increased along 

edges of 

openings

greater than +/-

3 acres.

Windthrow risk 

would be 

eliminated on 

3,253 acres. 

Risk would be 

increased along 

edges of 

openings

greater than +/-

3 acres.

Windthrow risk 

would be 

eliminated on 

4,244 acres. 

Risk would be 

increased along 

edges of 

openings

greater than +/-

3 acres.

Uneven-Aged No foreseeable 

change.

No foreseeable 

change.

No foreseeable 

change.

Young-growth 

Management

Even-Aged Near-term 

resistance to 

windthrow 

would increase 

due to stem 

density. Longterm 

windfirmness 

would decrease 

as stands 

underwent 

structural 

development.

Windthrow risk 

would be 

increased along 

edges of 

openings

greater than +/-

3 acres.

Windthrow risk 

would be 

increased along 

edges of 

openings

greater than +/-

3 acres. 

Windthrow risk 

would be 

increased along 

edges of 

openings

greater than +/-

3 acres. 

Two-Aged

Uneven-Aged 4,210 acres 

would receive 

treatments that 

only slightly 

increased risk 

of windthrow.

21,040 acres 

would receive 

treatments that 

only slightly 

increased risk 

of windthrow.

21,040 acres 

would receive 

treatments that 

only slightly 

increased risk 

of windthrow.

Intermediate 

Treatments

Thinning 

Planting 

Pruning

No foreseeable 

change.

Decreased risk 

of windthrow 

long-term on up 

to 4,500 acres

per year.

Decreased risk 

of windthrow 

long-term on up 

to 4,500 acres

per year

Decreased risk 

of windthrow 

long-term on up 

to 4,500 acres

per year

Cumulative Effects

The analysis area for cumulative effects is the entire POW LLA project area. The following are the 

activities expected to have cumulative effects to forest vegetation within the next 15 years:

• Continued timber harvest under the Big Thorne Project Stewardship IRTC and other sales under 

contract from the Big Thorne Project EIS

• Future sales from the Big Thorne Project EIS and Soda Nick EA for both young growth and old 

growth

• Small sales including microsales under contract, as well as future microsales

• Firewood cutting and free use sawtimber removal along existing roads

• Continued precommercial thinning on NFS lands throughout the project area

• Continued timber harvest under the GNA Kosciusko YG contract in young growth on Kosciusko 

Island

• Harvest on non-National Forest System lands within the project area
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 361

Precommercial Activities on All Land Ownerships

The POW LLA project area has approximately 380,950 acres of young-growth resulting from past 

even-aged harvest across all ownerships. Of these acres, roughly 192,275 are located on land owned 

by entities other than the National Forest System, and 80,445 acres were harvested less than 30 years 

ago. These stands are now in, or approaching, the window for precommercial thinning. Additionally, 

approximately 8,000 acres of young-growth on NFS lands are currently NEPA-cleared and awaiting 

PCT treatment.

Where accomplished, PCT would delay or prevent the stem exclusion phase of stand development 

and result in higher levels of understory vegetation, improve overall stand productivity, likely favor 

spruce and cedar over western hemlock, and improve windthrow risk over the long-term.

Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Commercial Harvest on All Land 

Ownerships

Several timber sales and integrated resource projects covered under the Big Thorne Project EIS are 

currently sold and under operation. Approximately 872 acres of even-aged harvest and 420 acres of 

uneven-aged harvest remain to be implemented under that decision, from which various small sales 

will be offered and likely harvested on an average of 100 acres per year for the next 5 to 10 years. 

Approximately 1,461 acres of young-growth timber on Kosciusko Island will be harvested from the 

decision on the Kosciusko Vegetation Management and Watershed Improvement Project EA. Of 

these, 396 acres are planned for even-aged, 856 acres are planned for two-aged, and 209 acres are 

planned for uneven-aged management. On Heceta Island, 250 acres of young-growth salvage harvest 

is currently being planned.

There are 132,270 acres of potentially economical forested land under other ownership within the 

project area. Approximately 38,290 of these acres are even-aged young-growth of which 1,124 are 

currently greater than 46 years old and are anticipated to be commercially viable within the next 15 

years. The remaining 93,980 acres are currently old-growth with at least 8 MBF per acre.

These other ownerships include the State of Alaska, the Alaska Mental Health Trust, the University of 

Alaska Trust, and various native corporations, the largest of which is Sealaska Corporation. The rate 

and location of future old-growth harvest for these other ownerships is unknown, but estimates can be 

made based on public 5-year schedules, rates of past harvest, and capacity of the local industry. It is 

assumed, based on these estimates, that 5,807 acres of old-growth harvest per year across these other 

ownerships, for a total harvest over the next 15 years of 87,110 acres. It is also assumed that 100 

percent of these acres will be managed through even-aged harvest, and that this harvest would result 

in the creation of even-aged forests in addition to that proposed in the POW LLA Project. Acres 

harvested on non-FS land would undergo effects similar to those harvested under an even-aged

management system as described above, and any future precommercial activities would have effects 

as outlined above.

The rate and location of future young-growth harvest on other ownerships is subject to the same 

unknowns as that of old-growth. For the purpose of estimating effects, it is assumed that all 1,124

acres considered to be approaching a commercially viable age class will be harvested under evenaged management over the next 15 years.

Regeneration is expected to be vigorous and representative of the approximate species mix of the 

former stand. Slight changes in species composition in the project area may occur as a result of 

harvest operations and follow-up treatments such as precommercial and commercial thinning.
3 – Environment and Effects

362 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Stands heavily affected by yellow-cedar decline are naturally progressing toward hemlock-dominated 

communities (Oakes et al. 2014). Western redcedar and mountain hemlock may also replace yellowcedar on lower productivity sites, thus increasing their overall presence on the landscape (Hennon et 

al. 2016). Planting of Alaska yellow-cedar can be used where site conditions allow to maintain or 

increase its composition in the stand or group of stands and reduce the effects of yellow-cedar 

decline. It is unknown whether or to what level non NFS landowners would use this management 

approach.

Effects of timber harvest to forest vegetation are usually confined to the harvested stand area and its 

immediate vicinity. However, when the landscape-scale of many stands is considered, the primary 

effects of timber harvest results in greater structural diversity and improved vegetation health and 

productivity. While windthrow risk will temporarily increase along edges of residual stands following 

harvest, risk will likely decrease overall as more stands are converted from high-defect old growth to 

vigorous young growth under even-aged management. The rate of harvest, variation in site 

productivity, spatial relationship of harvested stands to reserves, and the locations of ownership 

boundaries in relation to federal land affect the scale and intensity of these impacts to the landscape.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 363

Wetlands

Objectives are to conduct land management activities so that loss of wetland functions and values 

caused by harvest, road construction, and recreation development are minimized and/or avoided 

whenever practicable.

Methodology

Effects to wetlands will be assessed by overlaying the National Wetlands Inventory layer with 

existing and proposed activities. The acres of wetlands impacted by existing and proposed roads, 

trails, recreation sites, mines, and other activities will be estimated. The number of acres of wetlands 

impacted by timber harvest will be estimated. Monitoring data and literature will be used to describe 

the effects the various activities on wetland function.

Units of Measure

The measures used to compare the effects of the alternatives include:

• acres of wetlands impacted by roads, trails, recreation sites, mines, and other developments; and

• acres of wetlands impacted by timber harvest.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Analysis

The spatial analysis area for the affected environment and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is 

the same as the project area since all wetland effects are expected to be within the project’s boundary. 

The temporal bounds of the cumulative effects analysis includes all existing wetland disturbances 

since the beginning of land management in the project area to the reasonably foreseeable future. Past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are described in more detail in Appendix C of this 

FEIS.

Data Limitations

The National Wetlands Inventory map does not cover Coronation and Forrester Islands. Forrester 

Island is a National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and no management activities are proposed there. No 

activities are proposed on Coronation Island. The shoreline used for the POW LLA project area 

boundary does not match the shoreline in the National Wetlands Inventory Layer.

The differences in shoreline are mostly in the intertidal area, and in many cases consist of small off 

shore rocks, rocky shore or other intertidal areas below mean high tide, where the only proposed 

activities are log transfer facilities. Non-exempt activities like marine access facilities require U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers permitting.

Affected Environment

Wetland Characterization

Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater 

with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.” (40 CFR 230.41 (a) 

(1). Wetlands are valued for their physical, chemical, and biological functions. Wetlands moderate 

flooding, reduce runoff and sedimentation, provide wildlife and plant habitat, and may help sustain 

stream flow during dry periods. Physical functions may include flood conveyance, surface and ground 

water regulation, sediment retention, and temperature moderation. Chemical functions may include 

nutrient storage, pH moderation, and carbon storage. Biological functions include habitat for 
3 – Environment and Effects

364 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

terrestrial, aquatic, and marine plants and animals. In addition, forested wetlands are an important 

component of the forest land base.

Wetlands have been affected by past timber harvest and associated activities (road construction and 

rock pit development), as well as recreation developments, hydropower, and mineral developments. 

Stream restoration has had negligible effects on wetlands and in some instances has enhanced wetland 

habitats and functions.

Due to the extensive nature of wetlands in the POW LLA project area, wetland avoidance was not 

feasible during past road planning and past construction activities. Some wetlands are valued for their 

timber resources while others support low volume or non-forested wetland types.

The National Wetlands Inventory (Cowardin 1979) was used to identify wetland types in the project 

area. An explanation of different wetland types can be found in Cowardin (1979) and in the 2016 

Forest Plan Amendment FEIS.

Existing Wetland Disturbances in the Project Area

Past timber harvest activities, road construction, mineral developments, trails, recreation sites, and 

other management activities have disturbed and displaced wetlands in the project area. Table 99

displays the acres of wetlands harvested and acres of wetlands impacted by past road construction. 

There are approximately 893,745 acres of wetlands mapped on the project area (about 39 percent of 

the project area).

Table 99. Wetland Acres and Existing Wetland Disturbances in the POW LLA Project Area

Palustrine

Unit Estuary Riverine Lacustrine Forested Scrubshrub Emergent Other

Total wetland (ac) 22,529 444 34,538 555,821 115,844 153,541 11,028

% of wetland type 

in project area 1 0.02 2 24 5 7 0.5

Harvested on 

federal, state, and 

private lands (ac)

953 9 109 29,431 1,432 2,985 157

Roaded on 

federal, state, and 

private lands 

(acres)

37 0 4 2,849 104 410 7

Impacted by 

facilities 

(recreation sites, 

trails and mines, 

hydro) (acres)

4 1 4 30 18 25 0

Total impacts (ac) 994 10 117 32,310 1,554 3,420 164

% of wetland type 

impacted 4.4 2.3 0.3 5.8 1.3 2.2 1.5

Note: Calculation of roaded acres based on 40-foot wide disturbed soil road corridor. Sums may not match due to rounding.

Timber harvest on non-forested sites is due to inclusions at the scale of mapping harvest units and wetlands. There is no 

National Wetlands inventory for Coronation or Forrester Islands. Hydropower sites convert wetlands to deepwater or 

seasonally inundated wetlands.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 365

About 9 percent of past harvest has occurred on forested wetlands. These wetlands are common 

across the project area, covering 24 percent of the project area. In areas of harvest, changes to wetland 

hydrology are temporary as vegetation regenerates and provides interception and evapotranspiration 

surfaces similar to pre-harvest conditions. Wetlands with timber harvest are expected to remain 

wetlands.

Road construction covers wetlands with road fill and hillslope hydrologic connectivity can be lost due 

to road ditches and road fills. Impacts to wetland hydrologic function is typically limited to a few 

meters on either side of the road corridor as long as proper drainage structures are installed to ensure 

hydrologic connectivity is maintained (USDA Forest Service, 2016c).

Wetland Avoidance

Wetlands are avoided to the extent practicable. On the project area, on a percentage basis, more roads 

and timber harvest occur on upland sites than on wetland sites. Approximately 17 percent of the 

existing NFS roads are on wetlands, and only about 9 percent of the existing harvest is on wetlands,

whereas about 39 percent of the project area is mapped wetland. Interpretation of these numbers 

suggests that road construction has avoided wetlands to the extent practicable on the project area. The 

forested wetlands in the POW LLA project area often include stands of commercial timber and are 

managed for their timber resources. The most economical way to access the forested wetlands timber 

stands often involves building road. Within the context of overall project objectives, including 

economics and minimizing harm to the environment, past road construction has avoided wetlands to 

the extent practicable in the project area.

Environmental Effects

Activities common to all alternatives (such as invasive plant treatments, treatments to correct blocked 

karst features, precommercial thinning treatments, and instream treatments to address water quality

and habitat issues) would adhere to the Forest Plan, R10 Soil Quality Standards, and National and 

R10 Best Management Practices and are not expected to negatively affect wetland resources.

Effects Common to all Action Alternatives

All action alternatives propose some level of timber harvest and road construction on forested 

wetlands. The effects of timber harvest (primarily increased soil moisture levels) on forested wetlands 

are expected to be temporary. All harvested sites are expected to regenerate naturally based on many 

decades of regeneration surveys. Trees are expected to grow more slowly on wetland sites. No new

effects to wetlands from young-growth harvest are anticipated unless new road construction is 

needed, which is analyzed as part of the effects of road building.

The effects of road building on wetland varies based on the substrate (soil type) and the landscape 

position of the wetland. Regardless of the type and location, road construction on wetlands results in a 

loss of wetland acreage. Based on research and monitoring conducted on the Tongass National Forest 

(much of it in the project area), hydrologic effects beyond the disturbed soil (road) corridor are 

expected to be limited to within a few meters of the road (Glaser 1999, Kahklen and Moll 1999, 

McGee 2000, and Landwehr 2011).

Due to the preponderance of wetlands and the interspersed nature of wetlands with uplands on the 

project area, complete avoidance of wetlands from proposed road construction activities is not 

practicable. All proposed roads would be constructed according to State-approved BMPs as required 

by 33 CFR 323. All roads through wetlands would also follow the 15 baseline provisions provided in 

33 CFR 323.
3 – Environment and Effects

366 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

The action alternatives also include potential trail and recreation site developments. Impacts to 

wetlands from trails and recreation sites are similar to roads if fill is used. Some trails are native tread,

in which case the wetland remains wetland. If rock or gravel fill is used, wetland functions are lost in 

the filled areas.

Unlike most forest roads, which fall under the silvicultural exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers’ 404 permitting activities, recreation sites and trails through wetlands would require a 404 

permit. The permitting process further ensures that wetland losses will be held to the minimum 

feasible number.

Alternative 1 – No-Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No wetlands would be impacted under Alternative 1 due to no timber harvest, road construction, trail 

construction, or other developments as a result of the POW LLA Project.

Cumulative Effects

Approximately 35,079 acres of timber have been harvested from wetlands in the project area (all 

ownerships). Vegetation on forested wetlands harvested in the past would continue to grow toward 

hydrologic maturity (many stands have already reached this stage).

About 3,413 acres of wetlands have been converted to road surfaces, ditches, and fill slopes in the 

project area. Wetlands impacted by roads in the past would continue to be impacted. Vegetation

would occupy ditch lines and, in the case of closed roads the roadbed, may be occupied by red alder 

or other vegetation. The road prism would remain in an upland condition. Road ditches, where 

present, support a variety of upland and wetland vegetation depending on local conditions and seed 

sources.

Under Alternative 1, an additional 25,362 acres of forested wetland could experience timber harvest

on non-NFS lands, and 566 acres of timber from wetlands are under contract on National Forest 

System lands.

With the implementation of the reasonably foreseeable future projects, an additional 687 acres of 

wetland could be roaded on non-NFS lands and 32 acres on NFS lands. Open, drivable roads in the 

project area would continue to receive incidental use by recreation visitors. Vegetation would grow in 

ditch lines on all roads, and on closed roads vegetation will likely colonize the road surfaces.

Mines, trails, hydro facilities, and recreation sites currently occupy about 80 acres of wetlands. No 

new impacts from mines, hydro facilities, or recreation sites are assumed under Alternative 1.

About 93 percent of wetlands in the project area would remain in a natural condition.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

A description of direct and indirect effects to wetlands are described in the effects common to all 

action alternatives section above. Alternative 2 proposes to harvest old-growth timber from 

approximately 5,913 acres of forested wetland. Road construction under this alternative would 

convert about 117 acres of wetland to road. Alternative 2 also proposes to construct up to 10.3 miles 

of trail on wetlands, impacting about 3 acres. Construction of winter access sites would also impact 

about 1 acre of wetland.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 367

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to wetlands from reasonably foreseeable future actions are described in 

Alternative 1 and, following implementation of Alternative 2, cumulative timber harvest from all past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would impact approximately 66,920 acres of 

forested wetlands in the project area.

Roads, recreation sites, hydro facilities, mines, and other developments would fill or alter 4,333 acres 

of wetlands.

Under Alternative 2, about 92 percent of wetlands in the project area would remain in a natural 

condition.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

A description of direct and indirect effects to wetlands are described in the effects common to all 

action alternatives section above. Alternative 3 proposes to harvest old-growth timber from 

approximately 3,307 acres of forested wetland. Road construction under this alternative would 

convert about 66 acres of wetland to road. Construction of winter access sites and trails would also 

impact up to 4 acres of wetlands.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to wetlands from reasonably foreseeable future actions and following 

implementation of Alternative 3, timber harvest from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would impact approximately 64,314 acres of forested wetlands in the project area.

Roads, recreation sites, hydro facilities, mines, and other developments would fill or alter 4,282 acres 

of wetlands.

Under Alternative 3, about 92 percent of wetlands in the project area would remain in a natural 

condition.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

A description of direct and indirect effects to wetlands are described in the effects common to all 

action alternatives section above. Alternative 5 proposes to harvest old-growth timber from 

approximately 1,618 acres of forested wetlands. Road construction under this alternative would 

convert about 76 acres of wetland to road. Construction of winter access sites and trails would impact 

another 4 acres of wetlands.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to wetlands from reasonably foreseeable future actions and following 

implementation of Alternative 5, timber harvest from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions would impact approximately 62,625 acres of forested wetlands in the project area.

Roads, recreation sites, hydro facilities, and other developments would fill or alter 4,291 acres of 

wetlands.
3 – Environment and Effects

368 ▪ Chapter 3 – Environment and Effects Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Under Alternative 5, about 92 percent of wetlands in the project area would remain in a natural 

condition.

Conclusions

The wetlands analysis shows similar effects to and loss of wetlands from roads between all action 

Alternatives. Alternative 1 proposes no new activities in wetlands. Alternative 2 involves more acres 

of timber harvest and more miles of road construction on wetlands; thus, the impacts to wetlands from 

implementation of Alternative 2 are more than the other action alternatives.

The 15 Federal Baseline Provisions and State Approved BMPs are used to avoid and minimize 

impacts to wetlands. The POW LLA Project Implementation Plan incorporates the existing Forest 

Plan direction for activities occurring in wetlands.

Recreation site developments and other developments not subject to the silvicultural exemption must 

go through the Army Corps of Engineers 404 permitting process. The permitting process provides 

further assurance that wetland impacts would be minimized or avoided.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 369

Chapter 4. References and Lists

Preparers and Contributors

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Core Team Members

M. Earl Stewart, Forest Supervisor

Education: Bachelor of Science, Wildlife Ecology, Oklahoma State University, 1986

Graduate, Fisheries Science, McNeese State University, 1994

Forest Service experience: 27 years

Other professional experience: 7 years in Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

Matthew D. Anderson, District Ranger

Education: Bachelor of Science, University of Iowa, 2003

Masters Public Administration, University of Colorado-Denver, 2014

Forest Service experience: 5 years

Other professional experience: Bureau of Land Management, 7 years

Tyler Gunn, Deputy District Ranger

Education: Associate of Science, Forest Technology, Santa Rosa Junior College, 1978

Forest Service experience: 37 years

Lucy Maldonado, Planning Staff

Education: Bachelor of Science, Range/Forest Management, Colorado State University, 1982

Forest Service experience: 22 years

Other professional experience: 3 years, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Environmental Coordinator

Delilah Brigham, Program Planning Specialist, IDT Leader

Education: Bachelor of Science, Aquatic Resources, Sheldon Jackson College, 1996

Forest Service experience: 18 years

Luke Decker, Wildlife Biologist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, North Carolina State University, 

2006

Forest Service experience: 12 years

Carol Mahara, Fisheries Biologist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Wildlife, Purdue University, 2008

Forest Service experience: 9 years

James S. Baichtal, Forest Geologist

Education: Associate of Science, Lower Columbia Community College, 1977

Bachelor of Science, Geology, Washington State University, 1980

Master of Science, Geology, Washington State University, 1982

Hon. Doctorate of Science, University of Alaska SE, Juneau, AK Sc.D. (Hon), 2013

Forest Service experience: 35 years
4 – References and Lists

370 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Karen Dillman, Forest Ecologist

Education: Associate of Applied Science, Forestry, Hocking College, 1981;

Bachelor of Science, Ecology, Idaho State University 1995;

Master of Science, Plant Biology, Arizona State University 2004

Forest Service experience: 30 years

Brenda Miller, GIS Specialist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forestry, Mississippi State University, 1985

Forest Service experience: 30 years

Shona Pierce, Archaeologist

Education: Masters of Arts, Anthropology with a Concentration in Archaeology, Western Washington 

University, 2011

Forest Service experience: 5 years

Brian Scott Sheppard, Hydrology Resource Specialist

Education: Master of Science, Hydrology, University of Arizona, 2016

Forest Service experience: 1 year

Garry Brand, Logging Systems Forester

Education: Bachelor of Science, Resource Management, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, 

1987

Forest Service experience: 11 years

Staś Moszynski, Recreation Planner

Education: Bachelor of Science, Geography/Geographic Information Science, Texas State University, 

2011

Forest Service experience: 3 years

Patrick Heuer, Forest NEPA Coordinator/Silviculturist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forestry, Colorado State University, 1991

Forest Service experience: 30 years

Molly Simonson, Silviculturist, Writer-Editor

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forestry, University of Maine, 2007

Bachelor of Science, Wildlife Ecology, University of Maine, 2007

Forest Service experience: 14 years

Janice Sangunitto, Silviculture Staff Officer

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forestry, Humboldt State University, 2005

Forest Service experience: 14 years

Becki Reynolds, Soil Scientist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Soil and Land Resources; minor: Horticulture, University of Idaho, 

2010

Forest Service experience: 15 years

Richard Jacobson, Transportation Planner

Education: Oregon State University, Forest Engineering Institute 1994

University of Wyoming, Surveying Program 1997-98

Forest Service experience: 29 years
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 371

Danielle Snyder, Landscape Architect

Education: Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering and Bachelor of Arts, Tufts University, 

2000

Master of Landscape Architecture, University of Colorado Denver, 2008

Forest Service experience: 10 years

Marla Dillman, Wildlife Biologist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Wildlife Biology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984

Forest Service experience: 33 years

Jeff Reeves, Subsistence Biologist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Aquatic Resources, Sheldon Jackson College, 1994

Forest Service experience: 18 years

Delilah Jaworski, Social Scientist

Education: Bachelor of Arts, Middle Eastern studies, The George Washington University, 2007

Master of Science, Environment and Development, The London School of Economics, 2008;

Forest Service experience: 8 years (Enterprise Team)

Jean M. Daniels, Regional Economist (detail)

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, 1994

Master of Science, Forestry, Stephen F. Austin State University, 1995

Doctorate of Philosophy, Forest Economics, University of Washington, 2007

Forest Service experience: 14 years

Sue Jennings, Forest Planner

Education: Bachelor of Science, Michigan Technological University, 1977

Forest Service experience: 30 years

Sean W. Schroeder, Planning Silviculturist (Detail)

Education: Bachelor of Science, Natural Resources/Geography, Oregon State University, 2016

Forest Service experience: 8 years

Extended (Supporting/Reviewing) Team Members

Risa J. Carlson, Archaeologist

Education: Master of Philosophy, World Archaeology, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 

2007

Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2012

Forest Service experience: 15 years

Nicholas Reynolds, Timber Management Assistant

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forest Management, Southern Illinois University, 2006

Forest Service experience: 11 years

Patti Krosse, Ecology/Botany/Invasive Species Program Manager

Education: Bachelor of Science, Soil Science, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis 

Obispo, 1987

Forest Service experience: 32 years
4 – References and Lists

372 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Sheila Jacobson, Forest Fish Program Manager

Education: Bachelor of Science, Fisheries and Wildlife Management, University of Missouri, 

Columbia, 1990

Graduate studies in Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks School of 

Fisheries and Ocean Sciences, Juneau, Alaska, 1992

Forest Service experience: 27 years

Laurie D. Cooper, Tongass Partnership Coordinator

Education: Bachelor of Arts, Government and Politics, University of Maryland College Park, 1989

Forest Service experience: 2 years

Theresa Thibault, Heritage Program Manager

Education: Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, University of Alaska, Anchorage 1980

Forest Service experience: 4 years

Other professional experience: 22.5 years, National Park Service, Chief of Resources and 

Archaeologist. 5 years, City of Wrangell, Museum Director and City Archaeologist

Julianne Thompson, Forest Hydrologist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Natural Resources Management, California Polytechnic State 

University, 1985

Graduate studies in Watershed Science, Colorado State University, 1988

Forest Service experience: 29 years

Melissa Dinsmore, Special Uses Program Manager and Energy Coordinator

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forestry, Purdue University, 1990

Forest Service experience: 23 years

Lisa Fluharty, Natural Resources Specialist (Recreation)

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forest Management, University of Montana, 1987

Forest Service experience: 28 years

Sheila Spores, Forest Silviculturist

Education: Bachelor of Arts, Geography, Mary Washington College, May 1990

Bachelor of Science, Forest Resource Management, University of Montana, Dec. 1994

Master of Science, Ecosystem Management (M.E.M.), University of Montana, May 1996

Forest Service experience: 26 years

Dennis Landwehr, Forest Soil Scientist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forest Management, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, 1985

Forest Service experience: 29 years

Cynthia Sever, Timber Planning Program Manager

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forestry, University of Maine at Orono, 1977

Forest Service experience: 38 years

Nicole Grewe, Regional Economist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Sociology, North Dakota State University 1996

Master of Science, Rural Sociology, Iowa State University 1999

Master of Community and Regional Planning, Iowa State University, 2001

Doctorate of Philosophy, Rural Sociology, Iowa State University, 2003

Forest Service experience: 4 years
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 373

Richard Burke, Forest Transportation Planner

Education: Bachelor of Science, Forest Engineering, Oregon State University, 2010

Forest Service experience: 13 years

Barth Hamberg, Landscape Architecture Team Leader

Education: Bachelor of Science, Agricultural Economics, University of Vermont, 1980

Masters of Landscape Architecture, Harvard University, 1983

Forest Service experience: 34 years

Gregg Dunn, Wildlife Planner

Education: Bachelor of Science, Fish and Wildlife Management

Bachelor of Science, Zoology, Northern Arizona University 2000

Forest Service experience: 7 years

Michelle Putz, NEPA Planner

Education: Bachelor of Science, Biology, Ohio State University, 1990

Forest Service experience: 25 years

Sandy Powers, Forest Writer-Editor

Forest Service experience: 23 years.
4 – References and Lists

374 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

A letter or email with notification of the availability of this FEIS, either online or via electronic 

media, was sent to the following parties. These parties either commented on the project, requested a 

copy of the DEIS or FEIS during scoping or at some other time during the NEPA process, or are part 

of the Tongass National Forest mandatory mailing list (Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Sections 

23.2 and 63.1). In addition, notification of the availability of the online copy was sent to emails on the 

self-subscribed email list for this project. A complete list of recipients is in the project record.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

US Fish and Wildlife Service

National Marine Fisheries Service

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Alaska Department of Natural Resources

State Historic Preservation Office

Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers

Tribes and Native Corporations

Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska

Craig Tribal Association

Hydaburg Cooperative Association

Klawock Cooperative Association

Organized Village of Kasaan

Wrangell Cooperative Association

Sealaska Corporation

Shaan-Seet, Incorporated

Kavilco, Incorporated

Klawock-Heenya Corporation

Organized Village of Kake

Ketchikan Indian Corporation

Organized Village of Saxman

Metlakatla Indian Community

Businesses, Organizations, and Individuals

The Tongass National Forest emailed a notification with a link to the EIS electronically via the selfsubscribed GovDelivery system to the businesses, organizations, and individuals who have requested 

to receive emails. Individuals may also have requested a hard copy or electronic copy of the 

document. The list of individual email addresses and names is in the project record.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 375

Glossary

The following terms are included in this document and apply to Forest Service land management and 

effects analysis. The terms below are not found in Chapter 7 Chapter 7 of the 2016 Forest Plan.

Definitions for other technical terms used in this document may be found in Chapter 7 of the 2016 

Forest Plan.

Abiotic: Non-living. Climate is an example of an abiotic component of ecosystems.

Affected environment: The natural environment that exists at the present time in an area being 

analyzed.

Age class: A distinct aggregation of trees originating from a single natural event or regeneration 

activity, or a grouping of trees, e.g., 10-year age class, as used in inventory or management.

Amphipods: Any member of the invertebrate order Amphipoda (class Crustacea) inhabiting all parts 

of the sea, lakes, rivers, sand beaches, caves, and moist (warm) habitats.

Annualized direct jobs: Annualized jobs are all the Alaska jobs (excluding indirect jobs) supported 

by offered timber volume. Actual annualized jobs may vary by timber sale purchaser and specific 

business practices.

Aspect: The direction a slope faces. A hillside facing east has an eastern aspect.

Average snow winter habitat: POG forest below 1,500 feet. POG is defined as all seven-size 

classifications including SD-4H, SD-4N, SD-4S, SD-5H, SD-5N, SD-5S, and SD-67 in the SDM GIS 

data. It is considered in reference to deer winter habitat.

Biotic: Living. Green plants and soil microorganisms are examples of biotic components of 

ecosystems.

Browse: Twigs, leaves, and young shoots of trees and shrubs that animals eat. Browse is often used to 

refer to the shrubs eaten by big game, such as deer.

Canopy: The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to the 

uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be use to describe lower layers in a multi-storied forest.

Climax: The culminating stage in plant succession for a given site. Climax vegetation communities 

are stable, self-maintaining, and self-reproducing.

Compaction (soil compaction): The reduction of soil volume. For instance, the weight of heavy 

equipment on soils can compact the soil and thereby change its properties, such as in its ability to 

absorb water.

Composition: What an ecosystem is composed of. Composition could include water, minerals, trees, 

snags, wildlife, soil, microorganisms, and plant species.

Conifer: A tree that produces cones, such as a pine, spruce, or hemlock tree.

Cover: Any feature that conceals wildlife or fish. Cover may be dead or live vegetation, boulders, or 

undercut stream banks. Animals use cover to rest, feed, or escape from predators.
4 – References and Lists

376 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Decommissioning (roads): To remove those elements of a road that reroute hillslope drainage and 

present slope stability hazards. For NFS roads, decommissioning removes the road from the National 

Forest Transportation System. Action on the ground for decommissioning ranges from blocking the 

entrance and removing drainage structures to obliterating the road, returning the natural contours, and 

replanting vegetation. The end result is the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a morenatural state (36 CFR 212.1).

Deep snow winter habitat: HPOG is forested habitat below 800 feet on south- and west-facing 

aspects (HPOG is equivalent to SD-5S, SD-5N and SD-67), and is considered in reference to deer and 

marten winter habitat.

Deer winter range (habitat): An area, usually at lower elevation, used by big game during the winter 

months; usually smaller and better-defined than summer ranges.

Ecology: The interrelationships of living things to one another and the environment, or the study of 

these interrelationships.

Edge: The more or less well-defined boundary between two or more elements of the environment, 

e.g., a field adjacent to a woodland or the boundary of different silvicultural treatments.

Felling: The cutting down of trees.

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): The final version of the statement of 

environmental effects required for major Federal actions under Section 102 of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. It is a revision of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to 

include public and agency responses to the draft. The responsible official chooses which alternative to 

select from the FEIS, and subsequently issues a Record of Decision (ROD).

Forage: All browse and non-woody plants that are eaten by wildlife and livestock.

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines (S&G): A set of rules and guidance that directs management 

activities and establishes the environmental quality, natural renewable and depletable resource 

requirements, conservation potential, and mitigation measures that apply to several land use 

designations.

Geographic Information System (GIS): Information processing technology to input, store, 

manipulate, analyze, and display spatial and attribute data to support the decision making process. It 

is a system of computer maps with corresponding site-specific information that can be electronically 

combined to provide reports and maps.

Geomorphology: The study of the forms of the land surface and the processes producing these 

surfaces. Also the study of the underlying rocks or parent materials and the landforms present that 

were formed in geological time.

Habitat diversity: The number of different types of wildlife habitat within a given area.

Habitat type: A way to classify land area. A habitat type can support certain climax vegetation, both 

tree and understory species. Habitat typing can indicate the biological potential of a site.

Harvest unit (timber): A portion of a timber sale within which Forest Service specifies for harvest 

all or part of the timber to meet the requirements of a timber sale contract.

Hydric soil: A soil that is wet long enough to periodically produce anaerobic conditions, thereby 

influencing the growth of plants.
Environment and Effects - 3

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS Environment and Effects – Chapter 3 ▪ 377

Hydrologic recovery: A return to natural conditions of water collection, storage, and discharge.

Hydrology: The science dealing with the study of water on the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, 

and in the atmosphere.

Intermediate treatment: The removal of trees from a stand sometime between the beginning or 

formation of the stand and the regeneration cut. Types of intermediate treatments include thinning, 

release, and improvement cuttings.

Litter (forest litter): The freshly fallen or only slightly decomposed plant material on the forest floor. 

This layer includes foliage, bark fragments, twigs, flowers, and fruit.

MBF: A measurement term for lumber or timber. One board foot (BF) is the amount of wood 

contained in an unfinished board 1 inch thick, 12 inches long, and 12 inches wide. MBF is one 

thousand board feet.

Mature timber: Trees that have attained full development, especially height, and are in full seed 

production.

Mortality: Trees dying from natural causes, or subsequent to incidents such as storms or insect and 

disease epidemics. The term mortality can also refer to the rate of death of a species in a given 

population or community.

Mosaic: Areas with a variety of plant communities over a landscape, such as areas with trees and 

areas without trees occurring over a landscape.

Natural resource: A feature of the natural environment that is of value in serving human needs.

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice in the Federal Register of intent to prepare an environmental impact 

statement on a proposed action.

Patch: An area of homogeneous vegetation, in structure and composition.

Predator: An animal that lives by preying on other animals. Predators are at or near the top of food 

chains.

Prescription: A planned series of treatments designed to change current stand structure to one that 

meets management goals taking in consideration ecological, economic, and societal constraints.

Qualitative: Relating to or involving comparisons based on individual qualities.

Ranger District: The administrative sub-unit of a National Forest that is supervised by a District 

Ranger who reports directly to the Forest Supervisor.

RARE II: Roadless Area Review and Evaluation. The national inventory of roadless and 

undeveloped areas, within the National Forests and Grasslands.

Recharge: The addition of water to ground water by natural or artificial processes.

Record of Decision (ROD): A public document separate from, but associated with, an environmental 

impact statement that identifies all alternatives, provides the Agency’s final decision, the rationale 

behind the decision, and the Agency’s commitments to monitoring and mitigating.
4 – References and Lists

378 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Recreation site: A specific site and/or facility occurring within a Recreation Place. Examples of 

recreation sites include: recreation cabins, trailheads, picnic areas, and wildlife viewing blinds.

Red crossings: Passage barriers to various life stages of fish; generally culverts placed improperly.

Regeneration: The renewal of a tree crop by either natural or artificial means. The term is also used 

to refer to the young crop itself.

Regional Forester: The official of the USDA Forest Service responsible for administering an entire 

region of the Forest Service.

Road Storage: The process/action of closing a road to vehicle traffic and placing it in a condition that 

requires minimum maintenance to protect the environment and preserve the facility for future use.

Scale: In ecosystem management, it refers to the degree of resolution at which ecosystems are 

observed and measured.

Sedge: A family of plants with solid stems found in marshy areas.

Shell midden: A term referring to shell and bone that have been discarded after harvest and 

processing for subsistence use.

Spawning area: The available area in a stream course which is suitable for the deposition and 

incubation of salmon or trout eggs.

Succession: The natural replacement, in time, of one plant community with another. Conditions of the 

prior plant community (or successional stage) create conditions that are favorable for the 

establishment of the next stage.

Successional stage: A stage of development of a plant community as it moves from bare ground to 

climax. The grass–forb stage of succession precedes the woody shrub stage.

Terrestrial ecosystems: Plant communities that are not dependent on a perpetual source of water to 

grow.

Throughfall: the precipitation that passes directly through a canopy or is initially intercepted by 

aboveground vegetative surfaces and subsequently drips from the canopy.

Trail: Routes less than 48 inches are designated as non-motorized trails. Trails greater than 48 inches 

but less than 60 inches may be designated for non-motorized or motorized (ATV) activities. Roads 

converted to trails may be designated for non-motorized or motorized (ATV) uses.

Vegetation management: To change species composition or structure of plant communities through 

human intervention regardless of the purpose, or to protect communities from some types of 

disturbance such that natural changes continue to occur.
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 379

References

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

information used in the POW LLA Project analysis.

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (ADCCED). 2017. 

Community Profiles Online. Available online at: 

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (ADCCED). 2017. 

Community Database Online. Accessed August 15, 2017 from 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/DCRAExternal.

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (ADEED). 2016. School Enrollment by 

Grade as of October 1, 2015. Accessed August 25, 2017 from 

https://education.alaska.gov/stats/.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2012. Map of Southeast Region 

Canneries and Land-Based Seafood Processors. Accessed September 15, 2017 from 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/seafood/Southeast/SEProcLocMap.pdf.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 2018. Water Quality Standards, 

Assessment, & Restoration. Retrieved on April, 24, 2018 from: 

http://dec.alaska.gov/water/water-quality/reports

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 18 Oct 2017. Preliminary Wolf Buffer Analysis.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 1998. Tongass Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Assessment 1998. Technical Bulletin No. 98-4.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD). 2012. Prince of Wales: Area 

Redefines its Economy after the Timber Decline. Alaska Economic Trends, August 2012. 

Accessed September 20, 2017 from http://labor.alaska.gov/trends/trends2012.htm

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD). 2016a. Alaska Local and 

Regional Information. Accessed August 15, 2017 from http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/alari/.

Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADLWD). 2016b. Southeast Region 

Fishing and Seafood Industry Data. Accessed September 15, 2017 from 

http://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/seafood/seafoodsoutheast.cfm.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water. Resource Assessment 

and Development Section. Prince of Wales Area Plan Revised 1998.

Alaska Department of Natural Resources Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. 2013. 

(FRPA, AS 41.17). http://forestry.alaska.gov/forestpractices.htm

Alaska Natural Heritage Program (ANHP). 2009. Rare Vascular Plant Tracking List. 

http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/botany/pdfs/2008/Rare%20PLant%20List%202008.pdf. Accessed 

05/01/2017.

Albert and Schoen. 2007. A conservation assessment for the Coastal Forest and Mountains Ecoregion 

of southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. In: Schoen, J.W. and E. Dovichin 

eds: A conservation assessment and resource synthesis for the Coastal Forests and Mountains 
4 – References and Lists

380 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Ecoregion of southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National Forest. The Nature Conservancy 

and Audubon Alaska. Anchorage, AK.

Alexander, S.J. 2012. Employment Coefficients and Indirect Effects, for NEPA planning: 2012 update 

memo. Regional Economist, USFS Alaska Region. August 9.

Alexander, S.J.; Parrent, D.J. 2010. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for Tongass timber: 2007 

and 2008 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-565. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15 p.

Alexander, S.J.; Parrent, D.J. 2012. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for Tongass timber: 2009 

and 2010 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-568. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15 p.

Aley, T., C. Aley, W. Elliot, and P. Huntoon. 1993. Karst and cave resource significance assessment, 

Ketchikan Area, Tongass National Forest, Alaska, Final Report, prepared for the Ketchikan 

Area of the Tongass National Forest.

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.

Armstrong, R.H. 1991. Dolly Varden Char (Salvelinus malma). In J. Stolz, and J. Schnell, (eds.), 

Trout, pp. 266-272. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Barnhart, C., and D. Hitner. 2013a. Timber Economics Resource Report, Big Thorne Project. Tetra 

Tech EC, Inc. (Stuntzner Engineering & Forestry). Prepared for Thorne Bay Ranger District, 

Tongass National Forest.

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.

Bellmore, J. Ryan; Baxter, Colden V.; Martens, Kyle; and Connolly, Patrick J. 2013. "The floodplain

food web mosaic: a study of its importance to salmon and steelhead with implications for 

their recovery" USGS Staff -- Published Research. 699.

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.

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

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

Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 38: 1319-1334.

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. 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 and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 381

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.

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

Boland, J.L., J.P. Hayes, W.P. Smith, and M.M. Huso. 2009. Selection of day-roosts by Keen’s myotis 

(Myotis keenii) at multiple spatial scales. Journal of Mammalogy 90:222–234.

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. In: Michael Morrison (ed.), The northern 

goshawk: a technical assessment of its status, ecology and management. Cooper 

Ornithological Society: 312–325.

Brackley, A.M.; Crone, L.K. 2009. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for Tongass timber: 2005 

and 2006 update. Res. Note PNW-RN-561. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15 p.)

Brackley, A.M.; Parrent, D.J.; Rojas, T.D. 2006. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for Tongass 

timber: 2003 and 2004 update. Res. Note. PNW-RN-553. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15 p.

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

forest change to understand changing deer harvest opportunities in intensively logged 

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

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art36/

Bryant, M.D; Frenette, B.J.; McCurdy, S.J (1999) Colonization of a Watershed by Anadromous 

Salmonids following the Installation of a Fish Ladder in Margaret Creek, Southeast Alaska, 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 19:4, 1129-1136.

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.

Carlson, M. L. and Justin R. Fulkerson. 2017. Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (Willd.) O.W. 

Knight: Conservation Assessment on the Tongass National Forest, Alaska Region Alaska 

Natural Heritage Program

Chalfoun, A.D., F.R. Thompson, and M.J. Ratnaswamy. 2002. Nest Predators and Fragmentation: A 

Review And Meta-Analysis. Conservation Biology 16:306–318.

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.
4 – References and Lists

382 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

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.

Cisneros, G. 2018. Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis: Invasive Plant Treatments Recreation 

Resource Report. Internal document. 24 pp.

Clark, C. July 2017. Combined 5 YR Schedule by Area

City of Coffman Cove. 2017. The Official Website of the City of Coffman Cove, Alaska. Accessed 

September 20, 2017 from http://ccalaska.com/

City of Klawock. 2017. Visitor Information. Accessed September 20, 2017 from 

http://www.cityofklawock.com/vst_info.htm.

Connaughton, James L. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects 

Analysis. Council on Environmental Quality. Memorandum to Heads of Federal Agencies.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 115-31, Div. G, Section 431(a)(2) (the “Alaska Mental 

Health Trust Land Exchange Act of 2017”)

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter V., F.C. Golet, E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report No. 

FWS/OBS/-79/31.Washington, D.C.

Croke, J., S. Mockler, P. Fogarty, and I. Takken. 2005. Sediment concentration changes in runoff 

pathways from a forest road network and the resultant spatial pattern of catchment 

connectivity. Geomorphology 68: 257-268

Cummins, K.W., 1974. Structure and function of stream ecosystems. Bioscience 24: 631–641.

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.

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

western hemlock-Sitka spruce stands in Southeast Alaska. Forest Ecology and 

Management 159.3 (2002): 173-186.

Dean, M. and T. Marshall. 2010. Determination of Eligibility Ross-Adams Mine DIX-00069 

Southeastern Prince of Wales Island, Southeast of Ketchikan, Alaska. On file USFS, Thorne 

Bay Ranger District, Thorne Bay, Alaska.

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

DeMeo, Tom, Jon Martin, and Randolph A. West. 1992. Forest plant association management guide: 

Ketchikan area, Tongass National Forest. US Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, 

Ketchikan Area, 1992.
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 383

Dillman, M. 2018a. Wildlife Biological Evaluation - POW LLA Project Tongass National Forest. 

Internal document. 84 pp.

Dillman, M. 2018b. Wildlife Resource Report for herbicide POWLLA, Tongass National Forest. 

Internal document. 80 pp.

Dillman, K., M. L. Carlson, B. Bernard, and J. R. Fulkerson. 2017. Ricasolia amplissima (Scop.) De 

Not. subspecies sheiyi Derr & Dillman: Conservation Assessment on the Tongass National 

Forest, Alaska Region Alaska

Dillman, K. 2016a. Wilderness Air Quality Plan, Tongass National Forest. USDA Forest Service, 

Tongass National Forest. September 2016. 46 pp.

Dillman, K. 2018b. Biological Evaluation For Plants. Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis 

(POW LLA), Thorne Bay and Craig Ranger Districts, Tongass National Forest. Internal 

document. 35 pp.

Doyle, F.I. 2005. Breeding success of the goshawk (A.g. laingi) on Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte 

Islands: is the population continuing to decline? Wildlife Dynamics Consulting.

Durkin, P. 2007. Aminopyralid: Human Health and ecological Risk Assessment. USDA Forest 

Service and USDI National Park Service. SERA TR 052-04-04a.

Durkin, P. 2011. Glyphosate: human health and ecological risk assessment. USDA Forest Service, 

Forest Health Department. SERA TR-052-22-03b.

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

National Forest. Report to US Forest Service. 124 p. Available: 

http://ecoadapt.org/data/documents/EcoAdapt_Tongass_VulnerabilityAssessmentReport_FIN

AL_22Nov214_smallres.pdf (accessed April 25, 2017).

EO 13514: https://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eo13514/

Edna Bay, Alaska. 2017. Edna Bay, Alaska – Community History – A Brief Look into Edna Bay’s 

History. Accessed September 20, 2017 from http://ednabayalaska.net/history.html.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program Success 

Story; Restoring Stream and Riparian Areas Improves Gàndlaay Hàanaa. Available online at: 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/ak_gandlaay.pdf

Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 61:603–610.

Fahrig, L. 1999. Forest loss and fragmentation: which has the greater effect on persistence of forestdwelling 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. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, 

Evolution, and Systematics 34:487–515.

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.
4 – References and Lists

384 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Finn, S.P., J.M. Marzluff, and D.E. Varland. 2002. Effects of landscape and local habitat attributes on

Northern Goshawk site occupancy in western Washington. Forest Science 48:427–436.

Flaherty, E.A., W.P. Smith, S. Pyare, and M. Ben-David. 2008. Experimental trials of the northern 

flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) traversing managed rainforest landscapes: perceptual 

range and fine-scale movements. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86:1050–1058.

Flather, C.H., M. Bevers, and J. Hof. 2002. Prescribing habitat layouts: analysis of optimal placement 

for landscape planning. Pages 428-453 in K.J. Gutzwiller (ed.), Applying landscape ecology 

in biological conservation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Fluharty, L. 2018. Wilderness Resource Report for the Prince of Wales Large Landscape Assessment 

Invasive Plant Treatment Analysis Tongass National Forest. Internal document. 22 pp.

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

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

Conservation.

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

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

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

Forest Service (FS) Agreement No. 06MU-11100100-151. MOU P.L. 109-59. FS Agreement No. 

06MU-11100100-151. State of Alaska Agreement No. ADL 107516

Foss, J. 2018. Invasive Plant Management Project for Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Soil 

and Wetlands Report. Internal document 25 pp

Fulkerson, J.R., K. Dillman, and M.L. Carlson. 2017. Platanthera orbiculata (Pursh.) Lindl.: 

Conservation Assessment on the Tongass National Forest, Alaska Region. U.S. Department of 

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

Anchorage, Alaska. 43 pp. plus appendix

Fuss, H.J. 1978. Some Life History Characteristics Obtained by Scale Analysis of Sea-run Cutthroat 

Trout (Salmo clarki clarki) From Streams Near Forks, Washington. In J.R. Moring (ed.), 

Proceedings of the Wild Trout-Catchable Trout Symposium, pp. 127-133. Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

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.

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

Southeast Alaska. Unpublished white paper.

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

Use. T.F. Thornton, (Ed). University of Alaska Press and Sealaska Heritage Foundation. 

(Originally published as “Possessory Rights of the Natives of Southeast Alaska,” 1946).

Grant, D. 2017. Personal communication regarding the water quality status of streams in the 

Sweetwater Drainage on Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska.

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 
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 385

Western Oregon and Washington. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-760. Portland, 

Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 76p

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.

Grewe, N. 2017. Tongass National Forest: Updated Timber Sale Procedures, USDA, Alaska region, 

Region 10, MB 823 9 p.

Grinspoon, E., J. Schaefers, R. Periman, J. Smalls, C. Manning, and T. LoPorto. 2014. Striving for 

Inclusion: Environmental Justice for Forest Service NEPA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service: Washington, DC. 24 p.

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-GTR-509. Portland, OR, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103p.

Hakala, J. P. and K. J. Hartman. 2004. Drought effect on stream morphology and brook trout 

(Salvelinus fontinalis) populations in forested headwater streams. Hydrobiologia 515: 203.

Halupka, K.C., M.D. Bryant, M.F. Willson, and F.H. Everest. 2000. Biological Characteristics and 

Population Status of Anadromous Salmon in Southeast Alaska. General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-468. 255 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR.

Hanley, T.A. 2005. Potential management of young-growth stands for understory vegetation and 

wildlife habitat in southeastern Alaska. Landscape and Urban Planning 72:95–112.

Hanley, T.A., and C.L. Rose. 1987. Influence of overstory on snow depth and density in hemlockspruce stands: implications for management of deer habitat in southeastern Alaska. Res. Note 

PNW-RN-459. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station.

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.

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. Wind in the forests of Southeast Alaska and guides for reducing damage. US Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1989.

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.
4 – References and Lists

386 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

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

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

Research Institute, Seeley Lake, Montana, USA. Available online at: 

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

14, 2017).

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.

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.

Helms, J.A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, Maryland. 1-

224.

Hennon, P., and C. Shaw. 1997. “The enigma of yellow-cedar decline: What is killing these longlived, defensive trees?” Journal of Forestry 95(12): 4-10. Available online at: 

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

(accessed March 14, 2017).

Hennon, Paul E.; McKenzie, Carol M.; D'Amore, David V.; Wittwer, Dustin T.; Mulvey, Robin L.; 

Lamb, Melinda S.; Biles, Frances E.; Cronn, Rich C. 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, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station. 382 p. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr917.pdf (accessed 

March 14, 2017).

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

Logging in Western Oregon and Associated Fisheries Implication.” Water Resources Bulletin 

27(2): 217-226.

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. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-AFSC-259, Volume 11, 

816 p.

Holsinger, J. R. and D. P. Shaw. 1987. Stygobromus quatsinensis, a new amphipod crustacean 

(Crangonyctidae) from caves on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, with remarks on 

zoogeograhic relationships. Can. J. Zool. 65: 2202-2209.

Holsinger, J. R., K. R. Carlson, and D. P. Shaw. 1997. Biogeographic Significance of Recently 

Discovered Amphipod Crustaceans (Stygobromus) in Caves of Southeastern Alaska and 

Vancouver Island. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of Speleology, 1997. 

Switzerland. Vol. 3.

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.
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 387

House Bill 232 (HR 232). State National Forest Management Act of 2017, 115th Congress.

Iverson, G.C., G.D. Hayward, K. Titus, E. DeGayner, R.E. Lowell, D.C. Crocker-Bedford, P.F. 

Schempf, and J. Lindell. 1996. Conservation assessment for the Northern Goshawk in 

Southeast Alaska. USDA Forest Service Publication PNW-GTR-387

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

Janetski, D. D. Chaloner, S. Tiegs, and G. Lamberti. 2009. Pacific Salmon Effects on Stream 

Ecosystems: a Quantitative Synthesis. 2009. Oecologia 159: 583-595.

Johnson, O.W., M. H. Ruckelshaus, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, A. M. Garrett, G. J. Bryant, K. Neely, 

and J.J. Hard. 1999. Status Review of Coastal Cutthroat Trout from Washington, Oregon, and 

California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-37, 

292 pp.

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

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

Research 36(9): 2621-2642.

Jones, J. A. and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small and large 

basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4):959-974.

Kahklen and Hartsog. 1999. Results of road erosion studies on the Tongass National Forest. USDA 

Forest Service, Juneau Forestry Sciences Lab. 47 pp.

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

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

9977 1801-SDTDC. January 1999.

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

Kilborn, K.A.; Parrent, D.J.; Housley, R.D. 2004. Estimating sawmill processing capacity for Tongass 

timber. Res. Note. PNW-RN-545. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 12 p.

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

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

Review Workshop. Ketchikan, Alaska.

Klawock Cooperative Association. 2017. History of Klawock – Our History, Our People. Accessed 

September 20, 2017 from http://www.klawock.org/about.html.

Kosciusko Island Timber Sale(s) FEIS, Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences p. 3-

42, USDA Forest Service, 2002.

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
4 – References and Lists

388 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Krosse, P. 2017. Guidance for invasive plant management program, Tongass National Forest. 

Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service, Ketchikan, AK.

Krosse, P. 2018a. Prince of Wales Island Integrated Pest Management for the POW LLA Cost 

Analysis Report. Internal document. 13 pp.

Krosse, P. 2018b. Health and Herbicide Use Resource Report for the Prince of Wales Large 

Landscape Assessment Invasive Plant Treatment Analysis. Internal document. 42 pp.

Krosse, P. 2018c. Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis: Invasive Plant Treatments Air Quality, 

Climate Change and Invasive Plants. Internal document. 13 pp.

Krosse, P. 2018d. Invasive Plant Treatments for the Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis 

Project. Internal document. 92 pp.

Kuletz, K.J., D.K. Marks, N.L. Naslund, N.J. Goodson, and M. Cody. 1995. Inland habitat suitability 

for the marbled murrelet in southcentral Alaska. Pages 141-150 in C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, Jr., 

M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds), Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet, 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest 

Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Albany, CA.

Landres, P.; Barns, C.; Boutcher, S.; Devine, T.; Dratch, P.; Lindholm, A.; Merigliano, L.; Roeper, N.; 

Simpson, E. 2015. Keeping it Wild 2. An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in 

Wilderness Character Across the National Wilderness Preservation System. RMRS-GTR-340, 

7-15

Landwehr D. J. 1998. Effectiveness of Standards and Guidelines in Preventing Additional Mass 

Movement. February 1998. Unpublished monitoring report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass 

National Forest.

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

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

National Forest.

Landwehr, D. J. 2018a. Estimating the Effects of management on Soil Quality on Large Landscape 

Assessment Projects on the Tongass National Forest. January 2018. Unpublished report. 

USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Landwehr, D.J. 2018b. Estimating the effects of management on landslide occurrence on Large 

Landscape Assessment Projects on the Tongass National Forest. February 2018. Unpublished

report. USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.

Law, B.E.; Hudiburg, T.W.; Berner, L.T.; Kent, J.J.; Buotte, P.C.; Harmon, M.E. Land use strategies 

to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 

2018, 115, 3663–3668.

McClellan, M.H. 2007. Unpublished data on file at the Juneau Forest Science Laboratory from the 

Alternatives to Clearcutting study provided by Pat Heuer on March 3, 2008.

McDowell Group. 2017. Alaska Visitor Statistics Program 7. 

http://www.alaskatia.org/marketing/AVSP%20VII/Full%20AVSP%20VII%20Report.pdf.

Accessed August 25, 2018
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 389

McGee, Katherine. 2000. Effects of Forest Roads on Subsurface and Subsurface Flow in Southeast 

Alaska. Thesis submitted to Oregon University.

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

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

McNeil, W.J. 1964. Effect of spawning bed environment on reproduction of pink

and chum salmon. Fishery Bulletin 65:495-523.

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

Guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. General Technical Report PSW-GTR171. Albany, CA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 237 p.

Mecklenburg, C.W., Mecklenburg, T. A., and Thorsteinson, L.K. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 192-193

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. 

Washington, DC: Island Press. 137 p.

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. Dan and S.M. Wondzell. 2005. “Physical Hydrology and the Effects of Forest Harvesting 

in the Pacific Northwest: A Review.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 

41(4): 763-784.

Morrow, J. E. 1980. The Freshwater Fishes of Alaska. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company, 248pp. 

Anchorage, Alaska.

Morse, K.S. 2000. Responding to the Market Demand for Tongass Timber: Using Adaptive 

Management to Implement Sec. 101 of the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Act. April 2000. 

Management Bulletin. R10-MB-413. Juneau, AK: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Alaska Region. 43 p.

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., 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. Springer- Verlag, New 

York, New York.
4 – References and Lists

390 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

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.pdf

National Park Service. 2017. National American Indian Heritage Month, Hydaburg Totem Park. 

Accessed September 20, 2017 from https://www.nps.gov/nr/feature/indian/2006/totem.htm.

Naukati Bay. 2017. Naukati Bay, Alaska on Prince of Wales Island. Accessed September 20, 2017 

from http://www.naukatibay.com/community.htm.

Naukati West, Inc. 1998. Community Action Plan. Accessed August 23, 2017 from 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/dcrarepoext/Pages/CommunityPlansLibrary.aspx.

Nawrocki, T., J.R. Fulkerson, K.L. Dillman, and M.L. Carlson. 2017. Platanthera unalascensis 

(Spreng.) Kurtz (slender-spire orchid): Species Assessment for the Tongass National Forest, 

Alaska Region

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.

Neuhauser, C. 1998. Habitat Destruction and Competitive Coexistence in Spatially Explicit Models 

with Location Interactions. J. Theor. Biology. (1998) 193, 445-463. Article No. jt980713.

Ney-Niefle, M and M. Mangel. 2000. Habitat Loss and Changes in the Species Relationship. 

Conservation Biology p. 893-898. Volume 14. No. 3, June 2000. 

North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2017. Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the 

Gulf of Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave Suite 306, 

Anchorage, Alaska 99501. October 2017. 149p. https://www.npfmc.org/wpcontent/PDFdocuments/fmp/GOA/GOAfmp.pdf

North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2012. Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon 

Fisheries in the EEZ Off Alaska. North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave 

Suite 306, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. June 2012. 186p. https://www.npfmc.org/wpcontent/PDFdocuments/fmp/Salmon/SalmonFMP114.pdf

Nowacki, Gregory Jay, and Marc G. Kramer. 1998. The effects of wind disturbance on temperate rain 

forest structure and dynamics of Southeast Alaska. Portland, USA: US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1998.

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

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

Office of the President. 1994. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Population and Low-income Populations. Washington, DC: Executive 

Office of the President.

Okleasik, T. 2005. Community Economic Development Plan for Hydaburg, Alaska 2005-2015. 

Accessed August 23, 2017 from 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/dcrarepoext/Pages/CommunityPlansLibrary.aspx.

Oliver, Chadwick Dearing, and Bruce C. Larson. 1996. Forest stand dynamics: updated edition. John 

Wiley and sons, 1996.
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 391

Organized Village of Kasaan. 2017. Kasaan – Prince of Wales Island. Accessed September 20, 2017 

from http://kasaan.org.

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

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 of the Alaska Chapter of the American Water resources Association. 

Water Research Center-institute of Northern Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 

Report IWR-109.

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. 6 pp.

Penteriani, V. and B. Faivre 2001. Effects of harvesting timber stands on goshawk nesting in two 

European areas. Biological Conservation 101 (2001) p. 211-216

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

insular landscape. Dissertation. University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Person, D.K. and T. Brinkman. 2013. Succession Debt and Roads: Short- and Long-term Effects of 

Timber Harvest on a Large-Mammal Predator-Prey Community in Southeast Alaska. In: 

North Pacific Temperate Rainforests, Ecology and Conservation / edited by Gordon Orians 

and John Schoen, 2013.

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

Whales and associated islands, Southeast AK. Final wildlife research report, 

ADF&G/DWC/WRR-2012-06. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A.M.A. Harding, and K.S. Bixler. 2007. Status Review of the Marbled Murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Alaska and British Columbia. Open-File Report 2006-1387. 

U.S. Geological Survey. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1387.

Prussian, K. 2011. Throughfall Monitoring - Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. Unpublished USFS 

Internal Document.

Prussian, K.M., and Baichtal, J.F., 2007 Delineation of a Karst Watershed on Prince of Wales Island, 

Alaska, in Advancing the Fundamental Sciences: Proceedings from the Forest Service Earth 
4 – References and Lists

392 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Sciences Conference, M Furniss, C Clifton, and K Ronnenberg, eds., Oct 18-22, 2004, San 

Diego, CA: PNWGTR-689, Portland, OR, USFS.

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.

Ralph, C.J., and S.L. Miller. 1995. Offshore population estimates of Marbled Murrelets in California. 

pp. 353-360 in Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-152. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture.

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.

Reid, L.M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources 

Research. 20 (11): 1753-1761

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. 

Goodwind, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern 

goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RM-217.

Reynolds, R.T., J.D. Wiens, and S.R. Salafsky. 2006. A review and evaluation of factors limiting 

northern goshawk populations. Studies in Avian Biology 31.

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.

Riley, W. D., D. L. Maxwell, M. G. Pawson, and M. J. Ives. 2009. The effects of low summer flow on 

wild salmon (Salmo salar), trout (Salmo trutta) and grayling (Thymallus thymallus) in a small 

stream. Freshwater Biology 54, 2581–2599

Rodríguez, A. and H. Andrén. 1999. A comparison of Eurasian red squirrel distribution in different 

fragmented landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology. 1999. 36 p. 649-662.

Rolstad, J. and P. Wegge. 1987. Distribution and size of capercaille leks in relation to old growth 

forest fragmentation. Oecologia (Berlin) (1987) 72:389-394.

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.

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.

Russell, A.L. 1999. Habitat relationships of spruce grouse in Southeast Alaska. Thesis. Texas Tech 

University, Dallas, TX.

Schneider, P. 2018. Prince of Wales Large Landscape Assessment Invasive Plant Treatment Analysis 

Aquatic Organisms Report. Internal document. 32 pp.
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 393

Schoen, J. W. and M. D. Kirchhoff. 1985. Seasonal Distribution and Home-Range Patterns of Sitka 

Black-Tailed Deer on Admiralty Island, Southeast Alaska. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 96-103 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the 

Wildlife Society.

Schoen, J.W., and M.D. Kirchhoff. 1990. Seasonal habitat use by Sitka black-tailed deer on Admiralty 

Island. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:371–378.

Schroeder, S. 2017a. POW LLA Field Reconnaissance and Gate 1 Inventory. March 2017. Tongass 

National Forest. Internal document. 4 pp.

Schroeder, S. 2017b. Old Growth Sampling for Planning and Feasibility. Pre-Project Recon and 

Protocols. June 7, 2017. Tongass Nation Forest. Internal document. 7 pp.

Schwanke, C. 2017. Personal communication regarding the known locations of arctic grayling on 

Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska.

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.

Sergeant, C. J., J. R. Bellmore, C. McConnell, and J. W. Moore. 2017. High salmon density and low 

discharge create periodic hypoxia in coastal rivers. Ecosphere 8:6.

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

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

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

rainforest of North America”. Climate Change 130

Sloat, M. R., G. H. Reeves, and K. R. Christiansen. 2016. Stream network geomorphology mediates 

predicted vulnerability of anadromous fish habitat to hydrologic change in Southeast Alaska. 

Global Change Biology 23(2):604–620.

Smith. W. P. 2013. Spatially Explicit Analysis of Contributions of a Regional Conservation Strategy

Toward Sustaining Northern Goshawk Habitat. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37(3):649–658; 

2013; DOI: 10.1002/wsb.271.

Smith, W.P. and G Holloway. 2011. A Meta-Analysis of Forest Age and Structure Effects on Northern 

Flying Squirrel Densities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3):668-674; 2011; 

DOI:10.1002/jwmg.77.

Smith, W.P., and D.K. Person. 2007. Estimated persistence of northern flying squirrel populations in 

temperate rain forest fragments of Southeast Alaska. Biological Conservation 137:626–636.

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.

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 
4 – References and Lists

394 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

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

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

Forests, Research Program.

Stearley, R.F. 1992. Historical Ecology of Salmoninae, with special reference to Oncorhynchus. In 

R.L. Mayden (ed.), Systematics, Historical Ecology, and North American Freshwater Fishes, 

pp. 622-658. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

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.

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.

Swanston, D.N. 1969. Mass Wasting in coastal Alaska. USDA Forest Service Res. Pap. PNW-83.

Thomson, A. J., et al. "Impact of dwarf mistletoe on the growth of western hemlock trees having 

different patterns of suppression and release." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 15.4 

(1985): 665-668.

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.

Tilman, D., C.L. Lehman and C. Yin. 1997. Habitat Destruction, Dispersal and Deterministic 

Extinction in Competitive Communities. The American Naturalist. Vol 149, No 3. March 

1997.

Timothy, J. 2013. Alaska blasting standard for the proper protection of fish. Alaska Department of 

Fish and Game, Technical Report No. 13-03, Douglas, Alaska.

Tonina, Daniele; Luce, Charles H.; Rieman, Bruce; Buffington, John M.; Goodwin, Peter; Clayton, 

Stephen R.; Ali, Shawkat Md.; Barry, Jeffrey J.; Berenbrock, Charles. 2008. Hydrological 

response to timber harvest in northern Idaho: Implications for channel scour and persistence 

of salmonids. Hydrological Processes. 22(17): 3223-3235.

Trotter, P.C. 1997. Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout: Life History Profile. In J.D. Hall, Bisson, P.A., and 

Gresswell, R.E. (eds.), Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout: Biology, Management, and Future 

Conservation, pp. 7-15. American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates 2011-2015. Accessed 

August 15, 2017 from https://factfinder.census.gov/.

USDA. 1997. Environmental Justice Departmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. (USDA DR5600-002 USDA 1997)
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 395

USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 

Interagency Wolf Habitat Management Program: Recommendations for Game Management 

Unit 2. Management Bulletin R10-MB-822.

USDA Forest Service. 1979. Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II) Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. January 1979. FS-325. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

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

Agriculture Handbook Number 701.

USDA Forest Service. 1997a. Tongass Land Management Plan Revision, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Part 1. R10-MB-338b. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Forest Service and Disease Leaflet 135 Revised January 2001. Hemlock 

Dwarf Mistletoe.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program Preventing and 

Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis. 359 pp.

USDA Forest Service 2007a. Interagency Conservation Strategy Review workshop. Tongass National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Interagency Conservation Strategy Review: An 

Assessment of New Information Since 1997, April 10-14, 2006 Ketchikan, Alaska.

USDA Forest Service 2007b. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska – 2007. A Forest Health Protection 

Report. R10-PR-18. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau and State of Alaska, 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. April 2008.

USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM) (2008). Chapter 2360: Heritage Program Management. USDA 

Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM) Alaska Region 2300 - Recreation, Wilderness and Related 

Resource Management; Chapter 2320 Wilderness Management; Supplement No.: R10 2300-

2008-2

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

Impact Statement Plan Amendment Record of Decision. R10-MB-603a. USDA Forest

Service, Alaska Region, Juneau.

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

Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume I. R10-MB-603c. USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

Region, Juneau.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Access and Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment –

Prince of Wales and Surrounding Islands. September 3, 2009

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. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework: A Framework for Assessing and 

Tracking Changes to Watershed Condition. FS-977. May 2011. 34 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Technical Classification Guide. FS-978. July 2011. 

49 pp.
4 – References and Lists

396 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Timber Supply and Demand: 2011. Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act, Section 706(a) Report to Congress; Statistical Appendix. USDA Forest

Service, Alaska Region. Draft. November 16.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Tongass Young Growth Management Strategy. Tongass National Forest, 

2014

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Species Evaluations for 16 Plants and 3 Lichens on the Tongass 

National Forest-An Evaluation for Species of Conservation Concern. Unpublished report.

USDA Forest Service. 2015b. FS-R10-FHP. Forest Health Conditions in Alaska 2014. Anchorage, 

Alaska. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Region. Publication R10-PR-36. 88 Pages

USDA Forest Service. 2016a. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Forest 

Plan. R10-MB-769j. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau.

USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Record 

of Decision. R10-MB-769l. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau.

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

Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume I. R10-MB-769e. USDA Forest

Service, Alaska Region, Juneau.

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

Environmental Impact Statement Plan Amendment, Volume II, Appendices, Appendix G. 

R10-MB-769f. USDA Forest Service, Alaska Region, Juneau.

USDA Forest Service. 2016e. Tongass National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement: Plan Amendment, Volume II, Appendix H – Limited 

Export Policy, R10-MB-769f. Accessed August 25, 2017 from 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/tongass/landmanagement/?cid=stelprd3801708

USDA Forest Service. 2016f. Forest Plan Monitoring Interim Report: Soil and Water Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Results, 2016. Report available in the Prince of Wales 

Landscape Level Analysis Project planning file.

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Alaska 

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

Preservation Officer Regarding Heritage Program Management on National Forests in the 

State of Alaska.

Weckworth, B.V., S. Talbot, G.K. Sage, D.K. Person, and J. Cook. 2005. A signal for independent 

coastal and continental histories among 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.

Wemple, B.C. and J.A. Jones. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, mountain 

catchment. Water Resources Research 39 doi:10.10029/2002WR001744.
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 397

Whale Pass Community Action Team. 1997. Whale Pass Economic Recovery Plan and Action Plan. 

Accessed August 23, 2017 from 

https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/dcra/dcrarepoext/Pages/CommunityPlansLibrary.aspx.

Whitacre, H. 2018. Hydrology Resource Report for the Prince of Wales Large Landscape Assessment

Invasive Plant Treatment Analysis. Internal document. 40 pp.

Williams, T.H., K. P. Currens, N. E. Ward III, and G. H. Reeves. 1997. Genetic Population Structure 

of Coastal Cutthroat Trout. In J.D. Hall, Bisson, P.A., and Gresswell, R.E. (eds.), Sea-Run 

Cutthroat Trout: Biology, Management, and Future Conservation, pp. 16-17. American 

Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon.

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

plots to a nationally continuous coverage.” Carbon balance and management 8: 1-15. 

Available online at https://cbmjournal.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1750-0680-8-

1?site=cbmjournal.springeropen.com (accessed March 30, 2018).

Willson, M. F. 1997. Variation in the Salmonid Life Histories: Patterns and Perspectives. General 

Technical Report PNW-RP-498. 50 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon.

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.

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.

With, K.A., and T.O. Crist. 1995. Critical Thresholds in Species Responses to Landscape Structure. 

Ecology. 76(8)1995 pp. 2446-2459. 

Wright, B. E., M. D. Bryant, P. E. Porter, and B. J. Frenette. 1997. Assessment of introduction of coho 

salmon into the Slippery Lake drainage, 1988 through 1991. USDA Forest Service, PNW 

Research Station, Juneau.

Yeo, J.J., and J.M. Peek. 1992. Habitat selection by female Sitka black-tailed deer in logged forests of 

southeastern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:253–261.
4 – References and Lists

398 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

Index

access, i, ix, v, 8, 15, 19, 22, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 

39, 40, 43, 44, 48, 50, 51, 66, 73, 82, 83, 84, 

85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 

100, 108, 120, 137, 138, 141, 145, 148, 150, 

152, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 

167, 168, 178, 185, 229, 230, 231, 235, 236, 

246, 248, 252, 264, 265, 268, 269, 270, 272, 

273, 274, 276, 278, 279, 284, 285, 286, 292, 

293, 297, 301, 315, 316, 319, 329, 332, 333, 

335, 352, 357, 364, 366, 367, 368, 391

air quality, 62, 63, 64, 291

Alaska yellow-cedar, 63, 109, 116, 117, 310, 

311, 313, 338, 339, 343, 363

decline, 63, 343, 345, 346, 362, 363, 388

best management practices, ix, iv, 34, 61, 170, 

252, 253, 366, 390, 398

biodiversity, 5, 70, 136, 174, 211, 221, 243, 

291, 385

biogeographic province, ix, iv, 56, 171, 173, 

174, 175, 221, 225

carbon, 62, 63, 65, 291, 364, 390, 399

climate change, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 133, 140, 

320, 324, 325, 326, 328, 345, 385, 387, 390, 

392, 395

communities

Coffman Cove, 24, 84, 92, 94, 96, 111, 112, 

113, 116, 120, 133, 148, 234, 265, 270, 

271, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 301, 302, 

303, 306, 339, 340, 384

Craig, iii, i, ix, 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 18, 71, 

84, 96, 133, 136, 232, 234, 239, 240, 245, 

249, 265, 274, 280, 291, 293, 294, 295, 

296, 297, 298, 300, 302, 303, 304, 306, 

335, 375, 385

Hollis, 67, 84, 92, 94, 96, 133, 264, 265, 

270, 271, 272, 274, 291, 293, 294, 295, 

296, 297, 300, 302, 306

Hydaburg, 13, 24, 52, 84, 96, 133, 246, 271, 

291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 302, 

303, 306, 375, 392

Kasaan, 13, 26, 84, 133, 134, 155, 232, 246, 

270, 271, 272, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 

298, 302, 306, 375, 392

Klawock, 12, 13, 24, 84, 92, 94, 96, 115, 

133, 144, 155, 160, 246, 265, 270, 271, 

272, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 

299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 375, 

384, 389

Naukati, 12, 13, 67, 84, 94, 96, 133, 144, 

154, 190, 232, 234, 270, 291, 293, 294, 

295, 299, 302, 303, 306, 392

Petersburg, 84, 123, 124, 125, 265, 302

Point Baker, iii, 12, 13, 46, 84, 96, 291, 

293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301, 302, 

306

Port Protection, iii, 12, 46, 48, 84, 96, 110, 

133, 176, 291, 293, 294, 295, 296, 300, 

301, 302, 306, 313

Thorne Bay, iii, i, ix, 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 

18, 26, 71, 84, 92, 94, 96, 111, 112, 113, 

116, 120, 133, 134, 141, 144, 148, 149, 

154, 155, 169, 175, 190, 234, 239, 240, 

245, 249, 265, 270, 271, 272, 280, 291, 

293, 294, 295, 296, 300, 301, 302, 303, 

306, 334, 335, 340, 382, 384, 385

Whale Pass, 13, 84, 88, 91, 96, 111, 112, 

113, 116, 120, 232, 234, 271, 291, 293, 

294, 295, 296, 300, 301, 302, 306, 336, 

339, 340, 398

connectivity, i, vii, 7, 8, 16, 48, 60, 85, 110, 

155, 171, 172, 175, 176, 185, 188, 195, 222, 

224, 266, 273, 279, 347, 365, 384, 399

conservation strategy, ii, 86, 174, 175, 180, 

184, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 201, 202, 210, 

217, 218, 219, 224, 225, 228, 236, 237, 238, 

243, 389, 395, 397

corridors, vii, 28, 31, 33, 48, 80, 161, 164, 

166, 169, 184, 211, 223, 264, 311, 317, 319, 

320, 343, 357

elevational, 48, 111, 172, 173

old-growth connectivity, 35, 45, 48, 172

trail, 264

cultural resources, ii, 7, 60, 61, 82, 244, 245, 

246, 247, 248

deer, iii, iv, v, vi, ix, x, i, 15, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 

40, 45, 46, 48, 53, 64, 82, 83, 84, 91, 92, 93, 

94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 110, 

171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 

184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 194, 198, 202, 205, 

206, 209, 210, 214, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 

224, 225, 226, 228, 235, 236, 237, 308, 313, 

321, 377, 378, 383, 387, 391, 394, 399
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 399

design criteria, iii, vi, 15, 22, 29, 34, 44, 61, 

69, 72, 105, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 120, 

122, 123, 124, 125, 141, 332

effects, adverse, vi, vii, ix, i, 16, 34, 38, 39, 

60, 61, 64, 71, 72, 74, 79, 80, 81, 88, 90, 91, 

127, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 

152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 

163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 241, 244, 245, 

248, 263, 292, 310, 312, 314

employment, vi, 3, 5, 6, 16, 40, 59, 103, 117, 

118, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 291, 292, 

293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 300, 301, 302, 303, 

304, 305, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 315, 

316, 377

fish passage, 22, 43, 88, 89, 90, 91, 138, 143, 

145, 152, 156, 157, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 

332, 336

fisheries, x, 66, 90, 111, 127, 291, 302, 303, 

310, 312, 314, 370

floodplain, 48, 88, 90, 133, 137, 140, 143, 

147, 157, 158, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 357, 

382

forest health, ii, 7, 35, 36, 148, 337, 343, 346, 

353, 354

Forest Plan, ii, iii, vii, ix, x, i, ii, iv, 1, 5, 6, 8, 

9, 16, 17, 18, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 

36, 40, 43, 48, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 

68, 70, 71, 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 96, 

97, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 

110, 121, 122, 124, 125, 133, 136, 139, 140, 

141, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 158, 159, 

163, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 

176, 180, 181, 184, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 

193, 194, 195, 201, 202, 207, 210, 217, 218, 

219, 220, 221, 225, 228, 229, 236, 237, 238, 

240, 241, 242, 243, 253, 254, 257, 258, 259, 

260, 262, 263, 264, 266, 278, 287, 288, 289, 

290, 291, 305, 309, 311, 318, 319, 320, 321, 

322, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 334, 337, 

343, 347, 365, 366, 369, 377, 398

game management unit, iii, 17, 41, 48, 56, 92, 

125, 171, 174, 396

income, vi, 59, 82, 117, 123, 124, 125, 292, 

295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 303, 304, 305, 

307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 

316, 392, 406

incomplete and unavailable information, 59

invasive species, v, x, 5, 7, 14, 26, 29, 32, 44, 

60, 69, 70, 85, 239, 241, 249, 250, 251

inventoried roadless area, 20, 21, 36, 56, 66, 

109

irreversible and irretrievable, 61, 334

issues, iii, ii, iv, ix, 1, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 

22, 30, 32, 61, 62, 68, 85, 91, 134, 156, 162, 

164, 167, 295, 299, 311, 313, 352, 353, 366, 

378

karst, i, 7, 8, 15, 27, 44, 60, 69, 74, 91, 107, 

131, 136, 145, 146, 150, 151, 156, 162, 164, 

167, 210, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 

261, 262, 263, 271, 366

land use designation, iii, iv, vi, 2, 9, 10, 55, 

275, 276, 287, 378

landing, 43, 114, 115, 149, 150, 169, 268, 272, 

317, 319, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 328

landslide, v, 2, 26, 60, 133, 317, 318, 319, 320, 

322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 390

legacy, ii, 48, 96, 100, 109, 110, 122, 124, 173, 

182, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 

194, 198, 201, 205, 206, 208, 215, 217, 218, 

219, 226, 238, 301

limited export policy, vi, 16, 40, 103, 117, 309, 

311, 313

log transfer facility, 2, x, 24, 27, 43, 57, 88, 

115, 128, 131, 134, 141, 145, 148, 149, 155, 

156, 168, 169, 331, 334, 336, 386

log transfer facility (LTF), 17, 27, 43, 57, 249

logging systems, vi, 15, 22, 28, 30, 32, 103, 

114, 121, 288

marine access facilities, 27, 43, 131, 141, 149, 

246, 284

marine environment, 63, 137

minerals, 67, 253, 256, 257, 301, 316, 318, 

319, 344, 365, 377

mining industry, 58, 64, 246, 247, 271, 293, 

297, 300, 301, 302, 316, 319, 320

National Forest System road, 19, 43, 46, 60, 

229, 310, 312, 314, 317, 320

old growth, iii, vi, vii, ix, v, 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, 27, 

28, 31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 48, 59, 65, 86, 96, 

103, 105, 110, 114, 122, 124, 171, 172, 173, 

175, 191, 194, 195, 201, 210, 218, 220, 222, 

223, 237, 240, 242, 243, 252, 255, 260, 262, 

263, 288, 289, 290, 308, 324, 325, 327, 348, 

355, 361, 363

openings, iv, 31, 48, 111, 115, 152, 153, 172, 

177, 188, 193, 205, 221, 259, 261, 322, 341, 

344, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 352, 353, 356, 

357, 359, 361

outhouse, 8, 29, 31, 33, 50, 52, 252, 269, 270, 

311, 313, 315

past activities, 76, 171, 248, 290, 301, 319, 

320, 322
4 – References and Lists

400 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

past harvest, 57, 120, 127, 145, 153, 181, 194, 

196, 210, 217, 255, 259, 324, 326, 327, 328, 

362, 365

Prince of Wales Landscape Assessment Team, 

iii, 11, 12, 26, 309

productive old-growth, vii, 16, 173, 180

project record, v, vii, 2, 13, 18, 20, 23, 25, 26, 

27, 56, 58, 59, 72, 76, 83, 87, 91, 108, 111, 

114, 115, 116, 119, 121, 128, 133, 135, 136, 

139, 141, 148, 172, 173, 176, 189, 192, 194, 

198, 223, 240, 243, 247, 250, 268, 269, 272, 

277, 334, 335, 336, 375

public involvement, vi, 1, 11, 14, 108, 122, 

123, 125

purpose and need, ii, iii, iv, 1, 5, 8, 11, 22, 27, 

34, 35, 36, 59, 241, 251, 273, 275, 306, 307, 

308, 309

reasonably foreseeable, v, vii, 2, 15, 16, 57, 

58, 81, 82, 88, 90, 121, 147, 171, 187, 242, 

248, 252, 279, 285, 290, 308, 309, 315, 316, 

323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 336, 364, 367, 368

recreation, i, ii, iii, iv, v, iv, v, 5, 7, 8, 19, 22, 

24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 

44, 50, 51, 52, 55, 57, 59, 60, 64, 66, 71, 72, 

73, 76, 78, 79, 84, 89, 145, 157, 171, 176, 

241, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 264, 265, 266, 

268, 269, 270, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 

278, 279, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 288, 292, 

297, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 

315, 316, 317, 319, 332, 348, 364, 365, 366, 

367, 368, 379

cabins and shelters, i, iv, 7, 24, 27, 29, 31, 

33, 43, 52, 59, 71, 82, 84, 129, 246, 251, 

264, 265, 268, 269, 270, 273, 274, 298, 

307, 311, 313, 315, 379

camping, 66, 296, 303

campsites, i, 8, 52, 247, 250, 264, 268, 271, 

272, 273, 274, 282, 313, 315

day use sites, i, 8, 264, 268, 270, 271, 272

hiking, 29, 33, 66, 250, 264, 268, 270, 296, 

330

kayaking, canoeing, boating, i, 8, 44, 252, 

264, 268, 273, 296, 303

sustainable recreation management, iii, i, 7, 

29, 31, 33, 43, 50, 51, 52

winter recreation, i, iv, 8, 273, 276

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, 264, 266, 

275, 276

recreation places, 5, 55

Balls Lake, 24, 25, 270, 271, 272

Canoe Point, 24, 270, 271

Control Lake, 25, 269, 270, 272, 332

Eagles Nest, 25, 270, 271, 272

Harris River, 7, 24, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 52, 

132, 134, 139, 140, 160, 270, 271, 272

Karta, 270

Karta Lake, 269, 270

Memorial Beach, 24, 25, 269, 270, 274

Neck Lake, 25, 29, 34, 88, 91, 132, 144, 

147, 154, 161, 190, 259, 270, 271, 274, 

332, 336

One Duck, 24, 269, 270

Winter Harbor, 269, 270, 332

Riparian Management Areas, 48, 86, 139, 140, 

150, 158, 162, 165, 168, 243

road

construction, ii, iii, v, vii, iii, v, 8, 15, 16, 

22, 23, 40, 41, 52, 56, 57, 58, 61, 64, 66, 

82, 89, 90, 97, 100, 102, 115, 127, 133, 

142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 152, 157, 160, 

162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 171, 176, 180, 

242, 243, 247, 249, 253, 255, 259, 262, 

263, 285, 287, 288, 302, 307, 308, 316, 

318, 319, 320, 322, 323, 325, 326, 327, 

328, 329, 332, 333, 335, 345, 364, 365, 

366, 367, 369

density, x, 15, 16, 17, 48, 82, 127, 128, 171, 

173, 228, 229, 230, 231, 234, 235, 236

maintenance, ii, 8, 27, 142, 145, 151, 163, 

166, 329, 333

miles, iv, 16, 41, 127, 141, 143, 332, 333, 

335

reconstruction, 115

temporary, 19, 27, 40, 43, 44, 52, 97, 168, 

310, 312, 314, 316, 317, 320, 323, 324, 

325, 326, 328, 330, 333

rock quarries, ii, v, 8, 27, 44, 61, 71, 134, 152, 

160, 163, 166, 249, 259, 317, 319, 322, 323, 

324, 325, 326, 328, 333, 334

salmon, vii, i, 29, 31, 33, 40, 48, 65, 82, 87, 

88, 89, 90, 91, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 

146, 147, 158, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 

167, 168, 169, 246, 293, 298, 299, 303, 343, 

380, 382, 391, 394, 395, 396, 399

scenery, 103, 268, 287, 289, 290, 347, 348, 

355

scoping, i, iv, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 27, 34, 58, 375

short-term uses, 61, 65

silvicultural systems

even-aged management, viii, 35, 61, 91,

109, 110, 114, 116, 175, 177, 195, 196, 

205, 220, 221, 223, 289, 290, 338, 343, 
References and Lists - 4

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS References and Lists – Chapter 4 ▪ 401

347, 348, 349, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 

358, 359, 362, 363

intermediate treatments, 341, 342, 347, 348, 

349, 352, 356, 379

precommercial thinning, i, iii, v, 7, 35, 145, 

176, 338, 342, 345, 346, 347, 349, 354, 

356, 360, 361, 362, 366

uneven-aged management, viii, ix, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 35, 45, 96, 97, 101, 110, 114, 115, 

130, 177, 195, 196, 197, 198, 207, 220, 

221, 222, 223, 311, 346, 347, 348, 349, 

350, 352, 353, 356, 359, 360, 362

species composition, 26, 28, 30, 43, 46, 105, 

109, 111, 120, 122, 180, 222, 337, 338, 346, 

347, 348, 349, 351, 362, 380

standards and guidelines, 48, 61, 109, 122, 

139, 175, 188, 191, 193, 194, 220, 254, 259, 

329, 378, 390

stream buffers, 128, 140, 168, 243, 333, 359

stream class, 16, 41, 127, 128, 139

stream crossings, iv, 16, 41, 43, 88, 127, 133, 

144, 147, 157, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 

332

subsistence, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, ix, i, iii, 3, 5, 6, 7, 

13, 15, 29, 39, 40, 45, 46, 56, 69, 79, 82, 83, 

84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 

97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 110, 112, 114, 135, 

147, 182, 186, 189, 191, 193, 198, 201, 205, 

206, 208, 209, 214, 223, 226, 246, 265, 278, 

285, 291, 292, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 303, 

305, 307, 308, 311, 313, 316, 329, 380

suitable forest lands, 6, 59

telecommunications sites, 27

threatened, endangered, sensitive, or rare 

species, 66, 70, 136, 172, 239, 241, 242, 

243

timber

harvest, iii, v, vi, vii, x, iv, vi, 1, 6, 7, 15, 

16, 19, 22, 23, 31, 36, 39, 40, 41, 46, 47, 

56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 82, 84, 85, 

86, 89, 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 

103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 114, 117, 

118, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132, 

133, 135, 137, 141, 142, 143, 145, 147, 

148, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 

161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 171, 

172, 175, 177, 186, 188, 193, 195, 196, 

198, 201, 205, 206, 208, 209, 213, 214, 

219, 224, 226, 235, 237, 238, 242, 248, 

249, 250, 252, 253, 255, 257, 260, 261, 

262, 263, 266, 274, 285, 287, 288, 289, 

290, 301, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 

311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 

319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 

327, 328, 330, 332, 336, 337, 343, 346, 

361, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 

396

market, vi, 6, 103, 315

supply, iii, iv, vi, 15, 29, 30, 32, 35, 103, 

108, 123, 124, 125, 309, 315, 316, 344

tourism, ii, iv, 5, 6, 7, 36, 50, 68, 265, 292, 

296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 

306, 307, 308, 311, 313, 315, 316

trails, i, iv, 5, 8, 16, 19, 22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 33, 

41, 44, 50, 51, 59, 71, 89, 90, 127, 144, 145, 

147, 150, 151, 152, 157, 160, 162, 164, 165, 

166, 169, 241, 243, 250, 251, 252, 264, 268, 

270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 307, 311, 313, 

315, 317, 319, 321, 322, 331, 353, 357, 364, 

365, 366, 367, 368, 380

travel management, 2, 23, 43, 84, 146, 265, 

330, 331, 335, 397

tribal consultation, 11, 12, 13, 244, 245

value comparison units, 48, 56, 173, 174, 188, 

193

vegetation management, i, 7, 8, 16, 28, 30, 32, 

43, 46, 76, 80, 127, 171, 285, 309, 343, 380

water quality, iv, vii, ix, x, 14, 16, 38, 47, 68, 

69, 74, 88, 89, 90, 127, 128, 131, 132, 134, 

136, 137, 139, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 

150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 

161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 255, 291, 

366, 386, 389

watershed, ii, iii, vii, 5, 7, 16, 28, 29, 33, 35, 

36, 48, 56, 60, 69, 127, 254

improvement and restoration, iii, vii, 7, 8, 

28, 33, 130, 307, 309

wetlands, 15, 60, 61, 69, 74, 85, 153, 240, 250, 

252, 318, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369

wilderness, ii, 9, 15, 24, 25, 39, 56, 64, 66, 67, 

69, 70, 71, 73, 102, 187, 207, 230, 231, 232, 

243, 250, 266, 270, 276, 280, 281, 282, 283, 

284, 285, 286, 385, 386, 390, 397

wildlife

habitat, i, iii, vii, ix, 6, 7, 14, 16, 27, 28, 29, 

30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 43, 45, 46, 53, 64, 69, 

102, 103, 150, 171, 221, 223, 228, 291, 

307, 308, 309, 311, 313, 314, 316, 321, 

347, 348, 378, 387

habitat improvement, iii, 6, 7, 35, 43, 53, 

307, 311, 314
4 – References and Lists

402 ▪ Chapter 4 – References and Lists Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project Final EIS

wildlife analysis area, v, 17, 31, 32, 42, 56, 

171, 174, 311

wolf, x, 43, 48, 109, 171, 173, 174, 176, 224, 

228, 229, 230, 231, 234, 235, 236, 312, 393

young growth, ii, iii, vi, v, 2, 6, 7, 15, 16, 26, 

27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 

52, 53, 59, 83, 103, 105, 107, 114, 116, 119, 

121, 123, 124, 125, 133, 141, 172, 175, 176, 

178, 181, 186, 195, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 

226, 228, 252, 255, 260, 261, 262, 263, 271, 

288, 289, 290, 315, 324, 325, 327, 342, 345, 

348, 356, 361, 363
This page intentionally left blank
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and 

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

programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income

derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in 

any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and 

complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

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

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

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 

877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a 

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

of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

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

Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper